Cyber Bullying: Negative Consequence

Bullying is not new to the school campus; what is new is the independent access that young people of all ages have to the internet and various social media sites. Cyberbullying behavior should not simply be considered an inevitable part of school life and dismissed as a natural consequence of being a teenager. With little supervision, students are engaging in cyberbullying behaviors that are hostile; placing both the cyberbullying victim and the cyberbullying harasser at risk for negative social-emotional and academic consequences.

Cyberbullying is the one of the latest issues to be defined by school districts and law enforcement. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary added the word cyberbullying in their 2004 revised edition: “the electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person (as a student) often done anonymously.” After interviewing 279 students (ages ten to 18) researchers Heidi Vandebosch and Katrien Van Cleemput further clarified the definition of cyberbullying in 2008. Their research identified specific communication patterns that led them to add that cyberbullying is not just a one time action, but rather “a part of a repetitive pattern of negative offline or online actions;” and the hostile actions are “intended to hurt (by the perpetrator) and perceived as hurtful (by the victim.)” (Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 500) Consistently, cyberbullying is viewed as hostile misbehavior.

When considering whether internet access has actually increased the rate of cyberbullying, Heidi Gholamhosseini sought one expert’s opinion. A professor of Health Promotion and Behavior in the College of Public Health, Pamela Orinas, has studied bullying behavior for approximately 20 years. Gholamhosseini reviewed Orinas’ research which suggested that “harassment and hate groups appear more and more as social networking sites and blogs.” (Gholamhosseini 1) Specifically, Orinas’ research has demonstrated a slow increase among teenagers to use social media sites to “threaten, harass, or embarrass.” (1) The findings of Dr. Orinas are consistent with what popular media has portrayed; specifically, that student access to technology has increased the rate of cyberbullying.

Shaheen Shariff is an Associate Professor at McGill University in Canada. Dr. Shariff is an expert on the legal issues that have arisen due to on-line social communications and cyberbullying. In 2005 she conducted a survey with 3,700 middle school students in the United States. Her research determined that “18% experienced cyber-bullying.” (Shariff 459) More specifically, “one in every seventeen children is threatened on the Internet; and one in four youth aged 11 -19 is threatened via computer or cell phone.” (459) Dr. Shariff has identified a large number of at-risk youngsters.

Dr. Shariff’s statistics are consistent with the 2010 National Center for Education Statistics findings that 20 percent of students “had been involved in the cyberbullying of other youths.” (Stuart-Cassel, Bell, and Springer 19-21) Dr. Shariff’s findings, coupled with 2010 statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics suggest that approximately 20% of the student population are victims of cyberbully and another 20% of the student population are cyberbullies. Collectively, the research suggests that an alarming 40% of students are involved in cyberbully thereby placing themselves at risk for negative social-emotional and academic consequences. The United States Department of Education initiated a widespread study across the United States to determine how effective anti-bullying school policies and state laws were in school districts. The study was completed in 2011 and as part of that study; researchers identified a pattern of long-term consequences for both the cyberbully victim and the cyberbully including “negative socio-emotional, health, and academic outcomes.” (Stuart-Cassel, Bell, and Springer 19-21) Their research indicated that students identified as bullying perpetrators had “higher substance use rates, poorer social skills, greater mental health problems, and exhibit increased aggressive-impulsive behaviors as adults.” (19-21) For example, the study found “that 60 percent of boys who bullied in middle school and high school had been convicted of one or more crimes before they reached the age of 25, and 40 percent of those had three or more convictions.” (19-21) They further noted that those students who are repeatedly bullied “perform at lower academic rates, and display higher rates of truancy and disciplinary problems.” (19-21) A review of this research indicated that both sets of students; the cyber bully and the cyberbully victim, are at greater risk for both academic and interpersonal failure than their classmates
.
The consequences of cyberbullying were also detailed by University of New Hampshire professors Michele L. Ybarra and Kimberly J. Mitchell through a research project conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. They interviewed a population of “1501”youths described as “regular internet users between the ages of 10–17.” (Ybarra and Mitchell 322) Surprisingly, they found that “42.4%” of cyberbully victims reported discipline problems and “32.5%” reported failing grades in school; while “40.2%” of cyberbullying harassers reported discipline problems and “39.3%” reported failing grades in school. (327) With regard to substance abuse, “31.5%” of cyberbullying harassers were noted as “frequent” users; while less than ten percent of the cyberbully victims were noted to “frequent substance use.” (327) Further review of the statistical data collected by Ybarra and Mitchell found that cyberbullies also reported that they had “been victims of traditional types of bullying” (332) and “low emotional closeness with parents.” (334) Ybarra and Mitchell’s research identified several challenges that cyberbullies and their victims share and warrant intervention.

School-based anti-bullying policies; which include cyberbullying, are now found across the United States. However, to prevent cyberbullying school authorities need to become proactive in determining when cyberbullying violates “one or more of the federal antidiscrimination laws.” (Stuart-Cassel, Bell, and Springer 53-54) The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces the laws prohibiting discrimination based upon race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. School districts may find themselves in violation of these civil rights statutes when student harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability is “sufficiently serious that it creates a hostile environment and such harassment is encouraged, tolerated, not adequately addressed, or ignored by school employees.” (53-54) When hostile cyberbullying behaviors become deliberate and repetitive, they may meet the legal definition of criminal harassment. The following description clearly sets forth those boundaries.

Harassment creates a hostile environment when the conduct is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school. When such harassment is based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability, it violates the civil rights laws that OCR enforces. (35-36)
Identifying cyberbullying behaviors that are potentially criminal can be identified by using the civil rights code as a guide.

When cyberbullying targets the legally protected characteristics of the cyberbully victim it becomes a crime. School authorities who enforce anti-bullying policies that include the legal requirement to address cyberbullying as a federal violation may help to prevent acts that are clearly discriminatory and illegal. 

Works Cited
“Cyberbullying.” Def. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 4th. Ed. 2004. Print.
Gholamhosseini, Heidi. “From the Sandbox to Social Media: Among College-Age Kids Bullying Is More Common Screen-To-Screen.” Red and Black.com. The Red and Black Publishing Co, 30 Oct. 2011. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
Shariff, Shaheen. Cyber-dilemmas in the new millennium: School obligations to provide student safety in a virtual school environment. Journal of Education 40 (2005): 467-487. Print.
Stuart-Cassel, Victoria, Bell, Ariana, and Springer, Fred. Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies, 2011. U.S. Department of Education: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service. Print.
Vandebosch, Heidi, and Van Cleemput, Katrien. Defining cyberbullying: a qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology Behavior 11 (2008): 499-503 August. Print.
Ybarra, Michele, and Mitchell, Kimberly. Youth engaging in online harassment: associations with caregiver–child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004): 319–336. Print.