The Problem of Hate Speech: Beliefs of Chilean Students About Hate Speech with an Emphasis on Gender Perspectives

Abstract

This study examines hate speech with a gender perspective in the educational field, focusing on the beliefs of Chilean History degree students regarding its prevalence in their academic programs. Using a quantitative methodology with a representative sample (n = 998) and robust statistical reliability (99% confidence, and 4% margin of error), the research highlights the intersection of hate speech and teacher training. The findings reveal an urgent need for reforms in teacher training curricula to address hate speech effectively. Participants report insufficient tools to confront these challenges, both during their studies and in their future professional practice, exposing a critical gap in preparing educators to promote inclusive learning environments. The study emphasizes incorporating social justice and human rights education as fundamental components of teacher training, advocating for their integration into curricula to foster equity and respect for diversity. By addressing the complexities of hate speech within educational contexts, this research provides practical implications for policy reform and program development. These findings contribute significantly to the literature, offering actionable insights for combating hate speech and advancing gender-sensitive education while establishing a foundation for future research and practical interventions.

1. Introduction

Hate speech remains a multifaceted issue with significant implications for education, particularly within teacher training programs. Despite the challenge of establishing a universally accepted definition, its manifestations are broadly understood as forms of communication that incite discrimination, prejudice, or stereotypes against individuals or groups based on immutable or mutable characteristics (United Nations 2019). These characteristics often include, but are not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and religious identity. In the educational context, hate speech is particularly concerning as it undermines the inclusive and equitable principles fundamental to teaching and learning.

In Chile, the issue of hate speech intersects with teacher education in critical ways, particularly concerning the preparation of educators to address discrimination and foster inclusive practices. While international frameworks, such as those established by the United Nations and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, provide overarching guidelines, there is a growing recognition of the need for region-specific studies to capture the nuanced dynamics of hate speech within Latin American educational systems (Izquierdo-Montero et al. 2022). For example, in Chile, the sociopolitical history of inequality and ongoing challenges with gender-based discrimination create a unique context where hate speech can permeate educational settings (Marolla 2019; Marolla Gajardo et al. 2021). Addressing these issues requires integrating human rights education and social justice principles into teacher training curricula.

This study investigates the beliefs of Chilean History education students regarding the prevalence and impact of hate speech in their academic programs. Using a quantitative methodology with a robust sample of 998 participants, the research examines students’ perceptions of hate speech and their readiness to address it in educational contexts. By focusing on Chile, this study adds to the limited body of research on hate speech in Latin American teacher education, emphasizing the need for targeted curricular reforms to equip future educators with the skills to navigate and challenge hate speech in their practice (Bustos Martínez et al. 2019; Wachs et al. 2022). Furthermore, it highlights the broader implications for promoting equity and respect within educational systems, aligning with global commitments to fostering inclusive education (UNESCO 2021). Regarding the objectives of the research work, we can define them in three large areas:

(a)

Identify the beliefs predominating among students regarding gender-keyed hate speech during initial teaching training;

(b)

Explore the beliefs of faculty education students in history on the topic and problem of hate speech in education;

(c)

Characterize teacher education students’ beliefs about hate speech with gender expressions.

2. Theoretical Framework

Hate speech represents a pervasive issue in contemporary society, particularly in educational contexts where its manifestations undermine the principles of equity, inclusion, and democracy. While there is no universal agreement on its definition, most scholars recognize hate speech as communication that marginalizes, discriminates, or perpetuates stereotypes against individuals or groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, or religion (López Ulla 2018; Ranieri 2016). Hate speech can take many forms, from overtly violent language to subtler expressions of bias that operate within the boundaries of freedom of expression (Gagliardone et al. 2015). Addressing this complexity requires an interdisciplinary approach that integrates insights from gender theory, intersectionality, and digital communication studies.

2.1. The Role of Intersectionality in Understanding Hate Speech

Intersectionality, as introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), offers a critical framework for analyzing the interconnected systems of oppression that shape individual experiences of hate speech. This perspective underscores that discrimination is rarely experienced in isolation but rather as a product of overlapping factors such as gender, race, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation. Recent studies extend Crenshaw’s foundational work by exploring how intersectionality applies in digital and educational spaces. For example, Cho et al. (2013) emphasize that intersectionality provides an analytical lens to examine how power operates across multiple axes of identity, creating nuanced forms of marginalization. This framework is essential for understanding gender-based hate speech, which is often compounded by other identity markers.

In educational settings, the intersectional nature of hate speech becomes particularly evident. Women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and ethnic minorities are disproportionately targeted, often facing a combination of sexism, homophobia, and racism. For instance, research by Collins and Bilge (2020) highlights that hate speech targeting women of color tends to draw on both racialized and gendered stereotypes, amplifying its impact. These dynamics underscore the importance of addressing hate speech within teacher training programs, as future educators play a crucial role in shaping inclusive learning environments.

Hate speech directed at women and LGBTQ+ individuals often reflects deeply ingrained patriarchal norms that perpetuate gender inequality. This type of hate speech frequently manifests as misogynistic language, threats of sexual violence, or the devaluation of women’s contributions to society (Blanco-Alfonso et al. 2022). In educational contexts, such speech not only harms individuals but also reinforces systemic barriers to gender equality.

Marolla Gajardo et al. (2021) observe that teacher training programs in Chile often neglect the gendered dimensions of discrimination, leaving educators ill-equipped to address these issues in their classrooms. This gap is particularly concerning given the centrality of education in promoting human rights and social justice. Gender theory, as articulated by scholars like Hooks (1984), offers valuable insights into how educators can challenge patriarchal norms and create spaces that affirm diverse identities. Integrating these perspectives into teacher training curricula is essential for combating the normalization of gender-based hate speech in educational environments.

2.2. The Role of Digital Media in Amplifying Hate Speech

The rise of digital media has significantly amplified the reach and impact of hate speech. Social media platforms, in particular, serve as sites where discriminatory language proliferates, often targeting marginalized communities with impunity. The anonymity afforded by these platforms enables users to bypass social and moral norms, fostering a culture of impunity (Ipar 2019; de Latour et al. 2017). Gendered hate speech on digital platforms often includes threats of violence, harassment, and the dissemination of misogynistic narratives, which can have severe psychological and social consequences for those targeted (Piñeiro-Otero and Martínez-Rolán 2021).

