20世紀90年代之后,美國校園欺凌的訴訟日益增多。在校園欺凌事件中,公立學校是否負有責任,在什么條件下負有責任,應該付什么樣的責任成為美國各級法院在案件審理過程中亟待解決的問題。本文選取了上訴到美國聯邦最高法院和巡回法院的三個判例進行分析:在格布澤案中,聯邦最高法院采納了實際知情和故意漠視的標準以確定學校是否負有責任;戴維斯案延用了實際知情和故意漠視兩個要件,推動了美國各級各類學校建立反校園欺凌的政策與程序;科瓦爾斯基案中,網絡欺凌成為校園欺凌新形式的代表,該案也提出學校的責任和權力邊界的新問題,法院肯定了學校對學生校外不當言行進行干預的正當性與合法性。

Since the 1990 s, the lawsuits of school bullying have been increasing in America. The debates in almost all courts focused on whether public school was responsible and under what conditions it was responsible for bullying. Three cases which appealed to the federal Supreme Court and the circuit court are selected to analyze in this article. In the case of Gebser, the Supreme Court adopted the two principles of actual knowledge and deliberate indifference to determine whether the school is responsible for bullying. In the case of Davis, the Supreme Court followed the precedent of Gebser case to promote American public schools to establish the antibullying policies and procedures. The case of Kowalski put forward new problems about the responsibility and authority to deal with cyberbullying which represented the new form of bullying. The court affirmed the rightness and legitimacy of school’s ability to intervene in off-campus cyberbullying.