Blog

We’ve had quite a bit of feedback regarding our recent post that discussed whether or not schools can discipline students for creating a Facebook page that is critical of, or harassing toward, a staff member.  The courts have given their perspective on a few different cases, but I thought I would post this simple poll for readers to weigh in themselves regarding their personal beliefs about what should or should not be allowed. Feel free to add the justification for your answer as a comment.

(if you don’t see a poll below, please try again later…we have been having trouble with the polling software)

Routledge (Taylor and Francis) is making some of their copyrighted journal articles available at no cost through June, and our research piece entitled “Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization,” published in Deviant Behavior, is one of those and is available here.  To date, it is one of the most downloaded articles from that journal.

Here is the abstract:

Victimization on the Internet through what has been termed cyberbullying has attracted increased attention from scholars and practitioners.  Defined as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text,” this negative experience not only undermines a youth’s freedom to use and explore valuable online resources, but also can result in severe functional and physical ramifications.  Research involving the specific phenomenon – as well as Internet harassment in general – is still in its infancy, and the current work seeks to serve as a foundational piece in understanding its substance and salience.  Online survey data from 1,378 adolescent Internet-users are analyzed for the purposes of identifying characteristics of typical cyberbullying victims and offenders.  While gender and race did not significantly differentiate respondent victimization or offending, computer proficiency and time spent online were positively related to both cyberbullying victimization and offending.  Additionally, cyberbullying experiences were also linked to respondents who reported school problems (including traditional bullying), assaultive behavior, and substance use.  Implications for addressing this novel form of youthful deviance are discussed.

There have been a few high profile cases recently reviewed by the courts, and summarized in the media, where students have sued their schools arguing that discipline they received as a result of improper online speech was a violation of their First Amendment right.  The most recent case involved a former Florida high school student, Katherine Evans, who created a Facebook page called “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met!” and encouraged other students to “express [their] feelings of hatred.”  Evans was suspended for three days and removed from her AP classes under a policy prohibiting the bullying and cyberbullying of staff.  With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, the student sued the principal.  Judge Barry Garber ruled in favor of the student, saying the school overstepped its authority in disciplining Evans.

Two other recent cases involved similar facts.  In 2005, 17-year-old Justin Layshock created a “nonthreatening, non‐obscene parody profile making fun of the school principal.”  While the school’s disciplinary action (10 day suspension) was initially upheld in a 2006 hearing, the judge in the case later reversed himself, saying the school went too far.  In February of 2010, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and agreed.  In 2007, a 14-year-old student from Pennsylvania was disciplined for creating a profile calling her principal “a sex addict and pedophile.”  In this case, the court upheld the actions of the school.  These differing opinions seemingly left everyone wondering what the standard really is.  But in all of these cases, it came down to whether or not the speech resulted in a substantial disruption at school.

Sameer and I discuss the issue of student speech quite often in our workshops for educators, because it is such a tricky matter.  And we hear many examples where students create inappropriate profiles online directed toward other students or staff.  In fact, earlier this week a mother called me to seek my assistance in helping to remove a Facebook page that her son had created disparaging a teacher at his school.

It is important to acknowledge that students certainly do have free speech protections under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  It must be noted, however, that when at school, student speech can be restricted much more than if the student was not physically on campus.  A large body of case law has established that schools can discipline students, and restrict their speech at school, as necessary to maintain an appropriate learning environment (see, for example, Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 and Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 1988).  To be sure, case law has also focused on limiting the ability of educators to restrict speech to only that which occurs on school grounds (see Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School District, 1979).

That said, technology has once again created gray areas with respect to these principles.  What about student speech that occurs away from school but that clearly has some impact on the school?  For example, what if a student creates a web site, from home, using their own personal computer, where they harass a student or criticize a staff member?  This is off-campus speech that clearly affects the school.  While there has been some inconsistency, the courts have generally ruled that in order for educators to intervene in off-campus incidents, they must demonstrate that the speech or behavior caused, or has a great likelihood of causing, a substantial disruption at school.  Just because a teacher or administrator is upset by student speech that occurs off-campus, it doesn’t give them the authority to formally discipline the student(s) involved.  To be sure, school officials ought to contact the parents of the offending party and explain to them the problems with such speech (and hopefully, the parents will take care of it from there).  Moreover, even though the school’s proverbial hands might be tied, the target of the harassing off-campus content has the ability to pursue civil remedies for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or false light.  The point is that there are other ways to make sure the student responsible will be held accountable.