The gendered nature of online hate speech is further exacerbated by its intersection with other identity markers. For example, Black feminist scholars such as Hill Collins (2000) argue that online spaces often replicate societal hierarchies, with women of color facing heightened levels of abuse. This aligns with findings by Lewis et al. (2021), who demonstrate that online hate speech against women of color frequently combines racial and gendered slurs, reinforcing broader patterns of systemic oppression.

Given the prevalence of digital hate speech, teacher training programs must address its implications for educational practice. Izquierdo-Montero et al. (2022) emphasize the need for educators to develop digital literacy skills that enable them to recognize, address, and counteract online hate speech. These skills are particularly critical in fostering a culture of inclusivity and respect within classrooms, as students increasingly engage with digital media.

Addressing hate speech in educational spaces requires a multifaceted approach that integrates intersectionality, gender theory, and critical pedagogy. Scholars such as Luque Ortiz and Cano Alarcón (2021) propose that educational reforms should prioritize the development of curricula that explicitly address the dynamics of hate speech. This includes incorporating counter-narratives and alternative narratives into teaching practices, which can challenge dominant discriminatory ideologies while promoting intercultural understanding (de Latour et al. 2017).

Feminist pedagogical approaches, as outlined by Hooks (1994), further emphasize the importance of creating classroom environments that empower marginalized voices. These approaches advocate for the inclusion of diverse perspectives in educational materials, ensuring that the curricula reflect the lived experiences of all students. By centering gender and intersectionality, such strategies not only address the root causes of hate speech but also foster a culture of equity and respect within educational institutions.

To provide a focused exploration of the gendered and intersectional dimensions of hate speech, it is essential to streamline the literature review by reducing redundancies in hate speech definitions. While existing definitions highlight its discriminatory nature, a more concise articulation can direct attention toward the mechanisms through which hate speech operates in specific contexts. For instance, Bazzaco et al. (2018) propose a framework for recognizing hate speech that prioritizes the speaker’s intent, the content of the message, and its social impact. This approach aligns with intersectional analyses, which emphasize the importance of understanding the broader power structures that inform discriminatory language.

Similarly, Izquierdo-Montero et al. (2022) provide a practical framework for identifying hate speech, incorporating questions about the speaker’s motivation, the message’s intended audience, and the social context in which it was delivered. These frameworks can be integrated into teacher training programs to enhance educators’ ability to recognize and address hate speech in their professional practice.

According to de Latour et al. (2017), there are two strategies that can be applied to work around hate messages:

Explicitly addressing hate speech in educational spaces is a necessity driven by its pervasive impact on marginalized groups and the broader educational environment. Educational institutions are not just sites for knowledge transmission but also spaces where societal values are shaped and reinforced. When hate speech goes unchallenged in these settings, it perpetuates systemic inequalities, undermines democratic values, and harms the mental and emotional well-being of students and educators. UNESCO (2021) emphasizes that education is a critical tool for combating hate speech, as it provides individuals with the skills to critically analyze and counteract discriminatory narratives. This approach aligns with the goals of fostering equity, inclusion, and respect for diversity, which are essential for maintaining the integrity of democratic societies.

Hate speech is particularly relevant in social sciences and history due to these subjects’ capacity to contextualize societal issues and promote critical reflection. Historical analysis allows educators and students to explore the roots of discriminatory ideologies and their consequences, providing a framework for understanding contemporary challenges. For example, incorporating discussions about the historical use of hate speech to justify oppressive regimes, such as colonialism and totalitarianism, can help students draw parallels with present-day issues (Fondo Lunaria Mujer 2021).

In history education, addressing hate speech offers a unique opportunity to examine the interplay between power, identity, and social structures. As Cabezas and Medina (2021) note, hate speech often emerges from and reinforces exclusionary policies and practices. By integrating these discussions into history curricula, educators can challenge dominant narratives and encourage students to engage with counter-narratives that emphasize inclusion and human rights. This pedagogical approach not only enhances students’ historical understanding but also equips them with the tools to recognize and counteract hate speech in their own contexts. Focusing on gender-based hate speech is essential due to its unique and pervasive impact. Women and LGBTQ+ individuals are disproportionately targeted by hate speech, which often manifests as misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia. These forms of discrimination reinforce patriarchal norms and perpetuate systemic barriers to gender equality. The works of Fondo Lunaria Mujer (2021) and Cabezas and Medina (2021) highlight how gender-based hate speech intersects with other forms of oppression, such as racism and xenophobia, amplifying its effects on marginalized communities.

UNESCO (2021) underscores the importance of addressing gender-based hate speech through education, arguing that fostering gender sensitivity and inclusivity in classrooms can combat the normalization of such discriminatory practices. This approach requires integrating gender theory and intersectionality into teacher training programs, enabling educators to critically examine how hate speech operates and its broader societal implications.

The Chilean and Latin American contexts provide a critical lens for examining the dynamics of hate speech, particularly gender-based discrimination. In many countries across the region, deeply rooted patriarchal structures and political instability have created environments where hate speech flourishes. For instance, studies by Fondo Lunaria Mujer (2021) document the increasing prevalence of hate speech targeting feminists and LGBTQ+ activists in Latin America, often fueled by religious and political fundamentalism. These dynamics underscore the need for context-specific educational interventions that address the unique challenges faced by marginalized groups in the region. Additionally, Cabezas and Medina (2021) highlight the role of migration as a focal point for hate speech in Latin America and Europe, demonstrating how xenophobic and gendered narratives intersect. In Chile, these dynamics are evident in the exclusionary policies and discriminatory rhetoric directed at migrants and indigenous populations.

