1 Fauv Liggans-Hubbard Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric 11-15-13 Research Paper Social Media Monitoring: Right or Wrong?

As the times have brought us to a somewhat digital age school administrations have begun to monitor the social networking sites of students. However, some do not do the dirty work themselves but hire outside companies to do it for them. Students have become outraged at the thought of being watched in an atmosphere where they feel they should have absolute freedom. Even some parents do not understand why their child should be analyzed for behavior apart from school premises. Though this brings forth many ethical questions, social media monitoring by schools is for the betterment of the institution and the betterment of the childs growth in that institutions environment. By monitoring the social networking sites of students, educators are able to ensure their institution is being accurately represented, hold students up to their technological responsibilities, and halt instances of cyberbullying, a growing lender to the nations teen suicide count. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State provides an online guide for students to know their rights and responsibilities when it comes to using technology. It states that even though freedom of expression is available to everyone on a constitutional level there are limits to it. These limits include true threats, defamatory statements, and obscene language. A true threat is speech that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of your

2 desire and ability to harm him/her (ACLUWS). This concept reigns true at all times including on and off school premises and whether someone is in person or not. The right to free speech also does not protect false personal attacks against another person that are untrue, that harm someone's reputation, and that you knew, or should have known, were untrue when you said or wrote it, which refers to defamatory statements (ACLUWS). Lastly obscene speech is defined as speech that deals with sex in a manner appealing to purely lustful interests in a patently offensive manner, and without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (ACLUWS). If one is in violation of any of these limits, freedom of speech does not apply. The school board and even the actual police can reprimand them if the victim in the situation presses charges or if they see fit. Through social media monitoring, school administrations would ensure that students enrolled in their institutions uphold limits like these. But what happens when students claim they were just joking? Authorities are sensitive to claims of violence and provocativeness and therefore any statements made about them will not be taken lightly. The way the difference between a joke and a true threat is determined goes back to its definition. A reasonable person must find the statement to express ones desire to actually hurt someone. In order to avoid some of these mishaps and confusion if they do occur some schools have their students sign technology policies that outline the rules and regulations that the student is expected to uphold if they wish to continue receiving an education from there. However, these policies must be reasonable and have educational purposes (ACLUWS). School officials have a responsibility to ensure that the school is a welcoming place for all students. Bullying, in-person or through electronic means, is a form of aggression that

3 can cause fear, shame, or worse, and interferes with another student's right to receive an education. A school's anti-bullying policy must be written carefully so that it does not punish opinions or beliefs in and of themselves, but instead punishes impermissible conduct (ACLUWS). This statement provided by the ACLUWS says a lot in regards to social media monitoring. As of now, school administrations are treading shaky ground when monitoring students social networking sites but if they were given more freedom and rights to do so theyd be able to carry out their responsibilities listed in the previous statement. If the school is able to stop and reprimand bullying carried out on campus what is the purpose if the same child is being bullied online by classmates later on and therefore does not want to return to school the next day. In order for educators to provide a safe and welcoming environment for students to learn they must be given domain over the school and virtual zone. The point of social media monitoring is not to be nosey but to help protect students. Glendale, California was victim to a rising number of teen suicides and therefore the school district hired a company called GeoListening to look through the social networking posts made by the students. In order to abide within state and federal laws, GeoListening can only view posts that are made public by the person who posted it. However, the school district claims the work of GeoListening has prevented at least one suicide. The number of schools GeoListening serves is projected to rise to 3,000 by the end of the year. Another company called CompuGuardian has a product that allows schools to see when students search topics like building bombs or anorexia. Catching things like this could mean not only saving that

4 students life but also the lives of many other students and/or people in general. However, sometimes school officials can do nothing about it because they question whether they should or legally can discipline children for their online outbursts. Educators find themselves needing to balance students free speech rights against the dangers children can get into at school and sometimes with the law because of what they say in posts (Sengupta). This is why social media monitoring should be allowed because it is to benefit the students not to pry. Although, if the digital actions of students are being forced under a microscope should not the teachers who are educating them be held to the same standard? A newspaper article written by Ian Shapira analyzes instances where teachers have been chastised and even fired because of things they posted on websites such as YouTube and Facebook. However, school officials say they have no policies concerning social networking pages or blogs kept by teachers. But they said that online improprieties would fall under general guidelines requiring proper behavior in and outside school and that sketchy Web sites would be handled case by case (Shapira). In due fairness, social networking incidents in relation to students are also being handled on a case-by-case basis. But if a system was put into place students and teachers alike would know exactly what would happen if they did certain things. This is the problem, as the statutes on social media monitoring stand there are no specific guidelines. A child could be suspended at one school for posting something while a child at another school who posts the same thing could be expelled. It is all up to the discretion of the person in charge of the school. This is why some people argue against social media monitoring.

