Tichota 1
Conner Tichota
Dziadek
Comp. 1302 Sec 207
October 8, 2013
Who’s Bullying Who
The whole ordeal started with one incident of childish name calling; then it escalated to physical assault, cyber stalking and, eventually, suicide. Bullying among adolescence has been a prevalent issue in society for a number of years. Typically, the response of the community was a lackadaisical ‘ it-happens-to-everyone’ attitude towards instances of schoolyard bullies. However, there has been increasing reports of online bullying accompanying the boom of social media. More disturbingly, there have been reports of suicide as seen in such cases as Phoebe Prince and Tyler Clementi. Seeing bullying as a growing problem, the community at large began to take more interest in setting up parameters to prevent such actions from occurring again; hence, a new breed of anti-bully legislation was born. Though a step in the right direction, the various legislative plans have not had the desired effect, creating more problems –such as blurring the lines of students’ civil rights. Although stricter legislation has been created to prevent the harmful effects of bullying, these legislative measures are ineffective, and even detrimental to students’ safety and basic freedoms. By examining in detail four legislative responses to the increasingly hazardous effects of both traditional and cyber bullying, the community’s current actions can be deemed futile and in need of change.
In order to understand were the fallacies of the legislation occur, it is first necessary to define bullying as the contributor to this legislation. Legislators have defined bullying as “any written or verbal expression, or physical act or gesture… intended to cause distress upon one or more students” (Christie 725). Therefore any sort of harassing behaviors exhibited among students –name calling, obscenities, written notes ect. –are considered to be bullying and are subject to scrutiny. Typically these behaviors associated with traditional bullying have been classified by physiologists as a sort of power struggle. According to Christina Samivali, a physiologist affiliated with the University of Turku, bullying “represents” a “display of power”, or is better illustrated as a “hierarchy” (Samivali et. all 443). This provides a possible theory as to why bullying occurs; bullies have insecurities that leave them craving a need for importance, a need for power. This need is satiated by tearing down others and asserting their dominance through typically abusive means. The effects of such abuse can be particularly devastating to a child. Assimilated research over the years shows that “school related problems” (such as failing courses), “depression”, “eating disorders” and even “suicidal thoughts” are all direct results of traditional schoolyard bullying (Stewart 80). With the introduction of cyberbullying, these issues only grew worse with time.
With the explosion of the internet, the different avenues of abuseavailable to bullies multiplied tenfold. The harmful effects of traditional bullying became coupled with this new found extension, only worsening the situation. Cyberbullying has been defined by researchers as a “variant” “medium” in which individuals “deliberately hurt each other” through “confidential” electronic media portals such as “chat rooms”, “blogs”, “texts” and “e-mails” (Jose et.all 302). According to Samivali, cyberbullying is becoming “common due to the … ‘online inhibition’ effect” (Samivali et.all 443). The online inhibition effect illustrates the idea that these technological advances in communication also led to advances in bullying techniques. With the increased factors of anonymity, individuals feel more comfortable expressing themselves and defacing others. These increases in bullying can lead to increased rates of depression and suicide in adolescence. Some researchers argue that “cyber bullying is less emotionally affecting than traditional bullying”; and therefore, is not a top problematic issue among students (Jose et.all 307). However, this argument is invalidated by Samivali’s and other researchers’ experiements that have proven cyberbullying is often committed in conjunction with electronic bullying (Samivali 451). This combination can have “especially devastating” effects, including “increased depression”, due to the lack of a “safe haven” both at home and in school (Samivali 451). These are just a few of the consequences that accompany modern age bullying; having seen the danger that adolescence are facing, many members within the community spoke out to change the dangerous –and growing –trend. One of the quickest and most efficient ways to remedy the situation of bullying was to pass legislation preventing the phenomenon from occurring in the first place.
The anti-bullying legislation passed by various states outlined the basic procedures to curtail bullying, and had a few positive forthcomings from its installment. Each state that has adopted anti-bullying legislation –including Georgia, New Jersey, Arkansas, and Connecticut –have a set procedure for bullying that takes place both on and off campus (Nash 1040). For example, according to Phi Delta Kappa (an education periodical), the majority of state legislations require:“administrators to investigate any… report” of bullying, have an “intervention strategy for staff members”, and “notify the parent” of any child who “commits a verified act of bullying” of the consequences to their actions (Christie 726). The consequences of bullying vary by state legislation. For instance, Georgia requires that any child found “bullying for the third time” be sent to “alternative school” (726). When these types of legislative programs were first put into place, they had positive feedback and effective responses. According to the Brigham Young University Law Review, these laws “[encouraged] staff and students” to “report” and “monitor” bullying, creating a communal force against the violence (Nash 1040). Many supporters and families “[applauded] the strict requirements” the legislation had created, and saw it as a “change for the better” (Nash 1040). However, time would come to tell that the legislation was not as perfect as it first appeared to be; rather, several incidents in the states of Georgia, New Jersey and Maryland tell quite a different story.
