Blog

As we work with youth-serving organizations across the nation, we often hear about how the resources we post on our web site are used. I was in New Hampshire last week, and heard that schools there makes laminated copies of our activities for kids (such as our crossword puzzle, word find, and word scramble), and then distributes them to students in classes at various elementary- and middle-school grade levels. Students then use dry-erase markers to fill them out, and then each class competes with other classes to earn the highest classroom-wide “successful completion” rate. The winning class then receives a pizza party! We thought this was a very creative (and environmentally-friendly) way to engage the minds of tech-involved tweens and teens, and get them excited about learning to do the right thing in cyberspace. If you’d like to share with us how you have recently used some of the materials and downloadables we provide, we’d love to hear from you!

I have recently been chatting with Dr. Linda Young – whose work I greatly respect – about the topic of “humor limits.” In our trainings to youth-serving professionals, Justin and I discuss how teaching adolescents when comments made cross over a line and no longer are “funny” but are “abusive” and harmful. For example, the term “food baby” is currently used among teenagers to reference their slightly enlarged or bloated stomach after eating way too much. This is generally funny when a person points out their own food baby to others, but can cross a line and be intepreted as mean-spirited, embarrassing, or otherwise rude when a person points it out in someone else who may be self-conscious about their weight.

Additionally, many things are described by youth as “retarded” or “gay” – a practice which we do not condone in the slightest. While we wish that adolescents would not use these terms at all, those who do should be very careful as it may offend one or more persons in their social audience. Those words can easily exceed a standard of acceptability in conversations, and be perceived as prejudicial, hateful, and harassing.

Due to the anonymity, pseudonymity, and freedom that online communication allows as compared to face-to-face interactions, humor limits are easily crossed – and many statements made on Facebook walls and comment threads in an attempt to be sarcastic or humorous end up inflicting harm. This can at times be considered cyberbullying, and often leads to hurt feelings and broken friendships. We would do well to share various examples of this phenomenon with kids – and discuss them in detail – so that they more readily think about their audience and how their words might be interpreted before posting or sending potentially inflammatory content.

The concept of peer mentoring generally involves older students advising and counseling younger students about issues affecting them. Since younger adolescents tend to look up to (and seek to emulate) older adolescents, this dynamic can be exploited to teach important lessons about the use of computers and communications technology. Peer mentoring has been fruitful in reducing traditional bullying and interpersonal conflict within schools and, as such, should be considered in a comprehensive approach to preventing cyberbullying as well. Accordingly, newer cohorts of students can learn from the wisdom of adolescents who have already experienced online aggression and have figured out effective ways to deal with it. This wisdom may sink in more quickly and deeply since it comes from peers rather than adults, as kids have the tendency to tune out adults when being taught certain life lessons (can you relate to that?).  As we’ve heard from a mother in California: “Parents and teachers can get up and preach, but if they hear it from another kid, they will remember it.”  On a larger scale, these efforts can significantly and positively affect the social climate within the school community, benefitting youth and their families, teachers and staff, and the community as a whole.

As Mike Tully, a noted school law attorney points out: “Never overlook the possibility of using students themselves as agents of change.”

The basic purpose of peer mentoring is to employ older students to change the way younger students think about the harassment or mistreatment of others in certain situations. Mentors can also be utilized to help younger students appreciate the responsibility and risks associated with the use of computers, cell phones, and the Internet. To illustrate, one student mentor states, “I have started to talk to other children who have had a similar experience and try and help them because they are going through the same thing that I went through and it helps to talk to people who understand. I tell them to be brave and not to worry because everything will be okay.”

Overall, the goal is to encourage youth to take responsibility for the problem and to work together in coming up with a solution. It also seeks to foster respect and acceptance of others—no matter what—and to get kids to see how their actions affect others and how they can purposefully choose behaviors that promote positive peer relations.  This, then, can drastically affect the quality of the school environment by shaping the climate in which students and educators work, learn, and act.

Highly adaptable, depending on individualized needs, peer mentoring can be accomplished in a number of ways. For example, one-on-one sessions might take place where a high schooler is called in to meet with a middle school victim to offer support and help. Or high school students could regularly talk to groups of middle schoolers in the cafeteria during lunch. A few high school students could also organize a presentation for small classroom-sized (20+) middle school groups. Finally, skits can be presented in auditoriums or cafeterias by high schoolers for assemblies of younger students. All of these interactions can be comprised of one or more activities. Schools can utilize older students to convey a number of important messages of Internet safety and responsibility to younger students, including:

- Reiterating that they are not alone in experiencing victimization and the resultant pain, rejection, humiliation, and loneliness

- Encouraging them to speak up and not remain silent when confronted with cyberbullying

- Sharing one or more highly relatable vignettes or stories about cyberbullying

- Explaining the “language” of cyberbullying, including the relevant terms and technology

- Describing positive ways in which conflict between peers can be de-escalated or resolved

- Using role-playing examples to get students thinking about the various ways to address a cyberbullying situation

- Providing an opportunity to discuss and answer any questions, clarify any confusion, and reinforce how to deal with cyberbullying problems

Over time and as needed, additional formal and informal lessons—as well as continued interaction between the high school mentors and the middle school mentees—can occur.

The Cyberbullying Research Center has created a comprehensive peer mentoring program involving adult facilitators, high-school mentors, and middle-school participants (known as “Torchbearers”).  A specific and detailed manual has been written for these roles, and involves ten unique lessons and step-by-step directions as to how best to successfully administer the curriculum.  Incrementally and cumulatively, this program will allow schools to mobilize motivated older students to change the way younger students think about the harassment or mistreatment of others online. It will also help younger students appreciate the responsibilities and risks associated with the use of computers, cell phones, and the Internet.

Our Anti-Cyberbullying Peer Mentoring Program has been designed to encourage youth to take responsibility for the problem and to work together in coming up with a solution – so that they themselves can be agents of change. The program also fosters respect and acceptance of others – no matter their differences.  Finally, it enables kids to see how their individual and group actions affect the emotions and lives of others, and how they can purposefully choose behaviors that promote positive peer relations.

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.

This has been a very busy year for us at the Cyberbullying Research Center.  We continued our research activities and expanded our outreach and educational efforts.  We enjoyed meeting many of you through our travels throughout the United States.  We did about 50 presentations, workshops, or assemblies for thousands of youth, parents, educators, and others in 14 different states this past year.  We collected data from about 2000 students in 2009 and have plans to collect even more data in 2010.  We have a number of academic articles that were completed this year that will be in print in 2010 and are working on our next book projects.  We pledge to keep advancing the state of understanding and awareness about cyberbullying in the New Year.  There is still much work that needs to be done.

Both Sameer and I would like to take this opportunity thank everyone for taking the time to visit this site to learn more about (and contribute to the understanding of) the causes and consequences of online harassment. We can’t be everywhere, so we are relying on you to get the word out about this pernicious problem.  With knowledge comes power and we are thankful that this web site has become a leading platform upon which knowledge about cyberbullying can be built.  Hopefully the information gained will give us the power to do what is needed to effectively prevent and sensibly respond to all forms of cyberbullying.

All the best to you and yours this Holiday Season.