The parents of 12-year-old Mallory Grossman are suing her school district in the wake of her suicide in June. They believe that the school was negligent when it ignored allegations that Mallory’s classmates were cyberbullying her.

According to the suit, Mallory’s classmates at Copeland Middle School had been bullying her since October of last year. She told her parents right away. After that, Seth and Dianne Grossman approached administrators of the Rockaway Township School District on a monthly basis, trying to speak to someone about their daughter’s ordeal.

However, although the administrators told them that the school was investigating the matter, they ultimately dismissed the parents’ concerns.

“I‘m going to make the assumption that the school did something, but I’m also going to make the assumption, based on where we are today, that they didn’t do enough,” Mrs. Grossman told NBC News.

According to Bruce Nagel, the family’s attorney, the classmates’ cruel messages were the cause of Mallory’s death. “There were texts, there was Snapchat, there was Instagram, for months she was told she’s a loser, she had no friends and finally she was even told, ‘Why don’t you kill yourself?’,” he said in a statement.

Photos accompanying at least two of the malicious Instagram posts were taken on school grounds. Nagel’s office has not yet released or independently verified the texts.

Mallory’s classmates also allegedly bullied her in person, giving her “dirty looks” and excluding her from their lunch table.

In response to the torment, Mallory’s grades dropped from As and Bs to Cs and Ds. She complained of headaches and stomachaches to get out of going to school.

At one point, the school met with the parents to discuss Mallory’s failing grades. However, Mrs. Grossman claims that “they were not at that time concerned with her emotional well being.”

Hours before Mallory took her own life on June 14, Mrs. Grossman appealed directly to the mother of one of the bullies. “I can tell you that the mother dismissed it, said it was just a big joke and that I really shouldn’t worry about it,” she said. “Even after I asked her daughter to please stop texting Mallory, three minutes later a text message — a series of text messages — came through from that child.”

Nagel claims that he has identified “three or four” of Mallory’s bullies. He also said that the Grossmans are considering bringing legal action against the bullies’ families.

On Wednesday, Rockaway Township Superintendent Greg McGann released a statement on the school district’s website.

Because the case is still under investigation by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, and also the subject of a tort claim, under the advice of legal counsel, The Rockaway Township School District cannot discuss this case in public or with media. The teachers, staff and administrators within the Rockaway Township School District are, as they have always been, and will continue to be, committed to protecting the rights and safety for all our students.

Last year, the district released a self-assessment report on how it dealt with bullies. Copeland Middle School received a 74 out of 78.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post N.J. Parents Sue School District After Daughter’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

The internet is a powerful tool. It can be used to spread information quickly, to answer any question instantly, and to share photos of vacations. 

But the internet can also be a powerful platform where unsavory things can flourish. All the benefits of being able to spread information quickly and share photos can be used negatively. When these sorts of things are directed at a specific person or group, it is called “cyberbullying.”

Stop Bullying, a website dedicated to spreading awareness about bullying, defines cyberbullying as:

bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites. Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.

“Troll-in-Chief”

Recently, President Donald Trump attacked “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Twitter, saying:

I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

…to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

This raised a lot of eyebrows and questions. One of the most serious questions raised was if Trump could be banned from Twitter for his behavior. John Cassidy of The New Yorker said that Trump will go down in history as the “Troll-in-Chief” because of his online behavior.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s spokeswoman, brushed off the criticism her boss was receiving. “This is a president who fights fire with fire,” Sanders explained. But where does self-defense end and cyberbullying begin?

Trump is the face of America to the rest of the world and his actions reflect on the entire country. More than that, as such a public and powerful figure, he is someone children will undoubtedly look up to. So with cyberbullying increasing in schools, it’s dangerous to have the commander-in-chief setting such a poor example for children.

Harmful Effects

The effects of cyberbullying can be serious. According to Stop Bullying, some of the effects cyberbullying can have on a victim include: alcohol and drug use, lower self-esteem, and health problems. 

Cyberbullying happens a lot more frequently than you might think. In a 2016 report by the Department of Education, 20.8 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported being bullied in the 2014-15 school year. The study found that 6.1 percent of male students experienced bullying online or through text message. 15.9 percent of females reported being bullied online or via text. The disparity between male and female is bad enough. But the numbers themselves show a growing problem.

Cyberbullying is different than other forms of bullying for a few reasons. First, it can occur at any time. A bully no longer needs a face-to-face interaction to inflict harm. Through the wonders of the internet, someone can be reached at any hour of the day via text, social media, email, or other channels on the internet. Next, the layer of anonymity can invite more bullying in perpetrators who normally would not have engaged in the act. An article Psychology Today published in 2013 said,

The ability to be anonymous might increase the likelihood that youths will engage in the behavior. Furthermore, a cyberbully does not necessarily see the reaction of the victim, making it easier to engage in mean behaviors.

