Blog

One of the first things we learned in our earliest cyberbullying studies was that targets were not telling adults about their experiences. Even today, very few students who are cyberbullied talk with adults about what is going on. The concern we have heard from adolescents time and time again is that they are afraid to tell adults because they think they will be blamed or their cell phones or computers will be taken away. They are embarrassed or scared and overall they just think things will get worse for them if they tell an adult. Well, whose fault is it that teens don’t feel comfortable talking to us about their experiences? One clue: it’s not *their* fault. We as adults need to take the initiative to learn more about what teens are doing online (the good and the bad) and equip ourselves with knowledge and tools to prevent and successfully respond to cyberbullying when it happens.

Today starts a four day online discussion of Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard on the Education Week Teacher Web site.  If you have read our book, please join in the conversation!  There are a lot of great strategies out there and a discussion involving our book can help stimulate other innovative ideas. Only when we come together to effectively respond to cyberbullying will targets open up and share their experiences with us.  We look forward to reading your insights on the Education Week Teacher Discussion Forum.

Technology is great and we know from our research that the vast majority of teens are using it safely and responsibly. But a few are creating problems for themselves or others by what they post online. That’s why we’ve partnered with Jostens to produce a number of useful resources for you to educate yourself or the teens in your life about the pitfalls associated with unwise postings. “Pause Before You Post” is a movement to remind students to carefully consider the consequences of posting something online. Whether they are posting something private about themselves or something hurtful about someone else, the costs can be steep. Here is a short video that introduces the campaign. You can also find a number of other short videos that feature Sameer and I talking about various issues related to teen technology use here.

One of the most popular documents we wrote for this program was “A Student’s Guide to Personal Publishing” which is available here. Jostens has put together a Pause Before You Post Kit that includes posters, pins, flyers, a DVD and CD with videos and curriculum based on our research. For more information about the kit, talk to your local Jostens representative or visit the Jostens web site. Since October is bullying awareness month, it is a good time to remind students to pause before they post!

Many educators have struggled to confront the challenges associated with high-tech devices in the classrooms (especially cell phones).  Cyberbullying.  Cheating.  Distractions.  Inappropriate digital material. There is no shortage of possible issues. The seemingly easy way to respond to these concerns has been to ban all personal electronic devices from the classroom (or the entire school).  I have heard about penalties that include students being fined or surrendering the device until the end of the day or even until the end of the school year!  This is just crazy.  First of all, short of strip-searching students as they enter the school, it is practically impossible to enforce a complete ban on technology in the school.  Most administrators have largely conceded this point and therefore enacted policies which say something to the effect of: “If I see it, you lose it.”  A colleague of ours recently quipped that schools approach cell phones the same way they do underwear: “We know you have them, we just don’t want to see them in class.”  It is really unfortunate that these powerful devices have been excluded from learning environments where they could actually be put to positive uses.

Recently, however, it seems that increasing numbers of schools are looking to loosen their overly restrictive cell phone policies. We have received a number of queries over the last couple of months from districts that would like to allow students to bring their own devices, to be used for educational purposes.  It is easy to see how cell phones, iPads, or laptops could augment curriculum delivery in the classroom: flash-polling; looking up multi-media definitions of difficult concepts; pulling up a map of a far-off place; viewing a video of an endangered species…. The possibilities are literally endless.  And we also know that the vast majority of teens already have, and regularly use, these devices (e.g., 75% of 12 to 17 year-olds have their own cell phones, according to Pew).  So there is enormous upside here.

