Ishra Ella A.

Jordan
Activity No. 4

Prepare two copies of the “Review of Related Literature and Studies” of finished research.

Title: THE DIGNITY FOR ALL STUDENTS ACT: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF ONE
UPSTATE NEW YORK PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION

Chapter 2: Literature Review

School bullying became a national concern in 1999 after the Columbine High School shooting,
which was perpetrated by the alleged vengeful victims of bullying (Cornell & Limber, 2015).
Cornell and Limber (2015), and Beran and Lupart (2009) noted students should not perceive
schools as having an unfriendly environment. However, to children who fall victim to bullying,
the playground becomes hostile and unfriendly. The availability of technology coupled with the
ability to remain anonymous can place children at a greater risk for victimization (Farrukh et al.,
2014; Ybarra, 2004). The purpose of this quantitative study is to survey how public school
teachers perceive the efficacy of the intervention of DASA on the climate of civility in the
classroom at one specific public middle school located in Upstate New York. The intent is to
explore the perceived efficacy of the intervention put into place in 2012 to address
cyberharassment and to cultivate civility in the classroom. How do schoolteachers at one specific
public school perceive the intervention measures of the Dignity for All Students Act in their
classrooms?
Literature Search Strategy
A search of the relevant literature was conducted from August 2016 to August 2017. The search
method used was Google Scholar and the search engines of Northeastern University and Utica
College. The following databases were used: Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, Law 360,
LexisNexis, ProQuest, Dissertations and Theses @ Northeastern, ProQuest, and Sage Research
Methods.
Literature Review Related to Key Concepts and Variables
Schools have become one of the major settings of violence in the United States (Bronfenbrenner
& Evans, 2000). Incidents such as Columbine (1999) highlighted the 38 importance of civility in
schools and the effects bullying could have on students. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were
victims of bullying and sought revenge against the bullies who made their life at school
miserable. Additionally, the 2013 school shooting by a student at Taft Union High school in
Southern California, who was bullied and sought revenge by wounding his two harassers. While
some may choose to act out, others internalize the bullying and to the extreme, take their own
life. The use of technology as a medium to cause harm to others can be equally distressing as
face-to-face confrontation and can cause the victim to take their own life. For example, Ryan
Halligan (14) hanged himself because of an embarrassing cyber-rumor, Megan Meier (14)
hanged herself because of a cruel cyber-prank, Jessica Logan (18) and Hope Witsell (13) both
hanged themselves because of sexting (Beran & Lupart, 2009; Cornell & Limber, 2015). And
Brandy Vela (18) who committed suicide in 2016 by shooting herself in the chest because of
abusive text messages and a fake Facebook page advertising free sex (CBS News, 2016). The
USDOE further reaffirmed the school administrator’s obligation to guarantee that the civil rights
of the student are protected in a nationwide distributed Dear Colleague Letter (2010). The letter
reiterates that harassment between student-student or student-adult based on national origin, race,
sex, or disability can be a civil rights violation. Specifically, it noted that some student
misconduct that falls under a school’s anti-bullying policy may also be the genesis for action
under federal anti-discrimination laws enforced by the USDOE’s Office for Civil Rights. Schools
should project a positive environment (Beran & Lupart, 2009; Cornell & Limber, 2015). The
nurturing of a safe environment by educating students on civility will, over time, bring a positive
change in social behavior (Mishna et al., 2011). To this end, more information is 39 needed to
measure how teachers perceive the effectiveness of New York State’s intervention policy—The
Dignity for All Students Act—enacted in 2012.
The literature review revealed an extensive examination of DASA, as well as a comprehensive
look at the magnitude of cyberharassment. For this study, cyberbullying, sexting, and
cyberstalking will be reviewed. Additionally, it addressed the complexity of the laws and the
outcomes of Supreme Court cases and Second Circuit court cases. The central question guiding
this research was; how do New York state public school teachers at one specific school perceive
the intervention measures of DASA in their classrooms since it was enacted in 2012?
