Blog

I’ve been seeing a lot of “cyberbullying pledges” surfacing in recent months. Obviously, the intention is good – to enlist and rally the support of youth who belong to a school or another organization to end (or at least reduce) the problem of peer harassment. I think that it is important for us to think through the way that we tackle this initiative. Setting up a pledge campaign is fairly uncreative and cost-efficient, which is probably why so many adults think that it is a good idea to demonstrate that “something” is being done in the way of cyberbullying prevention. But what about its utility? We should never implement programming because it is easy to do and we want to check-off an item on our list of efforts made to combat a problem.

Research on “virginity” pledges based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the mid-1990s and on drug/alcohol abstinence in high schools (such as in the DARE program) has shown that those who truly believe in what they are pledging for/against do definitely hold fast to that commitment as time goes on. However, it has also been shown that pledges are useful ONLY in contexts where there are some – but not too many – individuals who pledge. Pledges lose their meaning if everyone is doing it because it ceases to be non-normative. You can’t try to get everyone in a school to pledge to do something, because everyone will generally do so in name only – just to fit in.

Pledging to do something provides adherence to a group identity – and let’s face it, we all want to belong to a group in cultural or counter-cultural ways. To be sure, this notion is exponentially greater for most adolescents in the throes of identity development and exploration. It seems, then, that a teen making a meaningful choice to refrain from engaging in an attractive but wrongful behavior (such as cyberbullying) should do so outside of peer influence and group dynamics which may shape that choice.

My colleague Stan Davis (whose extensive work on bullying and bystanders I greatly respect) has a great idea which works extremely well. He believes that dialoguing about cyberbullying and its impact with students can really help them internalize the harm that is experienced and the negative outcomes that can result, and – more importantly – can help them envision and then realize their potential for the *positive* outcomes that can result. This involves reflecting on the good deeds they have done while interacting online, and the good deeds that others have done online towards them.

He also suggests that young people “write and sign a letter to themselves outlining their own plans for keeping themselves and others safe in the digital world.” The best way to go about this would be to divide it into two parts – “what I will NOT do, and why” and “what I WILL do, and why.” One of Stan’s friends also recommended that these letters should not be read by adults (and the young people should know that the letters will not be read) because “When it is known that adults will read the letters, young people are likely to write what they think adults want to hear rather than what they really plan to do.” Based on experience, this has been proven true. Stan then proposes that the sealed letters are returned to the teens in the near future to “reinforce the resolve they made.”

Let us know your thoughts about pledges and their value – and if you know of any other research on the topic. Also, let us know if you give Stan’s idea a try with the teens you supervise and care for.

In a recent post, I fleshed out what we believe should be in a comprehensive sexting policy. I wanted to also mention that it is very important that schools take note and knowledge of students’ due process rights, and ensure that their response action plans do not overstep those personal rights. Here’s what I suggest as it relates to the policy implementation process.

For starters, the administration will have to clearly identify how the policy in place acknowledges and involves the possibility of sexting and the various issues that are implicated – the possession and/or use of cell phones, search and seizure issues, disciplinary options, child pornography statutes, and so forth. Once this is complete, the school board will need to obtain feedback from educational technology personnel, law enforcement, and the district’s legal counsel to cover all necessary groundwork, facets, contingencies, and to comply with the law and the student’s civil protections.

For example, a school might implement a cell phone policy that reminds students about administrator rights to confiscate and search through the contents of student-owned devices based on reasonable suspicion that a school rule violation has occurred. This must then be introduced and explained both to students and to parents, which can occur through assemblies and community meetings. We should never assume that just because we write a policy – and send it home in discipline manuals that parents and students both have to sign – that they actually read it.

In addition, schools may hold an in-service workshop – to include the school board, the superintendent, key administrative figureheads, local law enforcement, and school district attorneys – to educate and then discuss different scenarios that might arise and warrant policy application as part of the formal response. All of this will likely cost a lot of time and resources, but it seems essential as part of a proactive approach to the problem. It could save so much more time and resources by helping to prevent or deter a sexting incident, or – at the very least – by imbuing the school’s response with efficiency, speed, and productivity.

Many of you perhaps already saw the brief comments I wrote for the New York Times Opinion Page in the aftermath of Tyler Clementi’s tragic suicide.  They asked me to comment on the extent to which this incident was typical of many cyberbullying cases that end in suicide and whether or not criminal action against the bullies is an appropriate response.  Below are my comments for those of you who hadn’t already seen them.  I also encourage everyone to explore the other perspectives included on the “Room for Debate” page.

