Blog

Several high profile incidents have put cyberbullying at the top of the headlines in recent months.  When Sameer and I first started studying this problem over eight years ago, it was rare to see a cyberbullying story in the media, now they are everywhere.

Larry Magid, a technology journalist who contributes to a number of publications, both online and off, commented on cnet yesterday about the potential development of a “cyberbullying panic.”  We really appreciate his perspective on issues relating to teens and technology and especially the fact that he always supports his viewpoints and arguments with research.

He is right that the public can sometimes view a particular problem as epidemic in nature simply from one or two high profile incidents (for example, the school shootings of the late 1990s, or more recently the panic over online sexual predators).  And many in the media often fan the flames.  I basically agree with his thoughts on this and think he is right on in terms of encouraging teens (and adults) to acknowledge that most kids are not engaging in negative or risky or irresponsible behaviors online.  Research finds that about 20% of kids have been cyberbullied, or admit to cyberbullying others, at some point in their lifetime (this number varies considerably depending on how one measures cyberbullying).  Of course this means that 80% of kids are NOT involved in cyberbullying as an aggressor or target.

Many people ask me if the bullying problem is getting worse with technology.  I simply tell them that technology has allowed us to observe the bullying problem more clearly.  Kids have always been bullying each other.  But technology has brought it to the forefront because we can see exactly what is being done and said.  Historically, maybe, much of these bullying experiences would never come to the attention of adults – technology has made the problem more visible, for better *and* worse.  This visibility likely contributes to the overall harm caused, but also allows parents, school administers, and others to see it more precisely (and most are shocked, even though they too were once adolescents).  I also think that the media attention surrounding these and other high profile incidents over the last year or two (perhaps even the Megan Meier case) has resulted in more students coming forward about their bullying/cyberbullying experiences.  Our research over the last five years or so shows that more teens are now telling adults about their experiences with cyberbullying.  Now we just need to teach adults how to effectively deal with the problem once they are made aware.

We need to remember that most teens are doing great things online and are largely being responsible (our MySpace research shows this clearly).  The high profile examples certainly grab the headlines but represent the exception rather than the rule.  Of course, as Larry points out, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the problem.  It is hard to see a clear path to prevention and response in the midst of a panic.  Good solid research can help us to distill the fact from the fiction, and therefore should be the foundation of any policy and practice.  That said, the rare tragedy is often necessary to remind us of why it is so important to keep moving forward with respect to these issues.

A federal jury recently ordered the Hudson Area School District (Michigan) to pay $800,000 in damages to a student who endured years of emotional, physical, and sexual bullying.  Dane Patterson was in middle school when the bullying began as simple name calling and verbal harassment.  It escalated in high school and included being pushed into lockers and at least one incident in 10th grade where he was sexually harassed – which involved “a naked student rubbing against him” in a locker room.

Most states require their schools to have an anti-bullying policy, and Hudson Schools did.  On some occasions when bullying was reported to the school and the perpetrators could be identified, they were punished.  In other cases teachers who witnessed bullying or who were made aware of it failed to follow through with involving school administration.  And according to court records, in one case a geography teacher actually contributed to the problem by making fun of Patterson in front of the entire class by saying: “How does it feel to be hit by a girl?” after he was slapped by a female student when he attempted to stop her from bullying a classmate.  This is almost unbelievable.

This case is a clear message to schools that inaction, or even a simple unwise reaction, is not enough when it comes to dealing with bullies.  Districts need to be proactive in preventing bullying from getting out of control.  It is one thing to have a policy in place prohibiting bullying.  It is so much important for schools to actively enforce it and take additional steps to foster a positive climate in which bullying of all kinds is not tolerated (by staff or students).  Staff need to educate students about appropriate behaviors and take action (informal or formal) against bullies.  Adults who argue that bullying is a normal part of growing up (“kids will be kids”) are contributing to the problem. Students, too, have a role when they see bullying occurring.  Standing by and watching it occur without doing anything is also contributing to a culture where bullying is considered normative behavior and therefore passively condoned and tolerated.  If you are a student and see someone being bullied, please tell an adult in the school that you trust will take appropriate actions (without making things worse for you or the target).  Together, students and staff can work together to create and maintain a positive learning environment free from harassment and abuse.