Cyber harassment
There is some discussion as to whether cyberbullying is bullying. Many researchers agreed that
there is a plethora of ways to define cyberbullying or just bullying (Gladden, VivoloKantor,
Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014; Hellström, 2015). DASA defined in part "harassment" and
“bullying" “as the creation of a hostile environment by conduct or by [verbal] threats,
intimidation, or abuse, including cyberbullying. Additionally, the harassment and bullying has or
would have the effect of unreasonably and substantially interfering with a student's educational
performance” (NYSED, 2013, p. 7). (see Appendix C). Cyberbullying is defined as purposeful
and recurring harm inflicted through computers, cell phones, and the use of other types of
technology (Patchin & Hinduja, 2015; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Sabella & Hinduja, 2013; Stop
Cyberbullying Organization, n.d.). Hazelwood and Koon-Magnin (2013) define cyberharassment
as behavior that torments, annoys, terrorizes, offends, or threatens an individual via electronic
means with the intent of harming. The use of a statement “I am going to kill you” “not JK LOL”
often can rise to the level of harassment. Like 40 most things, problems originate at the extremes.
It is only by the repeated, relentless attacks that incidents rise to the level of cyberharassment
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2015). Wolak et al. (2007) posited that cyberharassment does not rise to the
level of cyberbullying unless it is an extension of traditional bullying. That is to say; there must
be a face-to-face element as with traditional bullying added to the equation. In their study,
approximately half of the students defused the harassment by blocking the harasser or simply
ignoring the aggressor. By blocking or ignoring the harasser, the victim is in effect mitigating the
imbalance of power, a requisite by some for cyberbullying. Single incidents such as not being
invited to a party or being called a bad name are minor and occur by people the students do not
know face-to-face does not constitute cyberbullying and are not considered overly distressing to
the victim (Sabella & Patchin 2013; Wolak et al., 2007). To illustrate the inconsistencies between
bullying and cyberbullying, Wolak et al. (2007), suggested that bullying requires three elements:
1) Aggressive acts including verbal, 2) repetition, and 3) an imbalance of power between the
victim and perpetrator. As previously stated, with cyberbullying, the victim can mitigate the
imbalance of power by blocking the harasser. Patchin and Hinduja (2015), on the other hand, are
of the view that four essential components distinguish the harm caused by cyberbullying from
other personal harm, 1) reputation, 2) intent, 3) harm, and 4) imbalance of power. For this study,
cyberbullying is a subset of behaviors that is overall cyberharassment. While the imbalance of
power is a disputable factor, the ability to automatically delete reproachful comments off
websites and tweets are far more complicated than scratching off words written on the bathroom
wall (Guernsey, 2003). Bullying by any modality is a subset of peer victimization. Hinduja and
Patchin (2012) suggested bullying overall is waning which may be attributed to intervening
behaviors by 41 bystanders. Wood, Smith, Varjas, and Meyers, (2017) and Kärnä et al., (2011)
noted that when positive intervention by a bystander takes place, both the frequency and the
negative impact of cyberharassment decrease. However, Espelage, Green, and Polanin, (2012),
and Chisholm (2014) found that students are less willing to intervene in harassment incidents.
Adolescent friendships share similar attitudes and behaviors that make going against the majority
difficult (Espelage et al., 2012). They found that bullying prevention programs that focus
exclusively on empathy and do not address the issue of peer group behavior are ineffective.
Espelage et al. (2012) suggested that normative peer pressure to defend a victim coupled with
personal responsibility increased the likelihood of an intervention. DASA incorporated these
attributes. Musu-Gillette et al., (2016) noted that nationally among students ages 12-18 in the
2015 school year that 65 percent reported that the effects of being harassed had neither affected
their schoolwork nor impacted their self-esteem. However, on average 17 percent of those
harassed indicated the impact was hurtful. More still needs to be done to educate both the
students and school administrators on civility (Sabella et al., 2013; Vahedi, Azar, & Golparvar,
2016). Sabella, Patchin, and Hinduja (2013) and Musu-Gillette et al. (2016), suggested that
incidents of bullying by any modality has decreased between 2005-2015. In that decade,
incidents fell from 28 percent to 21 percent among students between the ages of 12-18. However,
they noted that the incidents toward females increased from 19 percent to 23 percent during the
2015 school year. Interestingly, 41.7 percent of students between ages 12-18 reported being
physically bullied, compared to 11.5 percent online in 2015 (Musu-Gillette et al., 2016). The
objective of bullying is to intimidate the victim. For the aggressor, it is power and control,
causing, for the victim, embarrassment and emotional scarring (Felix et al., 2011; 42 Gladden et
al., 2014). On the power side of the argument, being physically confronted by a bully there exists
an option to at least, resist or to confront the known perpetrator (Turbert, 2009). However, on the
virtual playground, confrontation is not always practical, even though blocking or ignoring the
aggressor is possible (Beran, Rinaldi, Bickham & Rich, 2012). Some would suggest that power
comes from anonymity (Bocij & McFarlane, 2003; Turbert, 2009). The ability to remain
unknown and often undetected is empowering and liberating. The victim is left practically
defenseless. Anonymity is a protected First Amendment right allowing for the freedom of
expression. However, Turbert (2009) stated that even though anonymity may be protected; this
liberty of anonymity is being abused by cyberbullies to inflict psychological harm on their
victims. Often the use of technology can induce illicit behavior from someone that would not
ordinarily engage in such behavior (Bocij & McFarland, 2003). States are also consistent with
the elements that define cyberharassment as being alarm, distress, and fear (Hazelwood & Koon-
Magnin, 2013; Patchin & Hinduja, 2015). However, state statutes vary on the relevance of
anonymity in cyberbullying. For example, New Hampshire and Oklahoma specify that a message
communicated with anonymity constitutes a cybercrime, whereas Oregon and Utah do not
address anonymity (Hazelwood & Koon-Magnin, 2013).