Cyberbullying, while similar to traditional harassment, does have a different quality — namely, humiliating rumors and vicious taunts can be viewed by millions online and they can never be removed from the Internet. Cyberbullying laws are useful to the extent that they draw attention to this problem, but it is important that laws are crafted in a way that is informed by research, not singular high profile incidents.

The vast majority of cyberbullying incidents can and should be handled informally: with parents, schools, and others working together to address the problem before it rises to the level of a violation of criminal law.

Certainly, tragic incidents like suicide, thrust cyberbullying (and traditional bullying) into the public discussion. Prosecutors are forced to shoe-horn these incidents into existing statutes, and in some cases this is not done consistently or even appropriately.

It perhaps is not surprising that those incidents that result in significant harm to the target, such as a suicide, are handled more seriously by the criminal justice system. But to some extent this is true in other areas of criminal law. If I drive home from a party after having a few too many drinks, maybe I make it home without being caught. Or maybe I get pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Or, maybe I swerve onto the shoulder and hit a pedestrian. In all cases I was engaged in the same illegal behavior. But the harm that results will, in some cases, become an important determinant of the appropriate punishment.

Many schools are now in a difficult position of having to respond to a mandate to have a cyberbullying policy, without much guidance from the state about the circumstances under which they can (or must) respond.  When folks ask me if I think there needs to be a “cyberbullying law” I basically respond by saying “perhaps – but not the kind of law most legislators would propose.”  I would look for a law to be more “prescriptive” than “proscriptive.”  By that, I mean I would like to see specific guidance from states about *how* and *when* schools can take action in cyberbullying incidents.  Many states have taken the easy way out by simply passing laws saying effectively “schools need to deal with this.”  Not only have they stopped short in terms of providing specific instructions or even a framework from which schools can evaluate their role, but they have not provided any additional resources to address these issues.  Some states are now requiring schools to educate students and staff about cyberbullying or online safety more generally, but have provided no funding to carry out such activities.  Unfunded mandates have become cliché in education, and this is just another example.

Moreover, school administrators are in a precarious position because they see many examples in the media where schools have been sued because they took action against a student when they shouldn’t have or they failed to take action when they were supposed to.  Schools need help determining where the legal line is.

Many states already have existing criminal and civil remedies to deal with cyberbullying.  Extreme cases would fall under criminal harassment or stalking laws or a target could pursue civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or defamation, to name a few.  Bullying (whatever the form) that occurs at school is no doubt already subject to an existing bullying policy.  To be sure, schools should bring their bullying and harassment policies into the 21st Century by explicitly identifying cyberbullying as a proscribed behavior, but they need to move beyond the behaviors that occur on school grounds or those that utilize school-owned resources.  But in order to do this they need guidance from their state legislators and Departments of Education so that they draft a policy and procedure that will be held up in court.  School, technology, and privacy lawyers disagree about what should (or must) be in a policy.  It’s no wonder many educators are simply throwing their hands up.

We really like New Hampshire’s recently passed bullying law, even though like other efforts it demands a lot from schools without a corresponding increase in resources.  This section is key:

“Bullying or cyberbullying shall occur when an action or communication as defined in RSA 193-F:3: … (b) Occurs off of school property or outside of a school-sponsored activity or event, if the conduct interferes with a pupil’s educational opportunities or substantially disrupts the orderly operations of the school or school-sponsored activity or event.”

This puts schools, students, and parents on notice that there are instances when schools can discipline students for their off campus behavior.  It will take many years, though, before we will know if this law can be used as a model.  Schools will need to pass policies based on the law; a school will then need to discipline a bully based on the new policy; then they will need to be sued; then the case will need to be appealed.  Perhaps then the case will get to a significant enough court that it will matter.  Hang on and see how it turns out.  In the meantime, lobby your legislators to pass meaningful, prescriptive laws instead of laws that simply say “cyberbullying is wrong, now YOU do SOMETHING about it.”  It’s election time, so I’m sure your local representative will be all ears…

Sameer and I recently wrote a concise “Student Guide to Personal Publishing” which was published by Jostens (the class ring and yearbook company).  They contacted us looking for information they could provide to students, parents, and educators about being safe and responsible when publishing material both online and off.  While we regularly discuss these issues in our presentations, we didn’t have anything written that could be easily distributed.  Now we do.  Feel free to download the guide and distribute it far and wide.  As always, if you have any comments, thoughts, or feedback, let us know.