Those who engage in cyberbullying are subject to certain anti-bullying laws. See how your state stacks up here. In 2012, Delaware became the first state to introduce a comprehensive cyberbullying policy to be adopted by public schools in the state.

via GIPHY

As of 2017 every state has laws regarding cyberbullying, with most having both a policy and laws. Delaware’s policy was drafted by then-Lieutenant Governor Matt Denn and the late Attorney General Beau Biden. Here’s what Delaware’s policy says:

Incidents of cyberbullying shall be treated by each school district and charter school in the same manner as incidents of bullying, and notice of each school district’s and charter school’s policy against cyberbullying shall be provided to students, staff, and faculty in the same manner as notice of the school district’s and charter school’s policy against bullying.

This specific cyberbullying policy is intended for schools and how they can take action. But what about when cyberbullying takes place outside of a school setting?  

Many websites have anti-harassment rules, though they can get tricky to enforce. Take the President of the United States, for example. On July 2, only a few days after the Morning Joe attack, he tweeted:

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

Many people have suggested that Twitter ban Trump for this behavior. Twitter’s rules explicitly say “You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.”

But the social media giant has not banned the president. Yet. Banning the president is a big deal, but cyberbullying is a pretty big deal, too.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Twitter Ban Donald Trump for Cyberbullying? appeared first on Law Street.

Sharing a last name with the president could make you unpopular in some circles, as Tiffany Trump learned while attending New York Fashion Week.

During the Philipp Plein show on Monday, the youngest Trump daughter was seen sitting by herself after fashion editors allegedly switched seats to avoid sitting next to her.

Former Wall Street Journal columnist Christina Binkley tweeted a photo of Trump from the show that she captioned: “Nobody wants to sit next to Tiffany Trump at Philipp Plein, so they moved and the seats by her are empty.”

Nobody wants to sit next to Tiffany Trump at Philipp Plein, so they moved and the seats by her are empty. pic.twitter.com/XcxNYI6Kf8

— Christina Binkley (@BinkleyOnStyle) February 14, 2017

Empty seats next to Tiffany Trump. pic.twitter.com/axvYJAFupl

— Christina Binkley (@BinkleyOnStyle) February 14, 2017

Nikki Ogunnaike, senior fashion editor at “Elle,” tweeted that the show started late due to the last-minute seat changes, with editors “fleeing” to not have to sit close to Tiffany.

The incident caused quite a stir online, with many people calling both Binkley and the fashion editors bullies for posting the photos and seemingly punishing Tiffany for her father’s actions. “The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg was especially peeved by the snub, and defended Tiffany during Wednesday’s episode of her show.

“You know what, Tiffany? I’m supposed to go to a couple more shows. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’m coming to sit with you,” Goldberg said. “Because nobody’s talking politics. You’re looking at fashion! She doesn’t want to talk about her dad! She’s looking at the fashion!”

Goldberg’s co-host Sara Haines also chimed in saying, “it’s almost like we live in a time where people are saying that ‘because it’s a Trump’ it’s ok to bully her.”

.@WhoopiGoldberg reacts to editors not wanting to sit next to Tiffany Trump at fashion week: “Girl, I will sit next to you!” pic.twitter.com/FcNDqaw1Pn

— The View (@TheView) February 15, 2017

Tiffany accepted Goldberg’s invitation via Twitter.

Thank you @WhoopiGoldberg I’d love to sit with you too!

— Tiffany Ariana Trump (@TiffanyATrump) February 15, 2017

Three days after her original tweet, Binkley followed up to clarify that the seats surrounding Tiffany were only empty for about two minutes before other people sat down. Then the designer’s sister made those people move so she could sit there for the show.

“It’s easy to assume from a photograph that she sat there, humiliated, with empty seats by her, which wasn’t the case,” Binkley said.

However, online critics pointed out that if Binkley was upset that people thought she was a bully, maybe she shouldn’t have waited three days to clarify what happened.

The designer of the show also spoke out against the editors’ treatment of Tiffany, saying that a young girl shouldn’t be humiliated because her father has political opinions that people don’t like.

Hopefully the rest of NYFW goes much better for the first daughter.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tiffany Trump Shunned by Editors at New York Fashion Week appeared first on Law Street.