The integration of hate speech education into curricula must be guided by evidence and best practices. UNESCO (2021) provides a comprehensive framework for policymakers, emphasizing the importance of teacher training, student empowerment, and the development of inclusive learning materials. For Chile and Latin America, this includes designing culturally relevant curricula that address the specific forms of hate speech prevalent in the region, such as those targeting indigenous communities, migrants, and gender-diverse individuals.

Teacher training programs must prioritize the development of digital literacy skills, as highlighted by UNESCO (2021), to enable educators to recognize and counteract online hate speech. This is particularly critical given the role of digital platforms in amplifying discriminatory narratives and shaping public discourse. By equipping educators with these skills, teacher training programs can empower them to foster inclusive classroom environments that challenge hate speech and promote social cohesion.

3. Materials and Methods

This study is part of quantitative methods because it is useful when we seek to prove the existence of causal relationships, which helps us in measuring a reality that approaches the understanding of the objectivity of the phenomenon (Cohen et al. 2013). According to Cohen et al. (2013), the chosen method is due to a descriptive study, as it aims to describe situations, events, and facts, as well as to provide explanations of how they are and how they manifest themselves. Bisquerra and Alzina (2004) define such studies as those that attempt to specify important properties, characteristics, traits, and profiles of individuals, groups, communities, or other phenomena. The quantitative paradigm states that such methods consist of measuring and evaluating the concepts or variables of interest independently or jointly, without specifying how these measured variables are related (Bisquerra and Alzina 2004).

The quantitative approach is used because it defines the groups of subjects (the sample), assigns subjects to these groups, controls the researcher’s exercise of the variables involved, and performs the statistical analysis. Therefore, a survey-type design with a descriptive–exploratory scope was chosen. The reason for this design is that the problem and the phenomenon to be studied have not yet been researched in the proposed contexts, so such a design facilitates a first approach to reality from which our interest in the investigation arises (Castro Posada 2001). Thus, as López-Roldán et al. (2015) tells us, the descriptive study is typical of the early stages of research development and could provide us with data that pave the way for new studies.

3.1. Study Design and Approach

The research adopts a quantitative approach, justified by its capacity to identify causal relationships and measure variables objectively (Cohen et al. 2013). This study utilizes a descriptive–exploratory survey design, ideal for examining phenomena that have not been extensively researched within the proposed contexts (Castro Posada 2001). Bisquerra and Alzina (2004) describe descriptive studies as essential for specifying the properties, characteristics, and profiles of individuals or groups, providing foundational data for further inquiry. This approach provides a structured yet flexible foundation for exploring uncharted areas of study, aligning with the early-stage nature of the research question (López-Roldán et al. 2015).

3.2. Information Collection Techniques

For the process, we adhere to what Latorre et al. (1994) proposes: they define four stages in the process of survey research. The first relates to the approach to the objectives and the preparation of the data collection instrument, with subsequent planning of sampling, data collection and analysis, and interpretation of the information.

For the research process, we rely on what Bisquerra and Alzina (2004) provide and adapt the authors’ model to the reality of our study. Figure 1 accounts for such adaptation:

The primary instrument for data collection was a structured self-administered questionnaire distributed via online student platforms. This design was selected for its efficiency in reaching a large, geographically dispersed sample while maintaining anonymity and reducing interviewer bias (De Leeuw 2004). The questionnaire consisted of 66 items divided into two sections, addressing both quantitative and qualitative aspects of participants’ beliefs about hate speech in educational contexts. The questionnaire consisted of two main sections:

• Section 1 (41 items): Focused on participants’ perceptions of the prevalence, impact, and urgency of addressing hate speech in their educational programs;
• Section 2 (25 items): Addressed participants’ beliefs about the adequacy of current educational strategies in preparing them to counter hate speech and promote inclusivity.

Each item was measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”), a well-established tool for quantifying attitudes and beliefs (Joshi et al. 2015). Sample items included:

• “My teacher training program addresses hate speech adequately.”
• “Gender-based hate speech is a critical issue in educational contexts.”
• “I feel prepared to address hate speech in my future professional practice.”

Open-ended items complemented the Likert-scale questions, allowing respondents to elaborate on their experiences and opinions. This mixed approach provided both quantitative data and qualitative insights into the complexity of participants’ beliefs. Cronbach’s alpha, calculated at 0.84, indicates high internal consistency, demonstrating that the instrument reliably measures related constructs (Field 2018). The strong reliability supports the validity of the results, particularly in a study dealing with abstract constructs like attitudes and beliefs.

The questionnaire was piloted with a sample of 30 students, who provided additional feedback on clarity and usability. This iterative process aligns with best practices in survey development and strengthens the validity of the instrument (Willis 2004).

3.3. Sample

Within the types of samples we can count on, we define the first criteria proposed by Bisquerra and Alzina (2004) for the selection of subjects. We set content characteristics or units of analysis, place or locality, and time as a starting point to secure moments for information collection. It should also be considered that a type of non-probabilistic sample is chosen by chance or by accessibility, in which the individuals in the sample do not depend on probability but rather are adjusted to other criteria related to the characteristics of the study (Castro Posada 2001). It is essential in the selection of the sample, the ease of access to the field, and the willingness of the individuals to participate in the study.

The standard error (SE), also known as the acceptable sampling error and desired confidence level, was considered, and the probability criteria were adjusted to ensure that the sample estimate was adjusted to reality (Bisquerra and Alzina 2004, p. 144). To meet the population criteria, subjects should (a) be part of an initial education program for the professor in history and (b) be in courses greater than the third half of the curriculum defined by the career followed. The results by sex–gender or age are not presented, as no statistically significant differences supported such a breakdown when the data were analyzed (Supplementary Materials File A). We consider a total of n = 14,002 (this number represents the total of students who meet the defined criteria according to the data provided by the Ministry of Education of Chile); for the study, n = 998 responses were obtained. We consider a reliability index of 99% and a margin of error of 4%. Based on the specific statistical calculation, a minimum sample of n = 969 is required for the sample to be reliable and valid for the research.