But we do need to recognize the potential problems that may accompany the positives when students “bring their own devices” to school.  It is important to stress, though, that the problem isn’t cell phones or other particular devices.  The problem is how these devices are being (mis)used by some.  Most schools already have a bullying/harassment policy.  These documents should be reviewed to make sure they explicitly cover cyberbullying.  Students, staff, parents, and others need to understand that inappropriate behaviors will not be tolerated and are subject to discipline.  And be specific—talk about harassment and cheating and disrupting the class environment by texting or Facebooking, etc.  Clearly outline the consequences for such behaviors.  Get students and parents in on this discussion.  Schools will have problems as the school community gets used to these changes, but hopefully the problems will be few and far between and will get better with time.  Students will learn appropriate behaviors and it should – in time – become the norm if done right.  For example, ten years ago cell phones were much more of a problem in my college classrooms than they are now.  University students, at least in my experience, have gotten better at cell phone etiquette and are not letting the devices distract the learning that is occurring.  Sure, occasionally a phone will go off in class, but usually the student is apologetic and immediately realizes the faux pas.  Of course middle and high school students are different than those in a univesrity, but I am optimistic that we can work through the same challenges at the secondary school level.

There should also be some discussion in school policy that administrators can conduct a reasonable “search” of the contents of these devices when there is “reasonable suspicion” that evidence of a violation of school policy is on the device.  Schools can’t search these devices whenever they feel like it, but if the search is reasonable and supported by a justifiable need, it could be allowed.  There is some debate about this, so be sure to run it by your legal counsel (you can read more about this here.  We also discuss it in great detail in our new book.) Either way, the circumstances under which school officials can search student-owned devices need to be made explicit.  This will definitely come up, so make sure you are ready.  And again, students, parents, and others need to know the standards.  If you are an educator in a school that recently opened up to electronic devices, please let us know how it is going (the good and the bad!).  If you are a student, we would appreciate hearing your experiences as well.

As regular readers of this blog will know, Sameer and I have had a long partnership with Jostens. When I was in high school in the mid-1990s, our class rings and yearbooks came from Jostens, so I knew of the brand. About four years ago, Charley Nelson, who is the director of educator services for Jostens, contacted me to talk about our cyberbullying work. Little did I know that in addition to their yearbooks and rings (they designed the 2011 Super Bowl ring!), they also coordinate a number of professional development activities for educators, mostly centered on cultivating a positive school climate. Their Renaissance Program emphasizes academic achievement, encourages student and staff recognition, and promotes school pride. We’ve worked with them over the last year to develop materials for “Pause Before You Post” – a campaign to educate teens about responsible personal publishing (online and off). See our “Student Guide to Personal Publishing” here.

The flagship event for Jostens Renaissance each year is their national conference, which draws over 1000 educators and student leaders from around the United States. I have been fortunate to have been a presenter at this conference for the past three years and I will tell you that it is flat out the best educator conference that I have been a part of. The positive energy is palpable and I leave the conference inspired and reinvigorated. There is a lot of learning and networking, infused with A TON of fun. This year, the conference is in Anaheim (July 15-17) and both Sameer and I will be there, presenting on issues related to cyberbullying, sexting, and responsible social networking. Headline speakers include Bill Walton (basketball Hall of Famer) and Liz Murray (Homeless to Harvard). If you have never been to this conference, you need to attend – and there is still time to sign up. I personally guarantee that you will not be disappointed. If you have attended in the past, leave a comment with your experience. If you will be there this year, stop by and say hello. If you are a Facebook follower, find me and mention this blog and I’ll give you a gift (while supplies last!). Hope to see you in Anaheim!

As we have discussed several times on this blog in recent years, there are two cases that addressed issues with off-campus online speech by students that resulted in seemingly conflicting responses by the same court. They potentially have implications for how schools can respond to cyberbullying incidents, so are important to follow. To refresh your memory, Layshock v. Hermitage School District involved Justin Layshock, the 17-year-old Hickory High School senior who in 2005 created a “nonthreatening, non‐obscene parody profile making fun of the school principal” from his grandmother’s home using her computer. The school suspended Layshock for 10 days, which was initially upheld in a 2006 hearing, but later overturned by the judge in the case, saying the school went too far. In February of 2010, a panel of judges from the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and agreed. In this case it appeared the school failed to effectively argue that Layshock’s actions caused a substantial disruption at school – the standard that was established in the seminal Supreme Court case Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969). According to Tinker, school administrators can discipline students for off-campus behavior if it can be demonstrated that such behavior resulted in a “substantial and material disruption” of the school environment.