Sexting
Teen sexting is another challenge facing New York schools. Bocij and McFarlane (2003)
suggested the Internet can lower inhibitions and establish new norms. Sexting is defined as the
transfer or the furthering of sexually explicit messages, pictures or videos of the sender or
someone known to the sender via cell phone or other device (Lorang et al., 2016; Mince-Didier,
2017; Rice et al., 2012; Strassberg et al., 2013). Benotsch, Snipes, Martin, and Bull (2013) added
sexting as an essential element to cyberharassment. To complicate matters further, Strohmaier et
43 al., (2014) concluded there is no agreement on what constitutes sexually explicit messages or
images. When school officials receive reports of sexting, they usually involve attendant
circumstances. Primarily they are confronted with determining if the charges include malicious
intent, bullying, intimidation, or harassment and, in some cases, whether the content is criminal.
Additionally, officials must determine if the photographs were taken by a friend who then
disseminates the images electronically with the intent to harm the other person's reputation
(Lorang et al., 2016; McNiel, & Binder, 2016; Walsh, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2013). Bass (2016)
suggested that teens engage in sexting for several reasons. While some do it as a joke to gain
attention, others succumb to peer pressure or coercion. Many teens think they must join in
without realizing the consequences that may follow. Teens will participate in sexting for three
primary reasons; firstly, to initiate sexual activity; secondly, to experiment before beginning a
sexual relationship; and thirdly, they see it as a means of excitement adding to their sexual
relationship (Bass, 2016). It is difficult to know firsthand the pervasiveness of sexting among
teens (Bass, 2016). Wolak, Finkelhor, and Mitchell (2012) analyzed 3477 police cases involving
“youth-produced sexual image” between 2008-2009. They found 67 percent of the sample were
considered aggravated and 33 percent were experimental. Moreover, 57 percent of sexting was
nonconsensual. Wolak et al. (2012) defined aggravated as abusive and in some instances
involving adults. The experimental classification, on the other hand, was among young adult
peers. New York v. Ferber (1982) gave states the right to create child pornography laws or by
extension, teen sexting laws. The Supreme Court decision in Ferber held that child pornography
44 is a form of obscenity that can be constitutionally restricted even if the material is not
obscene. New York state enacted its sexting statute HB-A-08170 in 2012 (see Appendix D). In
some circumstances, based on the gravity of the sexting, minors can be charged with a felony
and in some cases, have to register as a sex offender (Mitchell, Finkelhor, Jones, & Wolak, 2012;
Thomas & Cauffman, 2014). For example, California’s Penal Code §288. (b)(1) states that teen
sexting can be considered child pornography. It states in part: Every person who, with the
knowledge that a person is a minor, knowingly distributes, sends, causes to be sent, exhibits, or
offers to distribute or exhibit by electronic mail, the Internet…Any harmful matter, as defined in
section 313, to a minor, and with the intent, or for the purposes of seducing a minor, is guilty of a
public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail. This
law does not make a distinction between two minors that are sending nude or partially nude
photos of themselves willingly or not. Thus, this law subjects them to a felony and to register as
a sex offender. However, many state courts are disinclined to impose such egregious punishment
on minors (Strohmaier et al., 2014). In most states, legislators pursue avenues that differentiate
between sexting among minors and child pornography (Lorang et al.; Thomas & Cauffman,
2014). Currently, 20 states do not have teen sexting laws (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015). Eleven
states, including New York, offer informal adjudication, which includes counseling or other
informal sanctions. Ten states, including New York, have diversion programs whereby both
victim and offender attend an educational reform program (N.Y. Pen Law §60.37; N.Y. Soc. Serv
Law § 458-1). Notably, Hinduja & Patchin (2015) identified that in Alabama and Nebraska
sexting is a felony. Strassberg et al. (2013) are proponents of educational efforts to educate all 45
parties involved not only under mandate but also in the classroom. Strohmaier et al. (2014)
concluded many students are unaware of the legal consequences of sexting. School