3.4. Analyzing Information

Statistical methods were used as the information analysis center based on the theoretical and methodological definitions and the study’s objectives. In this instance, we used descriptive statistics (Cardona Moltó 2002). In this way, from the estimation itself and the numerical summaries made on the informative basis of the sample of the population studied, we can obtain results and conclusions about a population that is not fully observed (Fernández Esquinas 2003).

3.5. Justification of Statistical Choices

The statistical methods were chosen to balance simplicity, interpretability, and robustness:

• Descriptive Statistics: Measures such as frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations were employed to provide an accessible overview of the dataset, capturing the predominant trends and patterns among participants (Cardona Moltó 2002);
• Cronbach’s Alpha: Used to validate the internal consistency of the survey items, Cronbach’s alpha is a widely recognized tool for assessing reliability in social science research (Tavakol and Dennick 2011).

The study’s findings indicate no statistically significant differences in responses based on gender, suggesting that male and female participants exhibited comparable beliefs and attitudes regarding hate speech in educational contexts. This result is consistent across the key areas of analysis, including perceptions of institutional adequacy in addressing hate speech, personal preparedness to confront such issues, and beliefs about the urgency of incorporating anti-hate speech strategies into teacher training programs.

• Detailed Findings:
  • Uniformity in Responses:
    Analysis of the Likert-scale items using chi-square tests revealed that gender did not significantly affect response distributions. Both male and female participants expressed similar levels of agreement regarding the importance of addressing hate speech and their perceived readiness to handle related challenges. This uniformity highlights the shared educational and social experiences of students in teacher training programs, regardless of gender.
  • Institutional Responsibility:
    Male and female respondents alike showed strong agreement on items addressing the need for curricular inclusion of hate speech topics. For example, over 80% of participants across genders agreed with the statement: “My teacher training program should include specific modules on identifying and countering hate speech.” This consensus aligns with existing research suggesting that institutional frameworks play a pivotal role in shaping perceptions of social justice issues (Eagly and Wood 2016).
  • Preparedness and Confidence:
    When asked about their personal confidence in addressing hate speech, participants of both genders demonstrated comparable levels of agreement. This finding indicates that gender does not significantly influence the perceived impact of teacher training on building practical competencies. Prior studies also support the notion that training environments often neutralize demographic differences in attitudes when adequately designed (Greene et al. 1989).
  • Implications of Gender-Neutral Results:
    The lack of significant gender differences suggests that the key factors influencing perceptions of hate speech are likely tied to programmatic and pedagogical variables rather than individual demographic characteristics. This finding reinforces the study’s focus on systemic issues, such as curriculum design and institutional support, as critical determinants of effective anti-hate speech education.
  • Implications for Analysis:
    The lack of significant gender differences reinforces the decision to aggregate the data for broader analysis, focusing on programmatic and pedagogical factors rather than individual demographic variations. However, future studies could explore intersectional factors—such as the interplay of gender with race or socioeconomic status—to provide a more nuanced understanding of perceptions related to hate speech (Crenshaw 1989).

3.6. Limitations and Biases

While the study employed rigorous methodologies to ensure data validity and reliability, several limitations and biases inherent to the research design warrant discussion, particularly given the sensitivity of the topic of hate speech.

• Social Desirability Bias
  Participants may have tailored their responses to align with socially acceptable views, especially on sensitive topics like hate speech and gender dynamics. This bias is common in self-reported data and can affect the authenticity of responses (Grimm 2010). To minimize this risk, the questionnaire was designed with neutral phrasing, and anonymity was assured to encourage honest and unbiased answers. However, it is acknowledged that such measures may not fully eliminate the effects of social desirability.
• Sampling Bias
  The use of a non-probabilistic convenience sampling method introduces potential selection bias. Participants who opted into the study may have had stronger opinions or heightened awareness about hate speech compared to those who did not participate. This limitation affects the generalizability of the findings, as the sample may not fully represent the broader population of History education students in Chile (Etikan et al. 2016).
• Cultural and Linguistic Variability
  Differences in how participants interpret key terms such as “hate speech” and “gender diversity” may have introduced variability into the responses. While pilot testing and expert review were conducted to mitigate this issue, cultural and linguistic nuances may still influence participants’ understanding and responses to certain items (Willis 2004). Future studies could benefit from incorporating cognitive interviews during instrument development to further refine the clarity and cultural appropriateness of survey items.
• Reliance on Self-Reported Data
  The study’s reliance on self-reported data, while practical, may lead to inaccuracies stemming from memory recall issues or personal biases. Participants might underreport or overreport their experiences and beliefs, particularly in the context of a sensitive topic like hate speech. Triangulation with other data sources, such as interviews or focus groups, could enhance the reliability of future findings (Creswell and Plano Clark 2018).
• Limited Scope of Demographic Analysis
  Although gender differences were found to be statistically insignificant, other intersectional factors—such as race, socioeconomic status, or regional disparities—were not explored in depth. Intersectionality theory highlights that these overlapping social identities can influence perceptions and experiences in unique ways (Crenshaw 1989). Future research could address this gap by incorporating a more intersectional framework to uncover nuanced differences in perceptions of hate speech.
• Non-Longitudinal Nature of the Study
  As a cross-sectional study, the findings represent a snapshot in time and may not capture the dynamic nature of beliefs and perceptions about hate speech, which could evolve with societal changes or educational interventions. Longitudinal studies could track changes in attitudes and provide insights into the long-term impact of teacher training programs (Field 2018).
• Sensitivity of Hate Speech Topics
  The sensitive nature of hate speech discussions might have affected participants’ willingness to fully engage with open-ended questions or respond truthfully. Anonymity and careful phrasing helped mitigate this, but residual effects of discomfort or fear of judgment might remain (De Leeuw 2004).

3.7. Ethical Criteria

In its final version, the instrument was submitted for approval by the Scientific Ethics Committee, being accepted in Letter/Report No. 23-2024. The Santo Tomás Scientific Ethics Committee is accredited by the Ministry of Health Resolution No. 23136643/2023.