I have to say that I am concerned by the media attention given to these cases because I am afraid that schools will get the wrong impression and interpret these rulings as evidence that they cannot take actions in any incidents that occur away from school.  And this is simply just not true.  In all cases they have the right to take informal action (calling parents, talking to the students involved, expressing dissatisfaction with the behaviors, an extracurricular sanction such as a temporary ban from participating in a sport or club, or capitalizing on the teachable moment by educating the school body about appropriate discourse).  If they can demonstrate a clear link to a substantial disruption at school, they can definitely take more formal actions.  Schools generally get into trouble when they respond with knee-jerk formal reactions (long-term suspensions or expulsions) without carefully considering all of the facts of the case.

In short, students do have the ability to engage in free speech, but when that speech significantly interferes with the school’s ability to provide a safe and secure learning environment for its students, it falls within the reach of a school’s disciplinary arm.  These issues are discussed in more detail in our book and a paper we have forthcoming in the journal Preventing School Failure.  We also have a fact sheet that details more of the legal and policy implications of these and other rulings.

There have been many high profile and tragic incidents in the media in recent years which have linked adolescent suicides to experiences with cyberbullying.  The connection between suicide and interpersonal aggression is certainly nothing new, as a number of studies have documented the association between bullying and suicide.  Sameer and I have a paper coming out in the coming months that explores the relationship between bullying (both traditional and cyber) and suicidal ideation and attempts.  We find that those who experience bullying (and those who bully) report higher levels of suicidal ideation and are more likely to have attempted suicide.

Here is the abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Empirical studies and some high-profile anecdotal cases have demonstrated a link between suicidal ideation and experiences with bullying victimization or offending.  The current study examines the extent to which a nontraditional form of peer aggression – cyberbullying – is also related to suicidal ideation among adolescents.

METHODS: In 2007, a random sample of 1,963 middle-schoolers from one of the largest school districts in the United States completed a survey of Internet use and experiences.

RESULTS:  Youth who experienced traditional bullying or cyberbullying, as either an offender or a victim, had more suicidal thoughts and were more likely to attempt suicide than those who had not experienced such forms of peer aggression.  Also, victimization was more strongly related to suicidal thoughts and behaviors than offending.

CONCLUSION:  The findings provide further evidence that adolescent peer aggression must be taken seriously both at school and at home, and suggest that a suicide prevention and intervention component is essential within comprehensive bullying response programs implemented in schools.

This research provides additional reasons not to ignore even minor forms of bullying and cyberbullying as they can easily escalate and create long-term and disastrous consequences for those involved.  We have a fact sheet that summarizes the findings in this paper which is available here.  As soon as the full article has been published, we will link to it on this site.

Though we focus on youth, we have had an increasing number of adults who call and email us asking for help regarding their own cyberbullying victimization experiences.  Some of the stories we hear are extremely tragic and horribly malicious.  Many times, we are at a loss for words that might help based on the fact that Internet Service Providers and Content Service Providers historically have not turned over subscriber (perpetrator) records in response to complaints from targets.  This recent article, though, may portend an encouraging change.  Specifically, a New York attorney (Steven Wagner) last year specifically argued that a model who was anonymously defamed online deserved to know the identity behind those insults so that he or she could be sued for defamation.  A Manhattan judge agreed and ordered Google to turn over that information so that the plaintiff and victim could proceed with a civil claim.  Following this ruling, victims of online harassment and defamation of character seem to have new hope that the legal system will help them uncover those who bully under the cloak of anonymity or pseudonymity in cyberspace.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in other cases….