 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Home > Technology Channel > Technology Archives > Education World Columnists > Nancy Willard > Nancy Willard Article |
||||
| EDUCATION WORLD COLUMNISTS | ||||
|
|
Young people, the vast majority of whom generally are making safe choices online (but who also might make a mistake or get into a risky situation), perceive that adults are so fearful about Internet issues, it’s unsafe to communicate with them about any online concerns. And yet, it’s essential that we adults -- "Digital Immigrants" -- gain a better understanding of the risks our young "Digital Natives" are facing.
It is necessary to understand that the vast majority of young people who are sexually abused are abused by someone in their own family or community. It is probable that those local abusers now also are using the Internet and other technologies to groom and maintain control over those young people. For example, a teacher in my community was just arrested for sexual abuse of some students -- and he was communicating with his victims electronically.
With respect to the concerns presented by online sexual predators, some significant misperceptions must be addressed so we can get to the point of providing accurate guidance to address the real concerns.
Adult predators abound.
Let’s start with the statement "One in five youth have been sexually solicited online." (More recently, the statistic has been changed to "one in seven.") When people hear that statement, they assume that the "solicitation" has been made by a dangerous adult predator. That isn’t what the studies revealed, however.
The figures above come from two studies, conducted by the Crimes Against Children Research Center: Online Victimization: A Report on the Nation’s Youth and Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later. In those studies, teens were asked to report on "any situation where someone on the Internet attempted to get them to talk about sex when they did not want to or asked them unwanted sexual questions about themselves." Now, you tell me how often that happens in middle and high schools every day.
Sure enough, in the first study, 48 percent of the "sexual solicitors" were thought to be other teens, 20 percent were thought to between 18 and 25, and 4 percent were thought to be older than 25, the remainder were unknown. In the second study, 43 percent were thought to be other teens, 30 percent were thought to be between 18 and 25, and 9 percent were thought to be over 25. Only 4 percent were adults over 25. Of course, the identified age is speculative because many people, teens and adults, lie about their age. More significantly, 75 percent of the young people in the first study and 66 percent in the second study indicated they were not upset or afraid.
Now hidden within that data are incidents that present significant concerns. Questions we must ask include: What behavior was actually measured? How does that behavior relate to predatory grooming by adults? Did the study provide evidence of predation or was the behavior primarily sexual harassment/ propositioning? And most significantly, how can we effectively prepare young people to avoid placing themselves in positions of possible risk online, detect when they are at risk, and respond effectively?
The child is always the victim.
The following statement is from the FBI document A Parent’s Guide to Internet Safety. "Understand, even if your child was a willing participant in any form of sexual exploitation, that he/she is not at fault and is the victim. The offender always bears the complete responsibility for his or her actions."
Legally, that is accurate, but it’s also necessary to recognize that some teens are engaging in behavior that appears to be intentional and directed at arranging sexual "hook-ups" with others. Take the example of Christina Long, a 13-year old girl who accidentally was killed while having sex with a man she met online. (H. A. Valetk, "Teens and the Internet: Disturbing ‘Camgirl’ Sites Deserve a Closer Look," Findlaw Legal News and Commentary, January 23, 2003.). Reportedly, Christina was using the Internet to make arrangements to meet men for sex. Her user name was "2hot2handle" and her Web site with provocative pictures was entitled "Sexy me for you to see." Note also, that all the situations reported on Dateline’s To Catch a Predator involve arrangements for "hook-ups" with an apparently willing teen.
The adults who engage in this activity clearly are taking advantage of the young people and committing a crime. But to develop effective intervention strategies, it is necessary to recognize that, for some teens, engaging with online sexual predators is an intentional activity.
Online predators deceive teens about their intentions or use personal contact information to track victims and abduct them.
Internet-Initiated Sex Crimes Against Minors: Implications for Prevention Based on Findings from a National Study, another study by the Crimes Against Children Research Center of actual arrests where teens met in person with an online sexual predator, found that deception about sexual motivations was rare.