4. Results

4.1. Beliefs of Early Faculty Students About the Presence of Hate Speech in Their Practices

The main results of the fieldwork are presented below. The full results, as well as the tables generated for the study, can be consulted in Annexes a and b. Some criteria of interest were selected to identify and characterize the students’ beliefs regarding the problem of the presence of hate speech in teacher training. In Suplementary Materials File A and B, each criterion numbered in

Table 1. Counter-narrative and alternative narrative.

	Counter-Narrative	Alternative Narrative
Objectives	Directly confront a narrative, mentioning it and offering counterarguments. Counter-narratives arise in opposition to an existing narrative.	Disseminate an alternative vision of society (based on human rights and interculturality). This is a new narrative.
Scope	Specific comment/short-term.	Articulated/long-term alternative vision.
To whom it is addressed	Who already has an extreme opinion or who can sympathize with it.	To society in general.
Examples	A message that dismantles a rumor about a given group in a digital journal forum. A painting that celebrates diversity over a painting with racist content.	A documentary about the lives of refugees. A company that promotes human rights, such as AllDifferent-AllEqual.

Source: de Latour et al. (2017, p. 82).

can be seen. It is not included in the body of the text due to the length of the data.

Criterion 2 is “In class, content can be linked to topics that promote alternative representations to hate messages and/or speech”, in which we find a clear affirmative trend with 67% between total agreement and agreement. Thus, the students who participated in the study tell us that what is done in class would be feasible to address the problems caused by hate messages, showing that there are possibilities in the face of the problem.

This could be related to the trend of criterion 3, “People in my class are interested in working on hate speech issues from a gender perspective”, with 48% in the total agreement and agreement indicators. We can also mention 35% at the “undecided” level, which indicates the possibility that what the criterion states is being carried out. Interestingly, the responses can be linked to being intriguing in classes, suggesting that students are inclined to change their teaching processes.

Following this line of argument, we can include the responses of criterion 4, “There are groups and movements of students against gender inequalities and the dissemination of hate speech associated with women and non-hetero-nominated identities”, where we see a total of 62% in the indicators of total agreement and agreement. This result shows that the sense expressed above is maintained, where, in addition to the fact that they express an interest in generating changes and transformations in their educational processes, they indicate that, outside the teaching–learning spaces, there are groups fighting inequalities for reasons of hate.

Although, in criterion 12, “There are teachers who agree with some gender-related hate speech”, the trend is clear, where 65% fall between the strongly disagree and disagree options, showing that, in general, the faculty of the programs, from the beliefs of the students, does not show proximity to hate speech; this does not take away from finding 21% of students are inclined to the fully agree and agree option. Such a situation is one of the points that should be investigated further. If we add the content of criterion 13, “It is possible to identify in the race groups that promote gender-related hate speech”, 53% are inclined and manifest at the totally disagree and disagree levels, showing that, in the race, such associations cannot be found. However, we subtract the remaining percentages that such associations do identify, and the question arises of why they are recognized and if they are part of them. Are they linked to any type of activism? Or do those groups lack visibility and diffusion to be recognized by the rest of the students?

We could add to the argument in criterion 24, “In the career, there have been various problems between faculty due to the presence and expressions of hate from gender perspectives”; the trend is clear towards 58% expressing their rejection. This indicates a major coincidence where students claim these problems have not occurred. We cannot fail to mention that, although most of them prefer the above option, we can find 28% of students who are in the ranges of totally agree and agree. This is concerning because, if we consider that 28% versus 58% points to a trend, the first figure shows us, from the beliefs of the students, that we cannot rule out the problems by hate that may exist because of the faculty and that are caused by the teachers.

We could compare it with what is contained in criterion 27, “The faculty should be trained to work from the expressions of hate, since it is a necessity for students”, where 74% of the responses are inclined towards the options totally agree and agree. This raises concerns and requirements for students so that the faculty working on the initial training programs have the tools to address the problems generated for hateful reasons.

However, this is an interesting point. If we consider criterion 22, “It is not necessary to work from education on hate speech from gender perspectives, since they are topics that must be addressed from the same families”, we will see a clear trend of 73% at the totally disagree and disagree levels, which suggests that students exclude families as an educational agent, but rather focus on the fact that such problems could be addressed in educational spaces. Regarding this result, we can add the responses of criterion 23, “Working from perspectives that promote diversity in faculty training can cause students to engage against gender inequalities”, where we have 70% inclined towards the fully agree and agree options. From students’ beliefs, faculty training spaces could be places where such problems are worked on.

From the responses contained in criterion 10, “I have made requests to include content on gender-based diversities, dissents, and hate speech as input for future and future teachers cause us to be curious”, we find 64% indicate that they have not requested their programs’ faculty or management teams for spaces to occur and processes to be generated, including the reflection and treatment of hate expressions, despite the clear manifestations and inclinations that are evidenced in the previous paragraphs.

This could be related to the responses of criterion 15, “It is more relevant for students to learn more content than on other topics such as the treatment of hate speech from gender perspectives”, where we find 49% among the indicators of totally agree and agree, versus 25% that strongly disagree and disagree. This is of particular analytical interest, as it points out to us that students weigh the learning of traditional content more importantly than what could be worked on from the expressions of hate. This also contradicts the responses expressed above, where the trend focused on the interest in inclusion and working from such problems. This raises the problem of identifying and characterizing students’ beliefs because there is no defined or clear trend; rather, it falls into contradictions such as the one stated before.

On the one hand, students raise the importance of learning content versus topics that could address gender issues and hate speech. In the same line, the contradiction with criteria 22 and 23 is generated, where the agreement is raised that such topics are included in education, as well as the interest that they express that working from perspectives that promote diversity would represent an encouragement for students not only to work from such spaces but also could be related to a commitment against inequalities. Due to the manifested contradiction, we cannot establish a consistent line that allows us to identify beliefs. Moreover, we could conclude that the students themselves do not have clarity on the issue.

We could also add the responses contained in criterion 19, “Hate speech from gender should be topics that are worked from other areas that are dedicated to civic education topics”, where we find 52% in the indicators of totally agree and agree, unlike 21% that indicate their opposition to such a statement. It is interesting to note that students raise a sort of “annex knowledge” regarding the treatment of hate speech, not as a part of what could be worked on in their practice. Moreover, they agree this should be carried out in other areas rather than just teaching history.