Evidently, the waters of cyberbullying case law are still murky.  Due to variability in opinions and perspectives across jurisdictions and adjudicators, clear precedent is still sometimes elusive.  Consider the following case from late 2009 from a California District Court (08-cv-03824, J.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District), in which an eighth-grader was cyberbullied through the posting of a YouTube video created by peers denigrating her as “spoiled,” “a brat,” and a “slut.”  The target tearfully reported this to her counselor, and indicated strongly that she was upset, humiliated, and did not feel able to go to class and focus on school.  The counselor discussed the matter with administration as well as with school district attorneys, classified the behavior as “cyberbullying,” and the offending girl who posted the video online was suspended for two days.  Her family decided to sue, and took the case to federal court on the grounds that her First Amendment right to free speech had been violated.

Even though extant case law seems to support corrective action if a target is unable to feel safe and supported to learn without distractions of harassment within a school environment, the federal judge in this case ruled that school authorities overstepped their bounds.  This decision was based on the fact that the school could not prove that the offending speech and actions caused a “substantial disruption” of school activities or goals.  Moreover, the ruling judge stated that “the court cannot uphold school discipline of student speech simply because young persons are unpredictable or immature, or because, in general, teenagers are emotionally fragile and may often fight over hurtful comments.”

This is particularly disconcerting to me.  The judge completely disregarded the emotional and psychological well-being of the target in this case, even though any adult who serves youth or works for the best interests of youth is taught that they must not view the internalization of harm in a critical manner, but must empathize with it.  That is, adults must not discount the reality of pain experienced by adolescents through their experiences with bullying or cyberbullying, because this casts blame on the victims themselves.  This small-minded mentality is, in part, why we have teenagers who kill themselves – because they feel that their viewpoint is not appreciated but rather trivialized and discarded.

Demonstration of “substantial [schoolwide] disruption” is a sufficient clause to uphold school discipline of cyberbullying behaviors that are initiated off campus.  However, it is not a necessary clause because there are other aggravating factors that impel student disciplinary sanction by schools.  One primary factor is the harm personally and subjectively experienced by victimized youth.  Without question, the ability of the victim in this case to learn in a safe and secure environment at school was substantially disrupted.  But apparently that wasn’t enough.

In essence, the judge asserts that the adolescent victim in this case – and others like her – should have tougher skin, and should not allow hurtful comments to bother her so much.  He summarily dismisses the gravity of her pain in one fell swoop, and bases his decision on an impersonal aspect of the case, rather than the very real, very visceral effect that cyberbullying had on a young girl.

Finally, the victim in this case is being denied the benefits of, and is subjected to discrimination under, a federally-funded educational program (the public school), which undermines her civil rights.  As such, I would not at all be surprised  if this case goes to the appellate level and is overturned.  In fact, I am hopeful that it will be.

Earlier this week, I participated in a Summit organized by the National District Attorneys Association and the National Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse with a variety of professionals in the child protection arena. While other attendees focused in on the problem of child sex trafficking, my small group concentrated on the phenomenon of sexting and self-exploitation.

To begin, none of us really like the term sexting because it’s a buzzword, and drastically overused, and because youth don’t use it in reference to what they are doing. However, we understand that the term has been largely embraced by politicians, legislators, and the mass media, and the traction it has gained will be beneficial in further commanding attention and marshaling resources from those in positions who can help.

We believe sexting refers to “youth rendering themselves vulnerable to emotional, psychological, and physical victimization through the posting and sending of sexually-explicit or sexually-suggestive text, images or video.” I’m pretty sure that covers everything that can be involved.

We don’t necessarily believe that sexting should be referred to as “self-exploitation” as that infers that the victims are fully cognizant, aware, and in support of what they are doing in harming themselves. It places blame on the victim, and renders subjective our perspective of the phenomenon. When youth participate in sexting and then that text, image, or video is circulated outside of its intended recipient (which, incidentally, could also be considered “cyberbullying”), that youth becomes a victim, and no characterization should take away from that.

