|
Arizona Needs A
Cyber-Bullying Law
Arizona schools and the Arizona legislature
understand that bullying in school is a serious problem that can’t be
dismissed as “boys being boys” and just “kid stuff.” Bullying is
violent behavior that damages bullies and victims alike. Students who
are the victims of bullying have difficulty concentrating in school, are
absent more often than the average student, and suffer lower grades.
Every day in the United States approximately 160,000 students in public
schools skip school on account of bullying. And the students who engage
in bullying behavior are more likely to use illegal drugs and alcohol,
more likely to find themselves in aggressive relationships and more
likely to wind up in prison. That is why Arizona, like most states,
woke up and passed
a law requiring schools to do something about bullying.
Unfortunately, the law doesn’t go far enough.
Neither, for that matter, does the Arizona School Board Association,
which includes bullying prevention language in its suggested policies
for local school districts. The language of the statute and the
recommended policies were drafted like it’s 1999. Did anybody hear
about “MySpace” in 1999?
I once referred to the Internet as “the planet’s
id.” The id, for those not familiar with Freudian theory, is
defined as, “the source of instinctual impulses such as sex and
aggression as well as primitive needs that exist at birth. It is
entirely nonrational and functions according to the pleasure-pain
principle, seeking immediate fulfillment of its impulses whenever
possible.” The Internet, with the wonders of connectivity and the
resources it makes available, has dark and infamous channels where
sexual predation, corruption, and violence reach out through email,
websites, pop-up ads, text messaging, and chat rooms. Explore those
channels and you will find children there.
Much of what children do online is what I refer to
as “cyber-mischief.” They are just trying to have fun, and frequently
don’t realize the impact of their messages. They are caught up in their
“instinctual impulses” and hide behind the mask of the Internet,
thinking there is safety and protection in the fact that, after all,
it’s only words and pictures. It’s not like they struck, stabbed, or
shot somebody. If they make fun of other students in school, or a
teacher or administrator, what’s the harm?
Besides, they’re not misbehaving in school. Most
students who use the Internet to, for example, create web pages that
ridicule, defame, or threaten teachers and administrators or other
students are using their home computers. They build a web page, upload
it to a server, and there is no contact with the school. No problem,
right?
Not necessarily. In Pennsylvania recently, a
student built a web page that showed one of his teachers morphing into
Hitler. He showed her severed head in a pool of blood. He suggested
that he would like to hire a “hit man” to kill her. It was basically
profane juvenile braggadocio, just blowing off steam, a form of pleasure
fulfillment. Unfortunately for the student and his parents, the teacher
suffered a breakdown, took a leave of absence and filed a lawsuit. A
jury awarded her half a million dollars in damages.
Most cases go the other way. In another case, also
out of Pennsylvania, a student posted hostile and profane “rap” lyrics
on a website. The school imposed discipline and suspended him. Since
he had created the web page at home and there was no connection with the
school, he and his parents sued the school district, alleging a
violation of his First Amendment rights. The legal process ended when
the school district voluntarily paid $90,000 to settle the case.
Here is the difference between the two cases: in
the first case, the court found that there was a substantial disruption
of the educational process, because the teacher took a leave of absence
and the district had to replace her with a substitute teacher. In the
second case, the district was not able to prove substantial disruption.
Litigation over hostile websites and other forms of
cyber-mischief is becoming more common. School administrators are not
sure what to do when they encounter cyber-mischief that does not have a
direct connection to the school. If they discipline a student over the
content of a web page created by the student at home and uploaded to a
remote Internet server, they might be overreaching and violating the
student’s First Amendment rights. If they do nothing, they might face
disruption at school and erosion of discipline.
That is why the legislature has to step in.
Arizona needs a cyber-bullying law requiring public schools to adopt a
cyber-bullying prevention policy that:
·
Specifies what kinds of cyber-mischief violate the policy.
·
Requires that students be instructed in the proper use of
the Internet.
·
Requires that schools create a contract for the use of
school computers and access to the Internet.
·
Includes language that defines what constitutes
“substantial disruption” of the educational environment.
·
Includes a disclaimer for parents that, even if the
misbehavior is beyond the reach of school discipline policies, the
school has the right to enforce terms of service agreements for web
sites and cell phone companies.
·
Requires that, even if there is no basis for a suspension,
expulsion, or removal to another placement, the parents will be placed
on notice about the offensive Internet behavior of their child and asked
to take remedial action.
The legislature is designed to articulate public
policy, not the courts. When the legislature leaves a policy vacuum,
the courts rush to fill it. What often results is a tangle of
inconsistent judicial opinions that provides more confusion than
direction. That is the case with cyber-bullying, where school
administrators are not sure how to impose discipline without triggering
a lawsuit, and parents feel that the administrators are encroaching on
their role.
This is not necessary. Arizona needs a law against
cyber-bullying. Now.
© April 5, 2007
by Mike Tully |