However, it is appropriate to include the inclination expressed in criterion 31, “Students in training have a duty to prepare themselves to work on expressions of hate from gender in the teaching of discipline”, where we find 66% inclined towards the options fully agree and agree. This denotes interest in how students express that such training is a duty to be performed in their discipline. However, the response trends stated above may contradict this approach. To this end, we could add what is contained in criterion 33, “Independent of the performance of the ministry and/or families, careers must assume the duty to work in the construction of counter-telling of hate from gender”, where the trend is clear; there is 79% among the indicators of total agreement and agreement. This raises a contradiction around the answers given above. Careers are required to give students sufficient tools to work from such perspectives and problems in their future practices. On the other hand, the need is expressed for students to conduct training processes autonomously in terms of hate speech.

4.2. Characterization of the Beliefs of Faculty Training Students in the Presence of Hate Speech in Their Practices

Below, we will mainly address the questions from item 2 of the instrument. The complete results can be found in Supplementary Materials File B. Therefore, not all questions will be addressed, but a selection will be made of those that are essential to identify and characterize the problem raised in the study.

In item 2, question 3, we can mention a trend of 84% of students who claim to have some kind of training around treating hate speech. This would allow them to promote work with such approaches and goals in their practices. In question 5, students state that the presence of hate speech directly affects their personal, professional, and peer lives. We can compare this with what was indicated in question 6, where 82% of students stated that the influence of hate speech in their lives causes violence and discrimination. In addition, we found 75% of responses referring to emotional damage, and, finally, 57% stated that freedom of expression should be limited to avoid such problems. This last aspect is of particular interest and should be investigated further.

If we contrast with what is contained in question 10 on what the state should do in the presence of hate speech, the trend is 84% in terms of public policy responsibility to protect people and 63% stating that a “stricter” legislation should be proposed that stops the dissemination of such expressions. The above inevitably leads us to reflect on the “freedom of expression” category because installing policies and laws with greater restrictions would imply entering such complexities.

As an example of the actions that students claim to take, we can mention what is contained in question 7, which refers to the use of social networks and the actions they take when faced with hate speech; the inclination in 44% said that reports are made on the same social network. In addition, 41% are concerned about the spread and presence of these messages in close proximity. We can also point out that 28% indicate that there are direct interventions and reactions to the problem. In this context, it would be advisable to point out that 27% of the students indicated that they ignored these situations but would like to do something, and 23% that they simply ignore such situations. We cannot fail to mention that 11% of the responses express a pessimistic attitude.

It is of special interest that there is, with a greater inclination, concern for the communities of sexual diversity and gender (70%), such as those who receive and are depositories of the most expressions and messages of hate. These ideas are reaffirmed by the content of the answers that show question 12, where the inclination to the question of where hate speech is headed predominates, at 45% on the gender and diversity aspects and 23% on migrations.

In question 19, we can conclude that the presence of gender movements in their institutions is a convergence; the responses show that 36% commented that they are disorganized movements, 28% indicated they are strongly organized, and 10% adhered to the fact that there are no movements but that they materialize in isolated marches or protests. This is consistent with the answers stated in the previous section, so we could establish relationships between the beliefs that manifest themselves.

We consider with particular attention what is contained in question 15, around the position their peers take in the faculty’s training programs, where we find 26% who pose that they take a position and participate outside the educational space. With this idea, we can add up the 16% who indicated they work from their practice in addition to taking a position on the topic. This contrasts with the 16% saying that such students do not take a clear stance and remain on the sidelines, and 15% of respondents said that they did not take a position, in addition to adhering to the prevailing official speech.

These variables raise a characteristic situation for us, where there is no clear trend on any particular aspect, denoting the social divisions around the problem. This latter idea can be supplemented by the answers contained in question 18, which raises the question of whether courses are included in their programs that address the issue/problem of hate speech; 45% indicate such an action in an affirmative manner, versus 47% who opine that they do not have such subjects in their programs.

Following these ideas, we can mention in question 24 the obstacles the faculty presents in initial training programs, including topics and problems linked to hate speech; there is a variability of responses. Mostly, 46% indicate that there is a lack of disciplinary skills and 35% a lack of educational skills. This is followed by 33% who indicate that this is due to a lack of social commitment to include such topics. Similarly, 28% indicate that the non-inclusion is due to the lack of interest of the faculty. The latter aspect is interesting to dig deeper into in future research as it does not tell us anything directly from the faculty but is part of the students’ beliefs.

Similarly, some argue (19%) that they are not working to “avoid conflicts.” We find that 18% associate it with curricular limitations, and 15% hold their peers accountable for their lack of interest in including such topics in the faculty training. The heterogeneity of responses shows us that we do not have strong clarity about the problem; there are different ways of understanding, so we could not define a single line about students’ beliefs about the subject.

Finally, it should be noted, as stated in question 23, what reforms could be carried out to promote and include hate speech. The trend folds to the need, by 53%, to include courses on education for citizens. In addition, 47% of the respondents stated that there is a need to include subjects on gender and diversity, and 18% suggested that disciplinary courses should be reduced to generate openings for new topics. Although the clarity and positioning around the topic and problem of hate speech are still lacking, teacher training students are inclined towards curricular reforms, empowering them to be included, as well as clarity on who the main ones affected by the dissemination and presence of hate expressions in society are.

4.3. Contradictions in Beliefs: Traditional Content vs. Hate Speech Education

The observed contradictions in students’ attitudes toward prioritizing traditional educational content over hate speech education provide an opportunity to analyze more deeply the systemic and cultural factors influencing these beliefs.

The tendency to prioritize traditional content, as evidenced by Criterion 15—“It is more relevant for students to learn more content than on other topics such as the treatment of hate speech from gender perspectives”—may stem from a cultural emphasis within educational institutions on the mastery of historical and disciplinary knowledge. This approach often places traditional subjects at the core of teacher training programs, positioning contemporary social issues, like hate speech, as secondary or peripheral topics. This dynamic reflects a broader educational paradigm where tangible academic outcomes, such as knowledge of historical events, are often prioritized over abstract, value-laden discussions about social justice.