administrators from Smithtown School located in Long Island, New York are facing criticism for
violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In November of 2015, the
police made two felony arrests involving two 14-year-old boys. The Associated Press (AP)
reported that one boy knowingly recorded a video of the other boy engaged in a sex act with a
girl off school grounds. The charges include disseminating indecent material to minors (Class D
felony), and promoting a sexual performance by a child (Class D felony) and 3rd Degree
misdemeanor sexual abuse. The video was disseminated to upwards of 20 other students, all of
which were suspended for watching the video or forwarding it. A key issue, in this case, is
whether or not school officials acted in accordance with various laws. Many parents and New
York States Civil Liberties Union (NYSCLU) are accusing the school of conducting illegal cell
phone searches. Additionally, school officials are being accused of having been inconsistent in
punishing the students involved (AP, 2015). It is doubtful that the felony charges will remain and
the boys will most likely be sent to New York’s diversion program. In the absence of a federal
law that addresses sexting directly, many states and school officials look at sexting as child
pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252- 2252A (Didier-Mince, 2017; Strohmaier et al., 2014).
Additionally, schools, as well as legislators, have to develop a policy to address this new
phenomenon that only exists due to technology. Furthermore, they both need to be cognizant of
the intent of the crime between two minors and a minor and an adult as to the seriousness of the
crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252- 2252A. 46 In re CS, 2012 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 403
(Pa. Cnty Ct. 2012) illustrated the point that state statutes are sometimes unconstitutionally
vague. CS received a text message recording of a consensual sex act between two students aged
16 and 17 and disseminated them to her friends. Those that received the file then distributed it to
others. The trial court dismissed the case associated with the sexual abuse of children statute (18
Pa. C.S. §6312) levied against CS. The court reasoned that because Pennsylvania’s child
pornography laws as applied to minors’ sexting fails to provide a teenager of ordinary
intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited. In other words, a teenager of ordinary intelligence
would know possession of child pornography is illegal. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed, dismissing the charges because it found the statute was “void for vagueness” (Lorang
et al., 2016; Pasqualini, 2013). However, in the same year 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals in Ohio ruled that the statutes were not unconstitutionally vague when applied to
juveniles. In re JP, 2012-Ohio-1451, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1298 (Ohio Ct. App., 2012) the
court reasoned that the statute applied equitably to adults and minors. In this case, a 13-year-old
female sent a nude photo of herself to a juvenile male. She entered a no-contest plea. She
received a 30-day suspended detention, 16 hours of community service, ordered to attend
mandatory educational programs on the consequences of sexting, write an essay, and she could
not use a cell phone for six months (Lorang et al., 2016). The two cases mentioned above
illustrate the court's hesitancy to impose harsh sentencing. They also point out the difficulty in
either crafting policy or using statutes that were designed in a different era and applying them to
the 21st century. Laws and policies in and of themselves as mentioned earlier can only do so
much. Teachers, counselors, and administrators must be educated and made aware that teens can
suffer significant psychological harm resulting 47 from sexting (Benotsch et al., 2013; Strassberg
et al., 2013). For example, in 2008 Jessica Logan hanged herself after sending nude pictures of
herself to her then-boyfriend who disseminated them to classmates after they broke up.
Sycamore High School in Ohio failed to take adequate steps to prevent the bullying that ensued
(Wells, 2012). The students did not receive criminal charges. However, civil charges were
brought forward against the school, the ex-boyfriend, the school resource officer, and the
students involved in distributing the photos by Jessica’s parents (Lorang et al., 2016). The
students involved settled out of court. The court granted the resource officer qualified immunity.
The Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, ruled that the school also had
qualified immunity on the claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The case is moving
forward against the school for violations of Title IX (Lorang et al., 2016).
Cyberstalking
Another issue facing schools is cyberstalking. Students may not consider the legal consequences
of their behavior and may not be fully cognizant of the punishment associated with their actions
(Marcum et al., 2014). Policies such as DASA could be instrumental in teaching students that
there are consequences for their actions. Marcum et al., (2014); Finn (2001), found that
adolescents are prone to the behaviors of a cyberstalker as well as being victimized. At present,
there is not a universally accepted definition of cyberstalking. However, there is an agreement in
the literature that identifies the behavior to include technology to stalk or harass someone
aggressively over time (Bocij & McFarlane, 2003; Finn, 2004; Navarro, et al., 2016; Nobles et
al., 2014). Many behaviors define cyberstalking that do not encompass traditional stalking that
students may not be aware. Physical stalking is characterized as the following of someone to the
48 point that the target gets “creeped out” and law enforcement can easily get involved to put a
stop to the harassing behavior. However, as most activities on the Internet are largely
anonymous, cyberstalkers are emboldened. Hazelwood and Koon-Magnin, (2013) noted that
victims of cyberstalking experience fear, terror, anxiety, intimidation, and loss of a sense of
control largely because they cannot identify the stalker. Marcum et al., (2016) posited that
cyberstalking consists of the stalker using personal information about the victim for the purpose
of intimidation. The behavior also extends to sending vast amounts of unsolicited emails or
instant messages that are antagonistic. The cyberstalker may also impersonate the victim in
cyberspace on other social network forums. Additionally, the stalker may send misinformation or
hostile material and trick other users into cyber harassing the victim (Finn, 2004; Goodno, 2007;
Hazelwood & Koon-Magnin, 2013; Sheridan & Grant, 2007). Moreover, Mcgrath & Casey,
(2002) observed that the possibility exists that the online cyberstalking may transcend into the
physical world. Empirical research on cyberstalking is sparse (Navarro et al., 2016; Nobles et al.,
2012; Sheridan & Grant, 2007). Legal scholars have done much of the research in this area, and
they publish them in law reviews (Hazelwood & Koon-Magnin, 2013). However, social
scientists are beginning to look at aspects of cyberstalking. Navarro et al., (2016) in a study of
1,669 high school students with a 98.8 percent response rate is most impressive and current.
They observed that those students who partake in cyberstalking have a higher IQ and are more
knowledgeable in hacking and obfuscating their location. Additionally, Navarro et al., (2016)
drew a relationship between Internet addiction (IA) and cyberstalking. IA is beyond the scope of
this research; however, it is worth discussing to some degree to better understand the dynamics
of cyberstalking. 49 The working definition of IA is the over engagement on the Internet or
electronic devices to the detriment of family, work, relationships, and obligations leading to
impairment and distress (Hazelwood & Koon-Magnin, 2013; Navarro et al., 2016; Shaw &
Black, 2008). Additionally, Navarro et al., (2016), and Zepeda et al., (2016) agreed that students
with low selfesteem are more likely to partake in cyberstalking. As a student’s self-esteem
declines they are more likely to associate with groups exhibiting antisocial behaviors (Bocij &
McFarlane, 2003) New York State Law New York State Penal Code §§120.45, 120.50, 120.55,
and 120.60 defined the crime of cyberstalking. In New York State, the stalking law considers the
state of mind of the stalking victim and the reasonable fear that the stalker’s actions are likely to
cause the victim. For example, the stalker does not have to have the intent to cause fear nor does
the victim need to experience actual fear. What constitutes fear is measured by how a reasonable
person would respond to the behaviors exhibited by the cyberstalker (NYS Office of The
Prevention of Domestic Violence, 2016). Summary Teen suicide brought on by cyberharassment
is a tragedy and certainly brings to light the seriousness of cyberharassment. Chapter 2 discussed
the three central components of cyberharassment, cyberstalking, and sexting. It also outlined
several court cases that illustrate some of the difficulties both school officials and the courts face
when adjudicating cyberharassment incidents. Although bullying is bullying, the virtual and
often anonymous world of cyber space has presented significant challenges for these governing
bodies. Chapter 3 will outline the methodology for this research and will look at one central New
York school to determine how teachers perceive DASA. Civility in schools has always been first
50 and foremost the goal of school administrators. Policies such as DASA are necessary to
ensure the attainment of that goal.