For many people, high school is neither easy nor pleasurable. In some cases, the situation can get so bad it ends in tragedy. Seventeen-year-old Kenneth Suttner was so severely bullied both in school and at work that he took his own life on December 21. But in an unusual development, his former boss at Dairy Queen where he worked after school has now been charged with involuntary manslaughter for his death.

Friends and family members testified in court that Suttner had fought all his life to shield himself from verbal and physical bullying. He went to Glasgow High School in Missouri where he was a frequent target of bullying for his weight and speech impediment. Other parents said that the school consistently failed to deal with the problem of bullying. One of them, Barbara Smith, said she had to move her son to another school district because the situation was so bad.

In Kenneth Suttner’s case, it didn’t even end when he went home from school. At his after-school job, his 21-year-old female manager Harley Branham kept the harassment going, according to testimony from Sutter’s former coworkers. Dairy Queen employees said Branham regularly harassed Suttner, she would make Suttner lie on his stomach to clean the floor by hand and once threw a cheeseburger at him for not doing a good job. After years of bullying in school and three months of working at the Dairy Queen, Suttner wrote suicide notes to his family and shot himself in the head.

Horribly bullied teen committed suicide; Dairy Queen manager charged https://t.co/XfnaP8nFV9 pic.twitter.com/BjPdM9g3Kf

— Canoe (@Canoe) February 2, 2017

On Tuesday the county coroner, Frank Flaspohler, held an official inquest, which is a process that is similar to a grand jury investigation but open to the public. This can be sought if it is believed that an occurred death was caused by a safety or health hazard that could continue to harm people. After the six-person jury listened to six hours of testimony from almost 20 witnesses, they reached the conclusion that Branham was “was the principal in the cause of death,” that Dairy Queen had failed to properly train their employees about how to prevent bullying, and that the same went for the high school.

Branham was among the witnesses that testified and admitted she had called him names but didn’t understand how that could have caused his suicide. She claimed that everything had been in a joking manner. The special prosecutor in the case, April Wilson, said, “We wanted to be very cautious and responsible. Both sides of the issue are extremely important. A young man is dead. But we also want to acknowledge that it’s not easy being in public education.” On Wednesday, she filed a second-degree involuntary manslaughter charge against Branham.

Dairy Queen released a statement saying that it was gathering more information about the case and that the restaurant is run by an independently owned franchise. County coroner Flaspohler hopes his decision to hold the inquest will lead to some change in how schools deal with bullied children. “Hopefully this makes the school pay attention to what’s going on. And it’s not just in that school. We all need to wake up and say this exists and we need to take care of it,” he said. Kenneth Suttner’s family also hoped the school would take action, saying, “If this can help one child at least Kenneth’s death wasn’t in vain.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dairy Queen Manager Charged With Manslaughter in Bullied Teenager’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump gave a rare speech in Pennsylvania on Thursday, in which she expressed her concerns about people being mean on the internet, causing many to ask: does she even know her husband?

Melania Trump has generally kept quiet in the campaign since it was revealed that she plagiarized parts of Michelle Obama’s speech from 2008 during the Republican National Convention in July. But on Thursday evening, Pennsylvania women got to hear what her plans would be if she were to become the First Lady.

Trump said she worries about “all of our children” and that people are being mean on the internet. “Our culture has gotten too mean and too rough, especially to children and teenagers,” she said. She went on to say that kids are “hurt when they are made fun of, or made to feel less in looks or intelligence. This makes their life hard. It can force them to hide and retreat.”

The irony in Melania Trump’s words–as her husband has become known for cyberbullying, insulting people based on their looks, and for the recent news that he may have sexually assaulted as many as 17 women–is almost too much. During the campaign, Donald Trump has insulted and verbally harassed anyone who is the least bit critical of him or doesn’t live up to his standards of appearance. The New York Times compiled a list of 282 people, places, and things that Trump has insulted since declaring his candidacy last June. The list includes, among many others, the TV show Saturday Night Live (“unfunny show”), actor Alec Baldwin (“portrayal stinks”), Megyn Kelly (“crazy” and “sick”), Alicia Machado (“disgusting”), and the United States (“weak”).

Melania Trump can’t be serious with being an advocate for cyberbullying when Donald Trump is a cyberbullying predator on & off social media! pic.twitter.com/lRAbw3b3Ba

— Mr. Weeks (@MrDane1982) November 4, 2016

Melania may not have realized that she used one of Hillary Clinton’s foremost arguments against Donald–also put forth by Michelle Obama–to challenge his fitness for the presidency. Clinton and Obama both talk about how important it is to be a role model for children and to protect them from language that is disrespectful and mean. On Thursday, Melania Trump spoke of the exact same problems. She said:

It is never OK when a 12-year-old girl or boy is mocked, bullied or attacked. It is terrible when that happens on the playground and it is unacceptable when it’s done by someone with no name hiding on the Internet.