Teacher training programs are frequently shaped by longstanding institutional priorities that resist the rapid integration of contemporary societal challenges. These programs are often constrained by standardized curricula, accreditation requirements, and an institutional focus on producing subject matter experts. Consequently, topics like hate speech or diversity, which demand critical engagement and interdisciplinary approaches, may not be seamlessly incorporated into existing frameworks, leaving students with a fragmented understanding of their importance.

4.4. Exploring Potential Causes of Contradictions

The near-equal split in responses to Criterion 18—“Courses that address the issue-problem of hate speech are included in their programs”—indicates variability in institutional practices. This inconsistency may leave students perceiving hate speech education as non-essential or detached from their primary academic responsibilities. Without explicit curricular integration, students may struggle to reconcile the need for traditional content mastery with the imperative to address societal challenges in their teaching practices.

While Criterion 31—“Students in training have a duty to prepare themselves to work on expressions of hate from gender in the teaching of discipline”—indicates a high level of agreement (66%), students may feel ill-equipped to act on this duty. The absence of specific training and resources leaves them uncertain about how to integrate these topics effectively into their future teaching practices. This uncertainty contributes to the observed ambivalence and underscores the importance of equipping students with practical tools and methodologies.

Students’ conflicting views about where responsibility lies—whether with the educational system, families, or broader civic education—highlight a lack of clarity about their role as educators in addressing hate speech. The significant disagreement with Criterion 22—“It is not necessary to work from education on hate speech from gender perspectives, since they are topics that must be addressed from the same families”—shows that students overwhelmingly place this responsibility on educational institutions. However, their limited engagement with hate speech education within their programs may prevent them from fully embracing this role, creating a gap between beliefs and practice.

The contradictions may also reflect societal tensions between preserving traditional academic priorities and addressing evolving social concerns. Many students may internalize societal pressures to prioritize measurable academic outcomes, such as knowledge of history, over more subjective and controversial topics like hate speech. Additionally, personal values and varying levels of exposure to diversity and inclusivity issues can further influence these contradictory attitudes.

Integrating hate speech education into traditional content areas rather than treating it as a separate topic could help reconcile the tension between these priorities. For example, the historical analysis of propaganda or hate speech in specific time periods can simultaneously reinforce subject knowledge while promoting critical thinking about contemporary issues.

Teacher training programs must clearly signal the importance of hate speech education by embedding it within core curricula and offering explicit, well-supported opportunities for students to engage with these topics. This includes ensuring that faculty members are trained to facilitate discussions on sensitive issues and provide students with concrete examples of how such topics intersect with their disciplines.

To address the fragmented understanding of their responsibilities, students should be encouraged to engage in reflective practices that connect their personal values, professional aspirations, and societal roles. Reflection exercises, group discussions, and case studies can help students critically analyze their beliefs and reconcile perceived contradictions.

Empowering students to advocate for curricular changes and actively participate in shaping their educational experiences can help align their beliefs with institutional priorities. Providing platforms for dialogue between students and faculty about the importance of addressing hate speech can foster a sense of agency and shared responsibility.

Contradictions in beliefs often arise from inconsistent exposure to specific topics. Addressing hate speech education as a continuous and evolving process throughout the teacher training program, rather than a one-time discussion, can help solidify its relevance and importance in students’ minds.

5. Discussion

Interestingly, the students indicated that it is possible to link the content working on training programs with hate speech. This aligns with studies by Abuín-Vences et al. (2022), who state that all content and topics could be linked to the treatment of socially relevant problems. The fundamental thing is to promote a change of perspective regarding what you want to learn and communicate with knowledge. In fact, studies such as that of Díez Bedmar (2022) indicate that it is essential that we construct participatory citizenship, to relate relevant, concrete, and close social problems to the reality of each student. In this way, they can generate historical empathy (Etxebarria 2008), reflect critically, and postulate changes and transformations in the face of inequalities.

The study provides valuable insights into the systemic challenges of addressing gendered hate speech within teacher training programs. Its findings would benefit from a more robust integration of the theoretical framework, particularly regarding how gender biases manifest in educational contexts and how these findings can inform practical measures for reform. The issue of hate speech, particularly when analyzed through a gendered lens, reveals itself as a complex systemic problem rooted in societal power structures, stereotypes, and institutional practices. This systemic nature of hate speech is evident in the pervasive resistance to integrating socially relevant topics like gender equity and diversity into traditional curricula.

Studies of Izquierdo-Montero et al. (2022) and Amezaga et al. (2020) have raised that the inclusion of such topics in faculty courses is still met with student resistance. History and social sciences are often associated with traditional topics such as war, economics, and politics with white and heterosexual male characters (Marolla 2019). The majority of students understand these processes from a traditional perspective, where a masculine and patriarchal history dominates over other narratives. Women and other marginalized characters are frequently excluded or depicted as subordinated to the actions of powerful men (Díez Bedmar 2022; Marolla Gajardo et al. 2021).

A significant number of responses recognize that hate speech situations occur in training programs, even though they are not widespread or everyday occurrences. The works of Marolla Gajardo et al. (2021) suggest that these incidents can significantly impact students’ lives. García Tomé (2022) proposes that analyzing these effects and advancing solutions could address the problem effectively.

A key tension in the findings is students’ recognition of the importance of addressing hate speech while prioritizing traditional disciplinary content. Historically, teacher training programs have centered on conventional narratives, marginalizing alternative perspectives and failing to acknowledge the contributions and experiences of underrepresented groups. This omission reinforces existing power imbalances and creates a curricular environment where topics like hate speech are perceived as peripheral or disruptive. Similarly, there are mixed beliefs regarding teachers’ roles in hate speech. While some students recognize that teachers do not typically propagate hate, a significant number believe that teachers manifest hate expressions in various ways. De la Cruz et al. (2019) and Keen and Georgescu (2016) suggest that inequalities persist through transmission from multiple agents, including faculty, students, management teams, and families.