The offenders openly sexually solicited the victims. The victims knew they were interacting with men who were interested in them sexually. The victims went willingly with the offender and most met with the offender more than once. After the arrest, half the victims described themselves as in love with, or good friends with, the offender. Unfortunately, they did not ask further about the other half, who presumably met to have sex with men they were not good friends with.
(The victims, by the way, were between the ages of 13 and 15; 75 percent were girls, 25 percent were boys. That does not mean that 16 year olds are not meeting with online predators, but if they meet willingly, there is no crime. It is important to note that predators do not appear to be targeting children. Young men who are exploring sexual orientation questions likely are more at risk.)
We can teach teens about online sexual predators without using the word "sex" or discussing risky sexual encounters.
Two leading Internet safety education programs for middle school students, NetSmartz and I-Safe do not use the word "sex;" do not discuss the sexual intentions of predators; do not address why these sexual relationships are risky. Why? Apparently because middle school students should not know anything about sex. (!)
The common guidance provided to teens about Internet concerns is, "Tell a trusted adult if you come across any information or anyone sends you a message that makes you feel scared or uncomfortable." My question is, if adults are too uncomfortable to talk about risky sex with teens, then how do we expect teens to be comfortable reporting to adults that they have received an unacceptable sexual message or that a person they are communicating with online has engaged them in discussions about sex?
In an earlier article, I discussed the issues related to online stranger literacy. A proactive strategy for addressing the very real concerns of online sexual predation is grounded in effective stranger literacy skills. But teens also must know how to prevent themselves from getting into risky situations, detect when someone unsafe is communicating with them, and respond effectively.
Unfortunately, those teens who intentionally seek out those types of online relationships are not likely to listen to important safety messages. To address that concern, we need to educate the counselors and others who are working with youth at risk -- and encourage savvy teens to report to a trusted adult if they know that another teen is making bad choices online.
My new book, Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Learn to Use the Internet Safely and Responsibly, has just been published. I have a new Web site for the book. The URL is http://cyber-safe-kids.com. On that Web site are free, reproducible booklets -- one for parents and one for teens. In addition to guidance about stranger literacy, I provide the following guidance about online sexual predators.
Don’t Hook-Up With Online Losers/Online Sexual Predators
Online sexual predators are older people, generally men, who are using the Internet to form relationships with teens that will ultimately result in sexual activity. Online sexual predators also might try to get teens to send them sexually explicit images.
Recognize Predator Techniques
Online predators use techniques called "grooming" to manipulate and seduce teens. They look for teens who are vulnerable or who show signs they are interested in, or have questions about, sex. They are very friendly, offer many compliments, and might offer gifts or opportunities. They will try to become a teen’s best online secret "friend" and might interfere with a teen’s relationships with others. When they have established trust, they will start to talk about sexual issues. They want teens to think of them as a "sexual mentor." Some teens are embarrassed to report those interactions because the predator has manipulated them into talking about or engaging in sexual activities. Teens must understand that predators are master manipulators.
Don’t Attract Online Losers
Don’t do things online that could attract a predator. Don’t post sexually provocative images, join online groups to discuss sex, share intimate personal information, or share information that makes you appear vulnerable.
What You Must Know
Friends don’t let friends hook-up with online losers! If you think a friend has become involved with an online predator, encourage your friend to terminate contact and report it. If your friend is not willing to report it, tell a trusted adult yourself.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Education World.
|
Education World®
Copyright © 2006 Education World
04/24/2007
Home > Technology Channel > Technology Archives > Education World Columnists > Nancy Willard > Nancy Willard Article
Cyber Savvy:Without a doubt, the youth online concern that’s most impacting schools is cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is being cruel to others by sending or posting harmful material or by engaging in other forms of social aggression using the Internet or other digital technologies.