The internet reacted right away.

.@MELANIATRUMP I’m so glad you lectured America on the evils of cyber bullying. Please also discuss it with this man.->

“Melania Trump” pic.twitter.com/lPL4V1j8Ma

— Cornelia (@PaladinCornelia) November 4, 2016

She also said that children are often picked on for their “looks and intelligence,” which she says isn’t cool. Trump also said that she will work for women’s rights. Maybe she forgot that her husband called Rosie O’Donnell “fat” and “ugly,” Bette Midler “extremely unattractive,” and Debbie Wasserman Schultz “highly neurotic.”

Donald Trump’s rhetoric has already had a notable effect on kids, a development that has actually been named the “Trump Effect.” His language may be increasing bullying in schools, especially for kids of a nationality, race, or religion that Trump has mocked.

Now Melania Trump says she would like to focus on the same groups and issues that the Democrats are using to criticize her husband. But the question is, will she be able to disregard everything that her husband has said and done, and how long will that last?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Melania Trump Wants to Fight Cyberbullying, but Forgot Who She Married appeared first on Law Street.

After making a killing on taxing legalized recreational weed, Colorado plans to utilize the state’s excess marijuana tax revenue for good by giving its schools millions in an effort to combat bullying.

The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) announced plans to use $2.9 million of the total $66 million in surplus funds to create bullying prevention grants for approximately 50 schools for the 2016-2017 school year. Awardees could receive grants up to $40,000.

According to the CDE’s School Bullying Prevention and Education Grant Program:

The first year of funding will be used for the purchasing of an evidence-based bullying prevention program, training for the school on the program selected, a needs assessment, development of foundational systems, hiring an implementation coach, and baseline bullying assessment administration. In the second and third years of the grant, successful grantees will receive up to $40,000 per year to be used for bullying prevention program refresher materials, training for the school on the program selected, salary for an implementation coach, educating parents on bullying prevention strategies, and annual bullying assessment administration.

The money for the program comes from Proposition BB, a measure passed by voters in the state in November that allows the state to keep excess weed tax revenue. In the last fiscal year, the state raked in almost $70 million in marijuana tax revenues–nearly double what was collected from alcohol taxes.

Colorado schools have until Friday, October 21 to submit their applications for the program.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Plans to Fight Bullying With Weed Money appeared first on Law Street.

At a time when the media is full of references to rising levels of childhood obesity and Diabetes, the debate over mandating physical education classes in elementary, middle, and high schools is a particularly passionate one for many teachers, parents, doctors, and students. But is mandatory physical education helpful, harmful, or a mixture of both?

“Just Do It”–Because Kids Won’t

Across the country, only one quarter of youths are engaging in physical activity for at least an hour a day: that means that three quarters of surveyed young people in the U.S. are arguably at increased risk for various health impairments often associated with weight gain and/or inactivity such as Diabetes and heart disease.

Whether it’s because of long commutes to school, piles of extra homework due to high-stakes testing, race- and class-based inaccessibility to play spaces, or the rise in mobile devices that keep many young people stationary, physical activity is often not prioritized for youths.

Schools are often not helping with this problem, as most schools across the country do not adhere to National Association of Sports and Physical Education standards that school children should participate in 150 minutes of physical education per week.

Advocates of mandatory PE in schools often argue that because school is where most young people spend the overwhelming majority of their time, a lack of gym requirements, combined with increasing restrictions on or complete eliminations of recess time, can be devastating for young people’s health. Proponents argue that schools should require PE classes not only for the present fitness benefits, but for the formation of long-term fitness habits.

The goal, for better and for worse, of much of the U.S. education system currently is to channel many students into jobs that will be stationary: jobs that require us to sit at our desks all day, every day. This is similar to being in school: in this work structure, time must be set aside for physical activity. Getting young people into this habit of going out of their way to exercise each day can help them form routines that will assist with avoiding some of the health risks of remaining stationary for so long.

This is especially important because as young people age, they become less physically active, especially if they enter the nine-to-five workforce. Additionally, young people usually have less independence than adults; while it is an option for an adult with a full-time job to go to the gym either before or after work, young people usually don’t have the same option. Therefore, setting aside mandatory time for them to move around while they are in school is arguably an excellent–and one of the only–options to provide students with access to physical fitness.