The findings highlight that only 45% of participants indicated their programs include topics related to hate speech, contrasting with 47% who stated their training does not provide such tools. Students overwhelmingly (73%) expressed a need for faculty to develop the necessary skills to problematize hate speech in their practices. Studies by Baldauf et al. (2019), Barendt (2019), and Ipar (2019) emphasize the importance of addressing this issue cross-sectionally, recognizing the complexity of actors involved in hate speech production and reproduction. Students suggest that hate speech education should be addressed within training programs rather than being delegated to families (79%). This reflects the need for civic education to serve as a primary platform for addressing equity and justice, rather than relying solely on disciplinary courses.

Moreover, 64% of students acknowledge that they have not advocated for the inclusion of hate speech education. Despite this, 50% of responses suggest students prioritize learning content that addresses hate speech in their training. The work of Blanco-Alfonso et al. (2022), Keen and Georgescu (2016), and Rogero (2019) corroborate the limited efforts to transform traditional programs and content. Programs continue to reflect narratives dominated by masculine and hierarchical perspectives, sidelining broader, inclusive histories (Cruz et al. 2019; González and Santisteban 2016; Spivak 2012).

Future teachers, together with their training programs, must actively construct counter-narratives to hate speech. Izquierdo Grau (2019) and Massip Sabater et al. (2021) highlight the urgency of creating spaces in teacher training for the inclusion of hate speech and counter-narratives. These efforts should focus on developing critical thinking and democratic values to prevent violations of human rights and foster inclusivity. The findings recognize the severe consequences of hate speech, including psychological and physical violence, disproportionately affecting LGBTQ+ individuals, migrants, and marginalized communities. Studies by Barendt (2019), Piñeiro-Otero and Martínez-Rolán (2021), and Tsesis (2002) emphasize the damaging societal effects of hate speech. The 2022 report shows 40% of hate speech removed from networks targeted immigrants and LGTBQ+ groups, reflecting broader societal patterns of discrimination.

The findings point to the potential of counter-narratives and alternative narratives as transformative tools in education. Counter-narratives challenge dominant discourses by highlighting marginalized experiences, while alternative narratives provide new frameworks for understanding societal development. These approaches align with perspectives that view education as a process of fostering empathy, critical reflection, and social change. Challenges to integrating these approaches include resistance from students and faculty, stemming from a perceived conflict between traditional disciplinary demands and social-justice-oriented topics. The findings reveal inconsistencies in student beliefs, with some supporting gender equity education while prioritizing traditional content. This societal ambivalence highlights the urgency of addressing systemic inequalities and institutional inertia.

Civic education emerged as a critical platform for addressing hate speech, with students expressing a preference for institutional engagement over family-based education. Integrating hate speech education into civic modules can bridge traditional content with broader goals of inclusivity and equity. Practical implications include the need for curriculum development that embeds hate speech education across disciplines, normalizing its inclusion in teacher training. Faculty development programs should equip educators with strategies to facilitate sensitive discussions and create inclusive classrooms. Empowering students through initiatives like workshops or collaborative projects can amplify their role in advocating for reform.

Finally, longitudinal research is essential for tracking changes in beliefs and practices over time. This study offers a foundation for sustained interventions, enabling teacher training programs to systematically address hate speech and foster equity in educational environments.

6. Conclusions

The study underscores the significance of incorporating qualitative methods in future research to deepen the understanding of key issues related to hate speech in educational contexts. This approach would complement the quantitative findings by addressing nuanced themes that are critical for developing effective educational interventions. Among the issues that merit further qualitative exploration are the following:

First, the contradiction in students’ beliefs regarding hate speech education warrants deeper analysis. While students acknowledge the importance of addressing hate speech, many prioritize traditional academic content, suggesting a disconnect between their expressed values and perceived priorities in teacher training. Qualitative methods, such as focus groups or interviews, could uncover the cultural, institutional, and personal factors influencing these conflicting perspectives. This understanding could offer valuable “clues” for aligning students’ beliefs with the objectives of inclusive education.

Second, the resistance from educational authorities to incorporate hate speech education into curricula remains a significant barrier. A qualitative exploration of the political and ideological underpinnings of this resistance could reveal systemic factors that hinder curricular reforms. By examining the motivations and concerns of policymakers and administrators, future studies could identify strategies to overcome institutional inertia and foster a more proactive approach to combating hate speech.

Third, the lack of tools and preparedness reported by students is a critical theme. Many students recognize the importance of addressing hate speech but feel inadequately equipped to tackle these issues in their professional practices. This gap calls for a qualitative investigation into the specific competencies students perceive as missing and how teacher training programs can address these deficiencies. Understanding students’ needs and expectations could guide the development of targeted interventions and curricular adjustments.

Additionally, exploring the experiences of marginalized groups disproportionately affected by hate speech—such as LGBTQ+ individuals, migrants, and people with disabilities—could provide essential insights into the intersectional dynamics of hate speech. Qualitative research methods, including case studies and narrative analyses, could illuminate the lived experiences of these communities, highlighting the systemic and contextual factors that exacerbate their vulnerability. Such findings would be instrumental in designing teacher training programs that are sensitive to the complexities of hate speech and capable of fostering inclusive educational environments.

Lastly, qualitative research could investigate the presence and influence of hate speech within faculty and student groups in teacher training programs. While hate speech is not frequent, its occurrence can have a profound impact on the educational climate. Identifying the mechanisms through which hate speech emerges and is perpetuated in these settings would provide actionable insights for prevention and intervention strategies.

The prioritization of these themes stems from their potential to inform practical solutions and policy reforms in education. Addressing contradictions in student beliefs, institutional resistance, and skill gaps directly aligns with the broader goals of fostering inclusive education and preparing future educators to address hate speech effectively. Furthermore, investigating the intersectional and systemic dimensions of hate speech ensures that teacher training programs are equipped to promote equity and respect for diversity. Through a qualitative exploration of these prioritized themes, future research can significantly enhance the field’s understanding and capacity to combat hate speech in educational contexts.