Cyberbullying includes activities that have real-world equivalents, such as fights, direct harassment, indirect denigration, and exclusion. Cyberbullying also includes “creative" electronic variations exclusive to technology, such as using technology to impersonate someone for the purpose of damaging that person’s reputation or friendships, and making private electronic communications public. In addition, digital imaging technologies provide the ability to capture and disseminate embarrassing images, including locker room shots and fights, as well as the ability to create embarrassing images, such as placing a girl’s head onto a nude image.
It’s possible that harm caused by cyberbullying might be greater than harm caused by traditional bullying. Online communications can be extremely vicious. There is no escape for those who are being cyberbullied -- victimization can be ongoing, 24/7. Cyberbullying material can be distributed worldwide and is often irretrievable. Cyberbullies can be anonymous and can solicit the involvement of unknown allies. Teens might be reluctant to tell adults what is happening online or through their cell phones because they are emotionally traumatized, think it’s their fault, fear greater retribution, or fear their own online activities or cell phone use will be restricted.
Cyberbullying frequently is related to in-school bullying. Sometimes, the student who is victimized at school also is being bullied online. Other times, the person who is victimized at school becomes a cyberbully, retaliating online. When school officials respond to a report of cyberbullying, it’s exceptionally important to take the time to fully investigate the situation -- through an analysis of online, as well as real-world interactions. Students should be held accountable for harmful material posted online, but punishing the student who is being victimized at school for responding to the victimization online only will increase the potential for harm.
It is necessary to consider the ability, authority, and responsibility of school officials when it comes to prevention of, and intervention in, cyberbullying in the locations where school related cyberbullying occurs.
School officials must be mindful of three locations where cyberbullying can occur, in which different aspects of ability, authority, and responsibility are relevant. Those three locations are: on the district Internet, on personal digital devices at school, and on the Internet off campus.
Using the District Internet
Students can engage in cyberbullying while using the district Internet system. That might occur in school during the school day, in school during after school activities, or off-campus using a school-owned laptop. If a student can send an electronic message using the district Internet system, students can engage in cyberbullying. Many students know how to bypass the district Internet filter to get to places like MySpace or to get to their own Web mail account.
School officials have the authority to impose formal discipline in response to cyberbullying by students who are using the district Internet system. That authority extends to all those times when students are using the district Internet system.
School officials have the ability to supervise and monitor the district Internet system. That includes technical monitoring, which I strongly recommend.
School officials have the responsibility to ensure that student use of the district Internet system does not inflict harm on other students, and must take reasonable precautions to ensure that that does not occur. Reasonable precautions would include specific policy provisions against such misuse, effective supervision and monitoring, encouraging students to report misuse, and effective intervention when such reports are made.
Using Personal Digital Devices at School
Students also can engage in cyberbullying at school while using personal digital devices, including cell phones, PDAs, digital cameras, or personal laptops. School officials have the authority to impose formal discipline in cases of cyberbullying that occur at school and during school hours while using personal digital devices.
School officials do not have as much ability to engage in effective supervision and monitoring of student use of those devices because the telecommunications are occurring outside the district’s Internet system (thus officials have no ability to technically monitor these transmissions). Therefore, the degree to which school officials can be held responsible is different than when students are using the district Internet system.
School officials still would bear responsibility for harm caused by students using personal digital devices at school, however it is likely that the question of the reasonableness of the prevention efforts would be assessed differently, given the inability of school officials to specifically monitor those transmissions. Reasonable precautions likely include policies prohibiting cyberbullying, policies regarding when and where personal digital devices can be used, in-place reporting systems, and effective intervention.
Another issue of importance is related to the review of electronic records of personal electronic devices. Under wiretapping laws, consent must be provided before anyone can monitor or review telephonic communications. Minors are not able to give legal consent. In most instances related to cyberbullying, school officials can obtain consent to review personal digital communications from the parents of a child receiving cyberbullying messages. School districts might want to consider using an implied consent policy approach to allow for greater review. (More guidance on that issue will be posted on my Web site this summer.)