5 In order for a school to legally investigate a students social networking site they have to be informed of suspected bullying or potential violence. However, parents are either not aware of this or victims of the bullying are too afraid to speak up. In an article by Kelly Wallace she compares this idea to an ad campaign in Florida from about 15 years ago encouraging students to report any weapons they see on campus. Now, 90% of guns found on school premises in the state are reported by students(Wallace). Therefore, in order to cut instances of cyberbullying, students must be encouraged to report instances where they see someone being bullied online so that the school may get involved. This could also cut down on drug abuse and violence if students were courageous enough to report these instances also. In fifteen years, reporting cyberbullying could be part of the normal routine and in turn the ethics of social media monitoring would not be constantly under scrutiny. According to Agatston, Kowalski, and Limber cyberbullying, also known as electronic bullying or online social cruelty, is defined as bullying through e-mail, instant messaging (IM), in chat room, on a Web site, on an online gaming site, or through digital messages or images sent to a cellular phone (1). That is why it is so hard to check every students online mediums for instances of cyberbullying, violence, and drug abuse because there are so many students and so many mediums through which they can commit these acts. That is why it would be a benefit to social media monitoring if students and parents reported suspected instances. Though many people see the positive side to social media monitoring, such as saving lives, others only focus on the negative. Some feel as though it is the responsibility of the parent to monitor their child digitally by actively participating in the online activities with them and

6 asking questions about what they are posting and who they are interacting with instead of shirking the responsibilities onto the school administration (Patchin). To some extent this is true. There would be no need for educators to monitor social networking sites if parents just did their job in the first place. However, parents either do not care enough to check due to their busy schedule or they are ignorant to the fact that they should be checking. This leads to the inevitable need for allowing school administrations to monitor the sites themselves because they have incentive to stay on top of things. If they continue to stay updated in checking students networks then this will inevitably create a better learning environment for all of the students. According to the Youth Voice Project, a survey of nearly 12,000 students from 12 different U.S. states conducted by Stan Davis and Charisse Nixon, only about one-third of the students who were significantly impacted by bullying said that telling an adult made things better (29% said it made things worse!). So perhaps the main problem isnt so much that schools need to do a better job of paying attention to what is going on online, but instead they need to do a better job thinking about how best to respond (Patchin). So if school administrations found ways to react to cases of cyberbullying that do not humiliate the victim then maybe more cases would be reported.

7 People also argue that if the school starts to focus on the social networking sites of students then the academic focus of the school will start to suffer. However, in order to make

sure the academic realm of the school thrives it must ensure the students well being first. Yes, the schools should not go looking for things without prior evidence but if there is justification then they should be allowed to search the sites of the students. Speaking of justifications, some feel as though monitoring the social networking sites of students or hiring companies to do it would not be an adequate use of resources. This money could go towards things like programs that are receiving budget cuts or being cut altogether or teachers who are being underpaid. Why give an outside company money that could go directly towards the school? In response to this question I say that it is a necessary sacrifice that is still going towards the betterment of the children. With todays society becoming so technologically savvy and reliant, social media monitoring is going to become a necessity in school systems. The most frequently heard argument against social media monitoring is it being a violation of the rights that students have regarding speech and privacy. In general, schools cannot discipline someone that posts something off-campus unless it threatens to cause someone harm and is brought to their attention. However, If your online postings demonstrate that you broke school rules, the school can discipline you. For example, you could get in trouble if you post a video of yourself and friends skipping school. And if you post about doing something illegal, law enforcement may use it as evidence against you, which is exactly the point of social monitoring (ACLUWS). The school officials are not trying to snoop but simply seeing that their standards are maintained. When accepted to attend a school, the person is agreeing to abide by their rules and represent the institution in a dignified manner. Whether the student is on-campus or not, they are representing the institution they attend. In this manner, the school should be

8 allowed to see that the students are abiding by their standards and not doing anything to tarnish the reputation of the institution. Social media monitoring should be allowed in the school systems because it will help the students learn in a safe and nurturing environment by stopping cases of cyberbullying, drug abuse, and violence before they get out of control. This in turn would lower the rates of teen suicides in our country and therefore save lives. However, if the students are to be held to a certain standard then so should the faculty of that facility. Initiative should be taken to make certain guidelines and then students and teachers would know exactly what not to post or do online that could or would get them into trouble. Social media monitoring can be seen as a violation to the privacy and speech rights of students but most people do not know about the limits of the freedom of expression. If the institution is advised about any case that involves a threat, defamation, or obscene language then they have a right to interfere and discipline the student as they see fit. As the world is becoming increasingly digitally inclined, everything will soon involve the virtual world. Laptops are in abundance on college campuses, online homework and quizzes are prevalent, and e-books are available instead of hardcover. If these devices are allowed to be used in the classroom and for educational purposes shouldnt school officials be allowed to monitor what is happening on them. Allowing school administrations to monitor the social networking sites of students will create a better academic environment for all the students enrolled in that institution.

Works Cited Kowalski, Robin M., PhD, Susan P. Limber, PhD, and Patricia W. Agatston, PhD. Cyberbullying: Bullying in the Digital Age. 2nd ed. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Print. Patchin, Justin W. "Should Schools Monitor Students Social Media Accounts?" Cyberbullying.us. Cyberbullying Research Center, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. <http://cyberbullying.us/schools-monitor-students-social-media-accounts/>. Sengupta, Somini. "Warily, Schools watch Students on the Internet." Www.nytimes.com. The New York Times, 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/technology/some-schools-extend-surveillance-ofstudents-beyond-campus.html>. Shapira, Ian. "When Young Teachers Go Wild on the Web." Articles.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 28 Apr. 2008. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/200804-28/news/ 36788054_1_long-term-substituteteacher-young-teachers-special-education-teacher>. "Student Rights and Responsibilities in the Digital Age: A Guide for Public School Students in Washington State." Aclu-wa.org. ACLU of Washington, Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. <http://aclu-wa.org/student-rights-and-responsibilities-digital-age-guide-public-schoolstudentswashington-state>. Wallace, Kelly. "At some schools, 'Big Brother' is watching." CNN Living. Cable News Network, 9 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. <http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/living/schools-of-thought-social-media-monitoringstudents/>.