In addition to the importance of habit formation and access to spaces where healthy levels of activity are encouraged, mandatory PE is often touted as being emotionally and mentally healthy for young people. Exercise is known to reduce stress and anxiety, and especially when anxiety-inducing high-stakes testing is part of most students’ lives, making the time for PE classes can help reduce this stress, and go a long way toward improving the lives of students.

Not All Gym Classes Are Created Equal

Despite the acknowledged benefits of exercise itself, many argue against PE requirements in schools. Students themselves often bristle at the requirements–according to a major study of PE programs across the country conducted by Cornell University, most students believe that gym classes are ineffective.

Cathy Brewton of the Florida Department of Health surveyed students across five counties in her state and found that:

The reasons [the students] didn’t exercise in school was because they didn’t like getting dressed, getting sweaty during the day, and their classes were over-capacitated… Kids said if they were going to do phys ed, they wanted to do something fun.

And surely not all students have fun when the rest of their class is playing basketball. For example, many students in mandatory PE classes spend most of their time standing or sitting on the sidelines while more traditionally athletic students play. Not only does this exclude many students, but it illustrates that, even when PE classes are required, fitness goals are not being met for all or even most students.

Critics say that academic goals, too, are sidelined by mandatory PE classes. Mark Terry, the president of the National Association of Elementary School Principles, argues that while public school budgets are tightening to begin with, there are many impossible choices that must be made when choosing to require PE classes. He asks,

What are you going to do less of? Are you going to do away with art or cut back on music or cut back on the minutes you have in the classroom?

Bullying in Gym 

Furthermore, many students–even when PE is required–simply do not exercise during the classes, and many are in fact actively discouraged from doing so by mandatory PE classes, particularly through bullying.

A great deal of students are actively alienated in gym classes. These students are often those with dis/abilities, students from low-income families, students considered overweight, and/or LGBTQ students.

Public school teacher Jim Dilmon, who has Aspergers, has written of his experience with gym classes that,

Social settings, including physical education class, often heighten the stress or anxiety levels of kids with Aspergers. However, if properly addressed, the physical education classroom offers a good opportunity for kids with and without disabilities to interact with peers.

He goes on to enumerate and explain many useful strategies that PE teachers can use to make gym classes better and more effective spaces for students on the spectrum.

Short of implementing these recommendations and making curricula overall more accommodating to all students, PE classes may very well increase the stress and anxiety levels (not to mention decrease the physical activity levels) of many students. Even though, as mentioned above, exercise is known to reduce stress and anxiety, the setting of PE classes often induces anxiety for many students. The most basic Google search of “gym class anxiety” will reveal a plethora of cries for help from students and parents alike who make it clear that the stress and anxiety that accompanies mandatory gym classes can be extremely debilitating.

Students who experience this anxiety are often subjected to bullying during PE class. Students who endure maltreatment in their gym classes are shown to stop many forms of physical activity in the long term. LGBTQ students are especially prone to be targeted for bullying–most LGBTQ students report being bullied in PE classes–as are students considered to be overweight and/or dis/abled.

It is not just cruel children who are responsible for this bullying and anxiety, however: there is a larger structure at play in advocacy for mandatory gym classes that values thin, able-bodied, gender-conforming students over those who do not conform to societal standards. By placing such an emphasis on certain kinds of physical abilities and weight loss, mandatory PE increases the anxiety, stress, and feelings of extreme guilt and failure that often accompany the emphasis on obtaining a certain kind of body.

Missing the Bigger Picture?

Even if mandatory PE classes did not risk harming many students, critics argue that emphasizing PE classes as a means to “fight obesity” is completely missing the point.

Schools are struggling for resources as it is, and schools in impoverished areas–often in neighborhoods of color–are struggling more than others. It is precisely in these neighborhoods that young people are more likely to be subjected to the impacts of environmental racism that cause many health problems. That raises the question: would focusing on these structural problems of access be more effective than focusing on symptoms (by mandating physical education classes) rather than causes (which include massive food and diet corporations profiting off of each other)?

Another crucial question about structure relates to intra-school dynamics: would freeing children from being forced to be still at desks all day–changing the structure of education to be itself more holistically active–go a longer way toward encouraging activity than setting aside a half hour to an hour for specific kinds of activity every other day? Perhaps, but there’s no way to know for certain.

So, is PE Good or Bad?

As with everything in education, the answer depends on both the individual students and their circumstances. Overall, it seems that both critics and proponents of mandatory physical education classes agree that in order to be effective, existing PE classes need to exist in the context of broader changes and revamp their curricula to reach more students without alienating those who are often harmed by current PE class structures.