Cyberbullying Off Campus
The majority of cyberbullying occurs outside school. School officials might wish to ignore the off-campus activities, but that really isn’t possible or advisable. If the cyberbullying participants also are together in school, off-campus activity can impact significantly the school climate, interfere with the ability of students to be successful in school, and even lead to school violence.
Cyberbullying that occurs off campus frequently involves minor disputes that the students themselves or their parents can and should resolve. Education of students and parents about how to prevent and resolve such incidents can be very helpful. Clearly, school officials have the ability to provide such education -- and should.
Other cyberbullying incidents cause more significant harm. The legal standard that U.S. courts have applied regarding when school officials have the authority to respond to off-campus online incidents is the Tinker standard.
Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In Killion v. Franklin Reg. Sch. Dist., 136 F. Supp. 2d 446 (W.D. Pa. 2001) the court found that the student’s off-campus online speech did not cause a substantial disruption at school. In J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412 (Pa. Commw. 2000), the court found that the student’s off-campus speech did cause a substantial disruption.
School officials may impose formal discipline when the off-campus online speech has caused or threatens to cause substantial disruption on campus or interference with the rights of students to be secure.
In a number of states, including Washington and Oregon, it appears that the ACLU is attempting to use the creation of state statutes addressing cyberbullying as a way to prevent school officials from responding to anycyberbullying that has occurred off campus. To prevent school violence, school officials must be diligent in ensuring that they retain the authority to respond to off-campus online speech that has created or threatens to create a substantial disruption or interference with student security. Contact me for assistance!
This is an example of an incident that occurred in North Eugene High School: Three students, two Caucasian and one African American were involved in a dispute at school. The principal thought he had resolved the dispute. Shortly after, the Caucasian students created a highly racist profile on MySpace, with cartoons of lynching and racist language. Other students at the high school started to join the site as “friends." The African-American student found out and told the Black Student Association, and, fortunately, the principal. The principal investigated fully to ensure he had accurately identified the students who created the site and he suspended them.
Did this incident meet the Tinker standard? Quite clearly. The incident presented a situation that threatened to cause substantial disruption on campus and also was clearly creating a hostile environment that impaired the rights of students to be secure. Because the principal had the authority to respond, a very important message about respect was delivered and the potential for disruption was addressed.
If there are ever questions about whether the Tinker standard has been met, school officials still have the ability to respond informally. I advise that they do so; if students or parents have contacted the school, that is a clear indication that they do not know how to resolve the incident on their own and require assistance. It is preferable, in my opinion, to intervene informally early, rather than wait until the situation has risen to the level of meeting the Tinker standard.
Furthermore, under standards of parental negligence, it is far easier to hold a parent liable for harmful acts of their child if the parent has actual notice. The informal resolution efforts of a school official certainly would provide that actual notice. Informing parents of their potential liability can act as a significant “motivator" for proactive intervention. The Parent’s Guide to Cyberbullying on my site outlines that issue and can be provided to parents by school officials.
The Tinker standard also represents the outside boundary for authority and responsibility. If the off-campus online speech does not cause or threaten substantial disruption or interference, school officials do not have the authority to respond formally and, therefore, do not have the responsibility to respond. It is likely that they do have the responsibility to respond if they are informed about the presence of such activities and make the assessment that a substantial disruption or interference has been caused or is likely to be caused.
Cyberbullying is a new concern that clearly impacts school safety. Frequently, school personnel responsible for student safety do not have a sophisticated understanding of technology, and education-technology personnel do not have a sophisticated understanding of school safety issues. A merger is necessary. My book, Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress, provides guidance on the development of a comprehensive approach to address cyberbullying and effective strategies to review and respond to specific incidents.
|
Education World®
Copyright © 2006 Education World
05/22/2007
|
| ||
|
||
|
|
Copyright 1996-2008 by Education World, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Home | About Us | Reprint Rights | Help | Site Guide | Fellows | Contact Us | Privacy Policy |
Nancy E. Willard, M.S., J.D. is a former educator and attorney who has focused on youth online risk issues for more than a decade. She is director of the 