In the other case (Blue Mountain School District v. J.S.), a 14-year-old eighth-grade student from Blue Mountain Middle School also created a MySpace profile of the principal which included, among other things, an accusation that he was a “sex-obsessed pedophile.” This student was also suspended for 10 days for violating the school’s discipline code and for using the schools copyrighted material (the principal’s picture from the school’s web site) without permission. The lower court refused to grant the student a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ruling that schools can in fact discipline students for lewd off-campus behavior, even if such behavior doesn’t cause a substantial disruption. Another, separate panel from the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court in an opinion that seemed inconsistent with the Layshock ruling.

To resolve these disparate views, the Third Circuit agreed to review the cases collectively (“en blanc”) to offer a perspective. In short, there is nothing too surprising about the remarks of the majority opinions released on Monday. The court re-asserted that schools cannot punish students for off-campus behavior or speech without evidence of a substantial disruption at school (or a high likelihood that such a disruption will occur).

In the Layshock case, the school district conceded that the creation of the MySpace parody profile did not cause a disruption at school. So it is clearly outside the boundaries of formal school discipline. The court also listed several cases where schools were allowed to discipline students for the off-campus behavior (J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 807 A.2d 847 (Pa. 2002); Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. of Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2007); and Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008), noting that “each of those cases involved off campus expressive conduct that resulted in a substantial disruption of the school, and the courts allowed the schools to respond to the substantial disruption that the student’s out of school conduct caused.”

In the other case, the Bethlehem Area School District did initially attempt to argue that J.S.’s activities resulted in a significant disruption at school, though neither the District Court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals accepted that argument so they backed off. In the original hearing, the District Court supported the disciplinary actions of the school, not because there was evidence of a substantial disruption, but because the content of the off-campus speech was “vulgar, lewd, and potentially illegal.” This was consistent with Supreme Court decisions in Fraser (1986) and Morse (2007). In its review, however, the Third Circuit noted that in both of these cases, the speech was delivered at school (Fraser) or a school sponsored activity (Morse). As such, the vulgarity of the speech was irrelevant and therefore the singular issue is to consider is whether the off-campus speech resulted in a substantial disruption. Therefore, in a divided opinion (8-6) the Third Circuit overturned the District Court, concluding that: “…the school district violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when it suspended her for speech that caused no substantial disruption in school and that could not reasonably have led school officials to forecast substantial disruption in school.”

Judge Jordon noted in a concurring opinion, however, that: “The issue is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker, can be applicable to off-campus speech. I believe it can, and no ruling coming out today is to the contrary.” So students can be punished for off-campus speech or behavior (consistent with Tinker’s disruption clause).

So where does this leave us. Well, the key issue to keep in mind, it seems, is whether a student’s off-campus speech or behavior results, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, a substantial disruption at school. We have little additional clarity regarding what that actually looks like, but we know a bit more about what it isn’t. Staff accessing a harassing profile at school does not constitute a substantial disruption. A student bringing a printed copy of a Web site to school at the request of staff does not cause a substantial disruption. A few students talking in class does not equal substantial disruption.

It also appears that vulgarities directed toward school officials from an off-campus location are not automatically subject to school discipline. Now, if that speech substantially and/or materially disrupts the learning at school, it may be fair game for sanction. It is interesting that free speech advocates are touting this as a victory for students, suggesting these opinions are evidence that there are no conditions under which schools can discipline students for their off-campus speech. This is clearly an incorrect interpretation of the facts. We have long known that students have free speech rights. We also know that those rights are constrained a bit while at school and where the speech substantially disrupts the school environment. That hasn’t changed.

It is important to also point out that both of these cases involved students who were targeting staff. I would be very interested to see if the opinions changed if all players involved were students. If a student creates a Facebook parody profile about another student, could the target’s ability to learn at school be substantially disrupted? It sure seems so. But it remains to be seen whether the higher courts would agree with this rationale.

I encourage you all to read the full versions of the opinions (over 100 pages in total). Layshock is available here and Blue Mountain is here. And feel free to weigh in with your thoughts.