LEGAL ISSUES
cyber- and in-person bullying. Local school board policies supplement these state statutes and regulations. The HSS’s 2018 analysis of state laws and policies—highlighting the key components and definitions of “cyberbullying” in single or multiple enactments—identified examples of prohibited behaviors but did not point out specific penalties, which are imposed at the discretion of local boards. Moreover, some states direct boards to develop cyberbullying and in-person prevention programs for students, as well as mandating pro- fessional development for staff.
Litigation
Courts generally, but not always, uphold the actions of school officials who discipline students for cyberbul- lying. For example, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that educators in Nevada did not violate the rights of a student they suspended and then expelled for sending peers threatening instant messages from home about his plans to conduct a shooting at his high school (Wynar v. Douglas County School District 2013). The court agreed that the student had been sufficiently warned that his behavior could subject him to disciplinary sanctions.
A federal trial court in New Jersey denied a student’s motion for summary judgment after he was suspended for making inappropri- ate comments about classmates in out-of-school social media posts (Dunkley v. Board of Education of the Greater Egg Harbor Regional High School District 2016). The court observed that because the student’s speech was exactly what state law sought to prohibit, he lacked a basis on which to challenge his suspension. Later, an appellate court in Illinois upheld a student’s five-day suspension and conviction for disorderly conduct for post- ing a threat on Facebook because there was adequate proof that he expressed his intent to bring a gun to
school and shoot someone (People v. Khan 2018).
Conversely, an appellate court in Pennsylvania affirmed that school officials violated a high school student’s due process rights upon expelling him for making terroristic threats and cyberbullying a class- mate. Officials expelled the student for posting what they deemed a threatening meme on Snapchat; the court described it as a photo or video image with a caption superimposed on the image by the student (J.S. v. Manheim Township School District 2020).
The court ruled that the school board violated the student’s rights because neither he nor his parents could cross-examine the student’s accuser at his expulsion proceed- ing, and the school board lacked sufficient proof that the student engaged in terroristic threats or violated the district’s anti-bullying policy. Because school officials have appealed this decision, it remains to be seen whether the student ulti- mately prevails (J.S. v. Manheim Township School District 2021).
Policy Recommendations
Well-crafted anti-cyberbullying poli- cies should help maintain schools as safe learning environments and remind educators and parents of the need to keep students safe online. Because cyberbullying is on the rise in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, education leaders may wish to keep the following points in mind when writing and revising their policies. 1. Education leaders should cre- ate policy writing and revising teams that include, at minimum, the school business official, a building-level administrator, a school board member, the school board attorney, a teacher, a school counselor, a school resource officer, parents, and perhaps an upper-level high school student.
42 JULY/AUGUST 2021 | SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS
Policies should focus on help- ing students understand the harmful effects cyberbullying can have on their lives and those of their friends and families.
2. Policies should require students and their parents to sign forms agreeing to abide by district cyberbullying policies, regard- less of whether they use school technology or their own devices in school. Policies should state that students may be denied access to district networks or use of their own technology at school if they refuse to comply with district policies. Policies should state that student-owned devices such as smartphones and tablets may be subject to checks for compliance with board cyberbullying poli- cies if educators have sufficient cause to do so. As important as privacy is, educators must bal- ance their duty to make sure that technology use does not violate board policies with the reasonable expectations that students are free to express themselves as they wish.
3. Policies should prohibit all forms of cyberbullying related to personal characteristics and physical appearances, including race, ethnicity, national origin, dress, size, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation (actual or perceived), acceptance by others, and family socioeco- nomic status.
Policies should be included in student and faculty handbooks, along with clear definitions and examples of cyberbully- ing. Because of the evolving nature of technology, policies should include such language as “includes but is not limited to,” which acknowledges that school boards are doing what they can to be up-to-date but recognize that new trends are constantly emerging.
asbointl.org
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
