overview
schools
workplace
cases
elsewhere
related
Guides:
censorship
security
& infocrime
related
Profiles:
messaging
defamation
stalking
suicide
blogging
|
schools
This page considers bullying, in particular cyber-bullying,
in schools.
It covers -
introduction
The Romantics pictured childhood as a time of innocence
and delight. That vision would be questioned by many who
conceptualise 'bullying' as the thuggery - physical assault,
threat of assault, theft, public and private denigration
- that occurs in the schoolyard or in transit to school
and that involves minors rather than adults.
As with workplace unpleasantness, it is clear that school
bullying has a long history and has indeed been institutionalised
in much of the world through practices such as
- fagging
(one generation serves as servants and playthings for
the next, until that cohort reaches maturity and can
oppress its successors) and
- hazing
(rites of passage that may involve physical pain, even
lasting injury, rather than merely fear and humiliation).
Kids
have been inflicting emotional scars on each other for
a long time. Academic histories of childhood and schooling
demonstrate that they have often inflicted physical scars.
management
Responses to cyberbullying by students have essentially
taken four forms -
- intervention
by schools
- attributing
responsibility to parents/guardians
- advice
about self-help
- litigation
by parents or by victims
intervention
Emphasis on action by schools reflects expectations that
the responsibility of individual teachers, administrators
and institutions extends beyond the classroom and playground.
It has been accompanied by rhetoric such as the UK Schools
Minister's statement that
No
child should suffer the misery of bullying, online or
offline, and we will support schools in tackling it
in cyberspace with the same vigilance as in the playground
Such
support is likely to be less resounding than the statement.
UK cyberbullying guidelines require schools to monitor
"all e-communications on the school site or as part
of school activities off-site", update anti-bullying
policies and teach "e-etiquette".
Critics have noted that although schools have some scope
for restricting harassment on school premises (eg by monitoring
signs of pupil unhappiness, prohibiting use of mobile
phones and IM, blocking school access to social
software and blog
sites) they should not be expected to act as replacement
parents in dealing with communication outside school hours.
Consultation with parents may be effective but institutions
cannot directly identify and address what takes place
in a student's home, in a cybercafe
or another venue. In practice it is easier for schools
to discipline (even expel) their own pupils; much harder
to deal with bullies in another institution or in the
workforce.
parental responsibility
A second response is to emphasise the responsibility of
parents and guardians.
Some jurisdictions have foreshadowed that they will move
beyond exhortation to legislation, with proposals in the
UK for example to impose fines of up to £1,000 on
parents of persistent school bullies who fail to tackle
that behaviour and orders for compulsory parenting classes.
self-help
Governments and school authorities have also advocated
self-help, including suggestions that victims -
- change
phone numbers
- change
email addresses and IM names
- do
not reply to SMS, email and other messages
- do
not go online and thus do not encounter digital nastiness.
Critics
of such advice have noted that for many victims it is
a practical and effective solution, akin to advice to
adults "don't feed the troll".
They have, however, commented that adoption of the advice
requires discipline and savvy on the part of the victim
and that individual's associates (eg there is little point
changing a number if it is disclosed to an erstwhile friend
who then shares it with the mob). It also denies the child
access that is enjoyed by his/her peers and has been criticised
as equivalent to saying that victims should imprison themselves
inside rather than venturing outdoors.
litigation
Some observers have called for a muscular response, with
kids, parents or schools taking perpetators to court.
The rationales for litigation are variously to -
- assuage
the victim's (or family's) hurt and sense of powerlessness
- punish
the perpetrator and those, such as parents, who might
be held responsible for the bully's action
- provide
public examples that alert parents, encourage action
by other victims, clarify uncertainties about the responsibility
of schools and education agencies
Proponents
have commented that a basis for litigation may not be
as difficult as is often assumed. Many bullies are not
sufficiently savvy to use throwaway phones, for example,
and the number from which an SMS message was sent can
usually be identified. Some have noted that receiving
a letter from a solicitor or a query from police will
often bring parents (and schools) into line, encouraging
them to take complaints seriously and more closely supervise
the activity of bullies.
If litigation proceeds a court decision in favour of a
victim could be cathartic: some young adults have accordingly
taken action against schools or employers serveral years
after being bullied, seeking apology and acknowledgement
that the institution was derelict in protecting them.
Other victims and families have sought damages as compensation
for pain and for costs associated with medical treatment,
changing numbers, changing schools and so forth.
Critics have noted that there are costs to any legal action
and that victory, or sufficient victory, is uncertain.
The cost of legal representation and expert advice may
be considerable. The landmark case of Walker v Derby County
Council in the UK for example saw Walker ordered to pay
costs estimated at £30,000 in litigation where success
would have provided her with damages of a mere £1,250.
A resolution may not be quick, an issue if people are
seeking to get on with their lives, and litigation (particularly
if defended) is stressful.
Critics have also noted that most litigation appears to
be directed at custodians, rather than perpetrators -
both because schools often have deeper pockets and because
courts are reluctant to punish minors.
Action against schools reflects recognition that institutions
owe pupils a duty of care, with a history of civil action
against schools that breached that duty and thereby were
responsible when bullying resulted in a physical injury.
Liability arises when harm could have been prevented by
the teacher or institution taking all reasonable steps.
It thus does not encompass all bullying, online or otherwise,
as some bullying is not discernable or the institution/individual
has satisfied expectations about what is reasonable in
carrying out responsibilities.
studies
As with workplace bullying there is a vast but uneven
literature, much devoted to the psychology of perpetrators
and victims. Writing about online harassment is often
sensationalist, with an emphasis on anecdote and little
appreciation of legal frameworks or the implications of
proposed technological fixes.
Works of particular interest include Cyber-Dilemmas:
Gendered Hierarchies of Power in a Virtual School Environment
(PDF)
by Shaheen Shariff & Rachel Gouin, Schools, Courts
and the Law : Managing Student Welfare (London: Pearson
2002) by Douglas Stewart & Andrew Knott, David Ford's
1999 'Bullying is a serious issue: It is a crime!' in
4 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Law &
Education 1, Dan Olweus' Bullying at school:
What we know and what we can do (Cambridge: Blackwell
1993), Ken Rigby's 1997 'What children tell us about bullying
in schools' in 22 Children Australia 2, Justin
Patchin & Sameer Hinduja's 2006 'Bullies Move beyond
the Schoolyard: A Preliminary Look at Cyberbullying' in
4 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2, C J
Pascoe's Dude, You're a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality
in High School (Berkeley: University of California
Press 2007) and The nature of school bullying: A cross
national perspective (London: Routledge 1999) edited
by Smith, Morita, Junger-Tas, Olweus, Catalano & Slee.
A useful introduction to the Australian legal regime is
provided by Des Butler & Ben Mathews' Schools
and the Law (Leichhardt: FEderation Press 2007) and
David Fleming's 1998 'Bullying in the Playground: A School's
Liability' in 40 Youth Law Review. Works on psychiatric
injury and other torts are highlighted in the following
page of this note.
For antecedents see the literature on the history of childhood,
including contested works such as Philippe Ariès'
Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family
Life (New York: Knopf 1962), Lloyd De Mause' The
History of Childhood (New York: Psychohistory Press
1974), Edward Shorter's The Making of the Modern Family
(New York: Fontana 1977).
next page (workplace)
|
|