Resources

Time: Couch Culture: Only a Quarter of U.S. Youth Get Recommended Excercise

Time: Childhood Obesity: Most U.S. Schools Don’t Require P.E. Classes

Education.com: Physical Education is Critical to a Complete Education

Time: The Older Kids Get, the Less They Move

Anxiety and Depression Association of America: Physical Activity Reduces Stress

Public School Review: The Pros and Cons of Mandatory Gym Class in Public Schools

NBC News: So Just How Bad is Your Child’s Gym Class?

ABC News: No Sweat When Gym Class Cut

USA Today: More PE, Activity Programs Needed in Schools

University of Michigan: Physical Education in America’s Public Schools

Jezebel: Being the Last One Picked in Gym Class Really Messes You Up

My Aspergers Child: Aspergers Children and “Physical Education” Class

Study Mode: Physical Education Class: The Perfect Place to be Bullied?

Huffington Post: Majority of LGBT Students Bullied in Gym Class and Feel Unsafe

Slate: Food Deserts Aren’t the Problem

Guardian: Fat Profits: How the Food Industry Cashed in on Obesity

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Phys Ed in Schools: Improving Health or Breeding Bullying? appeared first on Law Street.

Schools are constantly feeling the push from colleges, the government, and parents to produce high performers; however, in order for young adults and children to learn, they need to feel safe in their learning environment. One thing that establishes that feeling of ease and safety is for it to be bully-free.

Kids and teens who find themselves becoming victims of either physical or verbal bullying can suffer from bruising and injuries, but can also suffer from depression, anxiety, fear, and low self-esteem. Students who are subjected to the highest levels of bullying have higher amounts of tardiness, absence, and dropouts. But what can and should schools do to prevent this issue? Read on to learn about the bullying that happens in our schools, the steps schools have taken to stop it, and what happens when schools don’t do enough.

How prevalent is bullying?

Bullying breaks down as follows, according to statistics from the National Bullying Prevention Center.

According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50 percent of children are bullied at some point and ten percent are victims of bullying on a regular basis. Since 1992, there have been more than 250 violent deaths that were a direct result of bullying within schools, and it has also been a factor in several famous school shootings, including Columbine.

Cyber Bullying

Social media, text messaging, and other forms of bullying online have taken an issue that most students could escape at home, and made it nearly impossible to escape. Examples of cyber bullying include mean or nasty text messages and emails, rumors spread by social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles. Cyber bullying is especially problematic for schools because it often happens off campus and can even be done anonymously. Many schools even question what jurisdiction they have over things that happen outside of schools grounds.

The number of students being cyber bullied has only grown with “secret” apps like YikYak. The 2010-2011 School Crime Supplement indicated that nine percent of students in grades six through 12 experienced cyber bullying; however, the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey found that 15 percent of high school students (grades nine through 12) were electronically bullied in that year. It is difficult to combat cyber bullying because just when one app or social media service is fixed, another emerges.

What policies and procedures do schools have in place?

Forty-nine states have anti-bullying legislation–Montana is the one exception–but that seems to not be enough. Schools have no way of enforcing some of the policies, especially when no one is a witness to the bullying. Many have claimed that coming up with actionable steps has proven to be more difficult than it seems because of the wide range of types of bullying. Illinois requires schools to institute social-emotional learning to prevent bullying, whereas other schools have mediation and continual programming. Five states don’t have any repercussions for the anti-bullying laws, while 12 states can actually pursue criminal charges against bullies. These sanctions range anywhere from suspension to community service or even jail time.

Many parents and administrators feel that bullying is a rite of passage of the coming of age process, or a way to toughen up students. Especially with male-on-male bullying, it isn’t always taken seriously; however, those entering the guidance field are starting to receive more training on how to handle bullying situations. The topic has been especially visible in media since shows like “Glee,” “Degrassi,” and even “Hannah Montana” have highlighted the lack of attention placed on bullying in schools. Shows like “Glee,” where the character of Kurt was bullied to the point that he left school, have resonated with students and caused many states to reconsider their actions against bullies.

Still, as the consequences make more noise, administrators, teachers, and students are starting to be held accountable for the behaviors within school walls. The Department of Education recently issued guidance to educators on when acts of student bullying could violate federal education anti-discrimination laws.

What can schools do to prevent bullying?

The truth of bullying is that it isn’t always easily seen, nor is it always black and white. Many people who bully have also been bullied. There is no preventative measure that will eliminate it 100 percent; however, what can be done is to curb the bullying to an immediate, manageable level.