The legislation implemented in Georgia’s schools could have been effective, if it had been followed and implemented at all. For example, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution over 1900 cases of bullying were reported to the Atlanta school districts; however only 30 students were “expelled” or “sent to alternative schools…as the law requires” (Davis). This is an alarmingly low rate of students receiving consequences to their actions of bullying. This suggests that school officials in Georgia are not following the guidelines of the law that require them to follow up on reported incidents to determine the severity of the issue. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also confirmed these suspicions. The newspaper ran an article on an elementary age girl from Harrison county Georgia who’s attempt to report being bullied were “dismissed” because they believed the girl to be “exaggerating” (Davis). The girl was removed from her school by her parents to prevent further bullying, and the bully still remains at the school – no reprimand (Davis). Georgia appeared to have one of the strictest legislations against both traditional and cyberbullying alike. However, evidence shows that officials are not taking the laws very seriously for whatever reason; perhaps lack of training, lack of staff and so forth. Regardless of the excuse, the negligence of school officials is continuing to cause students physical and psychological harm. True, the number of students reprimanded from previous years may be up in comparison to before the laws were instated. However, the number of instances of bullying that continue to occur without intervention illustrates the inefficacy of this law.
While the Georgia legislation has been proven to continue to allow students’ physical well-being go by the wayside, the New Jersey legislation has been proven just as ineffective; and, it has allowed students’ civil rights to fall by the wayside. Critics such as law student, Lindsay Nash, argue that the New Jersey anti-bully legislation’s “biggest problem…is the statute’s increase regulation of off-campus speech” that potentially violates the remainder of students’ First Amendment rights (1041). It is relevant to note that students do –by way of previous legal cases –have limited First Amendment rights. For instance, the age-old case of Tinker vs. DeMoines allowed the Supreme Court to rule that a student’s speech (or other forms of self expression) may be limited if it causes “substantial disruption” to “appropriate discipline… of the school” (Nash 1047). Hence, under this ruling, it is legal to monitor and intervene in the matters of bullying. Nash recognizes that this case ruling is the “most widely used standard applied…to online student speech”, such as cyberbullying (qtd. Nash 1047). However, she argues that the “vagueness” of the law makes it too easy to blur the lines of protected free speech (Nash 1047). This creates a debate about the legality of New Jersey’s anti-bully legislation. According to Nash, the Supreme Court has yet to define rules “specifically on off-campus bullying” creating “large discrepancies…as to what constitutes permissible speech regulation” ( 1052,1053). Therefore, students are not being truly protected from bullying at either end of the spectrum. On the one hand, the legislation is threatening to infringe on what little rights the students have left. Similarly, in order to prevent such from happening, the laws are not truly enforced to their fullest extent, rather bully continues and victims are left at the mercy of others. New Jersey, though considered to have the strictest anti-bullying legislation, is just as ineffective –if not more so –than Georgia’s legislation, because of its violation of civil rights.
There is yet another state that has managed to truly violate the protected civil rights of students, more than New Jersey or Georgia has ever done: Maryland. According to Scott Greenfield, a New York City criminal defense lawyer, the state of Maryland and Facebook have teamed up in effort to prevent cyberbullying. Facebook is currently working on a project entitled “the Educator Escalation Channel” that allows school officials in Maryland to access and “object to Facebook users’ content” (Greenfield). It would allow officials the ability to monitor students’ activities and speech, and to “go after speech that is not unlawful…but which they consider hurtful and lacking in “redeeming societal value”” (qtd. Greenfield). The first violation of civil rights comes from the simple fact that this program would invade users’ private security. Secondly, it limits the students’ speech beyond those parameters that have already been set by the Supreme Court, violating their First Amendment rights. In this particular case , Maryland’s attempts to prevent bullying have blatantly crossed a line of security; they are no longer aiding or protecting students, rather censoring them and creating a sense of paranoia among the community. The recent laws created in Maryland –as well as those of New Jersey and Georgia –are just a few examples of how ineffective and detrimental these new forms of legislation are.