Sexting is largely an adolescent development issue. This is because of neurophysiological immaturity that youth have, which prevents them from considering long-term ramifications of their actions. Coupled with the disinhibition that cyberspace communication provides, and the geographic distance afforded by computers and cell phones, it’s very easy for youth to act unwisely and participate in this phenomenon. All of this said, we also realize that we (as adults) have a responsibility to step in. I think about the doctrine of in loco parentis, where we (e.g., the government, in the case of the legal professionals who gathered at this summit) have a legal responsibility to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent to protect a child from themselves (i.e., from behavior that can lead to significant victimization). Finally, we must recognize that this issue is a nontrivial problem, and that it requires formal responses in conjunction with the informal attempts that have been made to curtail the problematic behavior.

We have to realize that sexting occurs along a continuum. This ranges first from what my colleague Nancy Willard calls “stupid teen” behavior – which is just part of adolescent courtship rituals and relationships in a time where cell phones, texting, and Picture Mail are practically ubiquitous. Most cases of sexting seem to fall under this category. Then we have problematic boyfriend/girlfriend relationships where there is a measure of abuse or dating violence that takes place. Third, we have sexting that involves intentional exploitation – blackmail, extortion, coercion, deception and trickery. This might, by the way, also be termed “compliant victimization” – which occurs after a period of grooming and the building of trust (forensic pediatrician Dr. Sharon Cooper shared that distinction with me at the Summit). An adult may be involved in these situations as well. Finally, we have what can be termed self-exploitation – which involves youth who brazenly and willingly flaunt and advertise themselves online in a sexual manner. This could range from a youth creating a social networking profile with various sexually suggestive images, videos, or text, to a youth actively prostituting herself in similar environments.

We believe that this can and should be dealt with through multidisciplinary teams that involve law enforcement (school liaison officers, local/state departments, and Internet Crimes Against Children units), child protective services workers and agencies, schools, mental health professionals, medical professionals like pediatricians and nurse practitioners, and social workers. The primary goal of prevention should be addressed through education/awareness efforts to school professionals, other youth-serving professionals, community and after-school organizations, faith-based organizations, NGOs, and of course parents and youth. This multidisciplinary team should be created at the local level, and – if and when done well – it should be shared with, and promoted by, organizations at the state level (such as the Department of Education, Department of Family and Child Services, and similar entities) to the rest of the state. This will then enable other local areas to model their own multidisciplinary team from the initial, pioneering local team. As an eventual consequence, teams will spring up – consisting of a variety of professionals who play a role in stemming the tide of sexting – all around a state, each uniquely positioned and equipped to combat the problem.

Prevention should also occur through formal research of sexting. We need to identify correlative and contributive factors to the problem. We need to empirically determine and assess the range of consequences that befall a victim of sexting. We need to find out – if possible – a demographic and personality profile of those most likely to participate, and whether their background, past, upbringing, and life experiences render them more susceptible than others. Finally, we need formal evaluation studies to uncover best practices in dealing with sexting that can be shared with stakeholders and other constituent organizations.

I was in Naperville, Illinois about two weeks ago for a cyberbullying summit sponsored by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.  The audience was comprised of select stakeholders in education, law enforcement, and technology industry.  The most relevant companies and constituencies were there.  Attorney General Lisa Madigan was on hand to kick the event off with some opening remarks.  Michelle Collins from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) followed with some general comments about cyberbullying and sexting and highlighted some of the efforts of the NCMEC in online safety education and prevention.  Next, I participated in a panel of experts along with Hemanshu Nigam from MySpace, Andrew Chaulk from the Vermont Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force, and Nancy Willard from the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.  We each provided a short introduction to our background and initiatives, then opened it up to the audience for questions and discussion.  As expected, it was a great discussion.

During lunch, Sarah Migas from the Illinois AG’s office described their efforts to educate youth, parents, educators and others about online safety issues.  In the afternoon we all were broken up into smaller groups to discuss in depth a particular scenario.  My group (Go Red Team!) discussed a sexting case from a few months ago.  We brainstormed possible prevention and response solutions and then presented our analysis to the larger group as a whole.  All in all it was a great event.

It is essential to bring all of these players together on a regular basis to develop a coordinated community response to cyberbullying.  Having pretty much everyone at the table really made for some interesting discussions.  The Illinois AG’s office is very much ahead of the curve with respect to these issues.  Stay tuned for more great resources from this group in the future.