Websites like StopBullying, Jim Wright Online, and the National School Safety Center all offer solutions to the bullying problems. Some of the highlights include programs, group activities, and even ongoing programs for both the bully and the bullied. They also map out the different things the schools can do in a situation where someone is bullied.

For example, an investigation should start immediately after the concern is raised. Anyone can raise the concern, including teachers, students, siblings, parents, bus drivers, and other faculty members. The next step is to have a meeting with the child to find out what is going on–but never with the bully at the same time. Peer mediation has its place, but it should not happen between a bully and a victim.

If the bullying is physical, there should be steps taken to provide for the physical safety of the student, and someone needs to alert necessary faculty and staff members to be on the lookout. The bully also needs to have one-on-one meetings to make sure he or she understands the severity of the problem.

The most important thing is that the school does a thorough investigation into the bullying so that it stops and doesn’t hinder anyone anymore–as bullying often has far-reaching effects that can even hurt the atmosphere of the classroom.

What happens if the bullying doesn’t stop?

Unfortunately, that’s a gray area as well. Many schools have faced lawsuits and fines because they didn’t investigate bullying enough. Schools could face anything from fines in court, being sued by the student or the student’s family, or even mandatory programs within the school. The biggest problems could come for the teachers and administrators who either ignored the bullying, or did as little as possible while it occurred. Some courts are even calling it child endangerment, especially in cases of sexual harassment, abuse, and hate crimes. An even bigger problem comes from cyber bullying and the photos that have been taken of students. Some of these images could be called child pornography.

Case Studies

Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, et al. (4th Cir. July 2011)

In this case, a student sued the school district for limiting her First Amendment free speech rights after suspending her for creating a website that was attacking another student in the school. The website, called “Students Against Shay’s Herpes,” stated that the student had an STD, and created a comments section to gossip about the girl. Doctored photos also appeared on the website. Along with suspension, she was excluded from school festivities like a Charm Review, and she was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

The appeals court said the web page was created primarily for Kowalski’s classmates, so the school had the right to discipline her for disrupting the learning environment. They concluded that Kowalski had created a “hate website” in violation of the school’s anti-bullying policy.

The Judge in the case, Paul V. Niemeyer wrote:

Kowalski’s role in the `S.A.S.H.’ webpage, which was used to ridicule and demean a fellow student, was particularly mean-spirited and hateful. Regretfully, she yet fails to see that such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful and that it must be taken seriously by school administrators.

Still, it is a tricky area for schools, as many could see this as a freedom of speech violation, and because the website was made outside of school.

L.W. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

In L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a school district can be held accountable for bullying a student because of sexual orientation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD); however, this only applies when the district is aware of the harassment but fails to take reasonable steps to stop it.

The plaintiff’s mother filed a complaint under the LAD in the Division of Civil Rights in which she alleged that the defendant, the Board of Education, failed to take action in response to the harassment that her child suffered due to his perceived sexual orientation. The Division of Civil Rights found that the Board of Education was liable for the peer harassment that L.W. had endured. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Division on Civil Rights.

The case documented several years of abuse that started in fourth grade and continued into his freshman year, where he was bullied to the point of physical attacks. He was removed from the school and enrolled in a nearby district. As punishment for the initial bullying in elementary school, the school had students write apology letters. When he was taunted in seventh grade, the Assistant Principal broke up the fight, but found that L.W.’s behavior “provoked” the incident. More and more incidents occurred but the students only received verbal reprimands.

The school boasted a “zero tolerance bullying policy” the entire time. L.W.’s school addressed the policy in an assembly at the beginning of the school year, but there was no subsequent communication on the policy throughout the year. Eventually, L.W. withdrew from the school and enrolled at a school in a neighboring town. His attendance and transportation expenses were subsidized by the defendant Board of Education.

The Court concluded that the school had not taken reasonable steps to stop the bullying, and that there was more that could have been done on all levels. The Court differentiated L.W.’s situation from “isolated schoolyard insults” or “classroom taunts,” which is how the school had treated them.

Morrow v. Balaski 

At the end of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal seeking to hold a Pennsylvania School District responsible for the repeated bullying of a student by her peers. The case involved Brittany Morrow and the Blackhawk High School in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Her bullying included racial threats, physical assaults, and cyber bullying. In one incident described in the case, Brittany was suspended after defending herself during a lunchroom attack. When her parents asked the school how to keep her safe, they suggested another school. They later filed a lawsuit against the Blackhawk school district and an assistant principal for alleged violations of their 14th Amendment substantive-due-process rights.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court in Morrow v. Balaski, the family said school officials “acted to allow the aggressor to return to school following her temporary suspension and despite court orders mandating no contact. They opened the front door of the school to a person they knew would cause harm to the children.” The appeals court ruled nine to five in favor of the school that there was no “special relationship” between schools and students and ten to four that legal injuries to the victims were not the result of actions taken by administrators under a “state-created danger” theory of liability.