Having noted the problems with the individual states’ legislations against bullying, the United States federal government has intervened; however, this solution is potentially just as problematic as the aforementioned laws. In 2012, Jocelyn Samuels –representative of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice –spoke at a summit discussing the need for government intervention. She justified the Justice Department’s intervention as necessary “when harassment occurs” the “Justice Department has authority to take action” (Samuels). The bill proposed by the government is known as the Safe Schools Improvement Act. It is powerful and unique in the respect that it would require all “schools and districts receiving [] funds to adopt codes…preventing bullying”; especially instances that discriminate against “race, color…” and so forth (Casey). Furthermore, the government would pull funding from the schools that failed to implement this legislator properly (Casey). According to the bill’s creator, Senator Bob Casey, this law would “ensure every child receives a quality education” and “build self-confidence” (Focus on the Family). Again, this bill seems promising in theory; however, critics believe that it would have quite an adverse affect- much like the other pieces of legislation have done so far. For instance, educational analyst, Candi Cushman, believes that this legislation is in reality “[inserting] special protection” for diversified and minority groups such as “[homosexuals]” (Cushman). This “federal intrusion” would “undermine parental rights” and conflict with or “violate [families] deepest moral, ideological [and] spiritual beliefs” (Cushman). Essentially, Cushman argues that the federal law would violate the family’s civil right to privacy and their own belief system, because of government sanctioned beliefs filtered into schools. This, again, falls in line with the idea that the majority of anti-bully legislation has become ineffective, because of the community’s inability to agree on a set of parameters to enforce.
The issue of both traditional and cyberbullying have evidently grown severe enough to attract the attention of not only the local communities but the state and federal legislators. Though it is both noble and notable that the community has taken such an interest in protecting the nation’s youth from the harm of bullies, they have, unfortunately, fell victim to the pitfalls of anti-bullying legislation. The concept behind the various legislations was to prevent bullying by involving the school community more and cracking down on the consequences for bullies. Sadly, various states such as Georgia have proven that putting all of the responsibility on the school districts is not effective, overwhelming and a mute point when comes to preventing bullying. Perhaps the more disturbing evidence against these anti-bully legislations is those that affect certain states like New Jersey and Maryland. These laws violate not only the students’ civil rights, but the family’s privacy as well, causing more harm than just the physical or physiological effects that bullying does. It is in these ways that anti-bullying legislation has become more detrimental to students than just bullying alone. This is not to say that anti-bully legislation should be abolish; in fact it should be refined to perform the duties that it describes effectively without dissembling rights. Seeing as this is not yet possible, it is the responsibility of the families to protect students and educate them about the harmful effects of bullying. Until this is possible however, it boils down to one simple point: the current system of anti-bully legislation is not working –in fact it is counter-intuitive –and is in dire need of change.
Bibliography
Casey, Bob. "Focus on the Family Stands Up for Bullying." The Blog. Huffington Post, 8 9 2010. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.
Christie, Kathy."Stateline: Chasing the Bullies Away". The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 86, No. 10 (Jun., 2005): 725-726. JSTOR. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.
Cushman, Candi. "All Kids Should Be Protected from Bullying." The Blog. Huffington Post, 9 9 2010. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.
Davis, Mark. "Law Firmer Against Bullies." Atlanta Journal-Constitution [Atlanta] 21 11 2010, weekend n. pg. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Greenfield, Scott. "Facebook to Maryland Teachers: Whatever You Say." Simple Justice. WordPress, 4 10 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Jose, P. E., Kljakovic, M., Scheib, E. and Notter, O. "The Joint Development of Traditional Bullying and Victimization with Cyber Bullying and Victimization in Adolescence". Journal of Research on Adolescence (2012)22:301–309. Wiley Online Library. Database. 4 Oct. 2013.
Nash, Lindsay. "New Jersey's Anti-Bullying Fix: A Solution Or The Creation Of An Even Greater First Amendment Problem?." Brigham Young University Law Review 2012.3 (2012): 1039-1070. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.
Salmivalli, Christina, Sainio, Miia and Hodges, Ernest. "Electronic Victimization: Correlates, Antecedents and Consequences Among Elementary and Middle School Students". Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. Vol. 42, Iss. 4 (2013): 442-453.Taylor & Francis Online. Database. 4 Oct. 2013.
Samuels, Jocelyn. "Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Jocelyn Samuels Speaks Before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights." U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. United States Department of Justice. Washington D.C.. 13 05 2011. Speech.