Cyberbullying
According to
Bynum’s (2015) article, Computer and
Information Ethics, that refers to a kind of professional ethics in which
computer professionals apply codes of ethics and standards of good practices
within their profession. However, does
this apply children especially if their intentions go awry and they decide to
use technology to degrade and bully other students? This is the case with cyberbullying that
shares some basic elements with traditional bullying in that it is about relationships,
power, and control where bullies attempt to establish illegitimate power and
control over their victims according to, Erb (2006). The thing that sets cyberbullying apart from
traditional bullying, more than just the use of technology, is the anonymity of
the person or persons posting the comment(s) and the much larger audience that
can see the posting or message. In
addition, the cyberbullying can take place 24/7 and it is outside the legal
realm of schools (when done outside school grounds), yet, can impair student
academic performance.
Cyberbullying
can take the form in the following 7 ways as suggested by Willard (2005);
Other such virtual venues can be created such as
voting or polling booths where webpages can be created and students can vote
for the “ugliest” ,” “fattest,” or “dumbest” boy and girl in the school, having
devastating consequences on the hapless students that are included in the
contest. Equally disturbing is the fact
that each example of the cyberbullying presented can take place under adult
supervision without them even knowing.
Although Keith and Martin (2005) suggest that it is the responsibility
of parents to monitor their children’s computer use, they admit that this can
be tricky. Acknowledging that adults
often use technology as practical tools, their children may view it as more of
a way to communicate with peer groups.
With the various modes of communication, a child can be completing
homework on one screen and switch to another and engage in bullying activities
without the parents even knowing, or on a different electronic device.
Next, is a
brief look from statistical information collected from Hinduja and Patchin
(2015) depicting the different forms of cyberbullying that takes place in one middle
school in the Midwest. Not only does the
bar graph show the percentage of the kids that have suffered from
cyberbullying, but even more surprising, was the different forms of bullying that
took place online from “hateful” comments to impersonating another to inflict
humiliation.
Because of the increased access to technology and the
understanding that students can remain anonymous, things that many would not
say face-to-face can now be communicated without being identified, increasing
the amount of bullying that takes place at school can now follow student’s home
around the clock.
So, with the complexion
of school bullying changing due to technological advances, a student can now be
bullied around the clock. Therefore,
schools have instituted student education programs, developed anti-bullying
school board policies (both infraction and discipline), provided parent
education, established relationship with local police departments, encouraged
students to report cyberbullying, and all this must be done while walking a
tightrope to protect students affected by cyberbullying without trampling on
the free speech rights of bullies (Beale & Hall, 2007). In addition, many states have been forced to
adopt anti-bullying laws when the results of the bullying leads to much more
serious results. For example, in
Massachusetts the suicide of 15-year old Phoebe Prince after months of bullying
from schoolmates prompted swift reform of the Massachusetts bullying law (Kueny
& Zirkel, 2012). The paradigm then
that exists is what can schools do? What
should states do? The reality is that
anti-bullying laws have increased in recent years, however, they generally lack
sanctions or incentives, thus leaving implementation and enforcement in
question. Only four states-Deleware,
Florida, Georgia, and Utah-specify possible consequences (Kueny & Zirkel,
2012). As an educator I see the reality
of cyberbullying outside the grasp of school personnel and outside the realm of
parents unless they are monitoring their child’s activities on a screen
24/7. Furthermore, the ability to track
the instigator or bully will continue to be a challenge, putting further strain
on a school that has the immediate challenge of educating kids, let alone dealing
with bullying on their own campuses.
References
Beale, A. V.,
& Hall, K. R. (2007). Cyberbullying: what school administrators
(and parents) can do. The Clearing House, 81(1), 8-12.
Erb, T. (2006). Cyberbullying: A growth threat to
young adolescent well-being. Middle School
Journal, 21-22.
Hinduja, S.,
& Patchin, J. W. (2015, February). Cyberbullying victimaization.
Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/2015-data/
Keith, S.,
& Martin, M. E. (2005). Cyber-bullying: creating a culture of
respect in a cyber world. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(4),
224-228.
Kueny, M. T.,
& Zirkel, P. A. (2012). An analysis of school anti-bullying laws
in the United States. Middle School Journal, 43(4), 22-31.
Willard, N.
(2005). An educator's guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Retrieved from http://csriu.org/cyberbullying/pdf