The court was torn about the case, saying “Parents … should be able to send their children off to school with some level of comfort that those children will be safe from bullies. Nonetheless, the Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social ill.”

Conclusion

Bullying is a serious problem, and that is especially evident within schools. From simple teasing to physical threats and even assault, bullying weakens the education system. Schools are creating programs and offering tools to try to combat it; however, many people think that teachers and administrators are failing to properly address bullying. It isn’t always easy, when bullying now takes on so many forms, including on the web, schools have a changing relationship with students.

Resources

Primary

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley Country Schools, et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey: L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

Additional

Governing: 49 States Now Have Anti-Bullying Laws. How’s that Working Out?

AACAP: Bullying

Web MD: Social Bullying Common in TV Shows Kids Watch

Education Week: Supreme Court Declines to Take Up School Bullying Case 

Pacer: National Bullying Prevention Center

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying in Schools: Who Gets the Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

Mental health and suicide prevention advocates are working to increase awareness of America’s suicide epidemic. In 2011, the most recent year for which there are relevant statistics, more than 39,000 Americans reportedly committed suicide. Suicide by veterans and members of the armed forces have been on the rise since 2001. Although safety nets and other deterrent mechanisms are used to discourage people from taking their lives, it has been proven that the first and most effective step to prevent suicide is recognizing and responding to the signs that signify someone is suffering from depression or mental illness. Advocates and mental health professionals emphasize recognition of trigger behaviors and attempt to provide better services to individuals struggling with depression and mental illness by working with federal, state, and local governments to provide access to essential services.

Click here to see some of the warning signs of suicide.

Here is everything  you need to know about suicide: the causes, policies, and legislation that are used to curb the growing epidemic.

Who is at the highest risk of suicide?

Suicide used to be reported as predominantly affecting teens and much older people, yet according to The New York Times, “from 1999 to 2010, the suicide rate among Americans ages 35 to 64 rose by nearly 30 percent.” Click here to see the most at-risk populations. Suicide also tends to be brought on by life trauma, such as abuse or childhood neglect. People who suffer from depression, mental illness, eating disorders, or have a history of drug use also have an increased chance of suicide.

Suicide Prevention Policies and Legislation

Case Study: Duke Ellington and Taft Bridges in Washington, DC 

Similar to the Golden Gate Bridge, the Duke Ellington Bridge in Northwest Washington, DC is an infamous location for suicides. On average about four suicides a year occur on the bridge, and in 1985, three people jumped off of it within a 10-day period. The busy Rock Creek Park below is a daunting 125-foot plunge. Half of all suicides in the District of Columbia occur on this notorious bridge.

In 1987, the National Trust for Historic Preservation brought a lawsuit against the efforts to build a suicide barrier at the Duke Ellington bridge. The organization claimed that the project was not protected by the Department of Transportation Act and that ultimately the erection of a barrier would ruin the historical and aesthetic appeal of the well-known bridge. The Trust also argued that the barrier served no purpose as people intent on committing suicide would simply migrate to the nearby Taft Bridge. In 1990, Congress vetoed the case to remove the barriers, and they still remain in tact today. A study conducted five years after the barrier construction showed that there were no suicides committed from the Duke Ellington bridge, and the count on the Taft Bridge remained virtually unchanged. In this case, the suicide barrier seems to be effective in the nation’s capital, once again proving suicide to be impulsive in nature.

Duke Ellington Bridge in Washington D.C. [Michiel 1972 via Wikipedia]

Suicide Barrier on the Duke Ellington Bridge [Alyson Hurt via Flickr]

Bullying and Suicide

Case Study: Rebecca Ann Sedwick

In September 2013, Florida resident Rebecca Ann Sedwick committed suicide after being repeatedly bullied throughout her time at Crystal Lake Middle School. Sedwick’s mother, Tricia Norman, pulled her from the school after Sedwick had been attacked by a group of peers. Norman also discovered harassing text messages on her daughter’s phone, and even more shockingly Sedwick had self-inflicted cuts up and down her legs.

After Norman became aware of her daughter’s torment, she moved her to Lawton Chiles Middle Academy to attend the seventh grade. Despite the change in schools, the bullying continued. Most of it came from social media websites such as Kik Messenger, Instagram, and Ask.fm, all of which can be used anonymously. Some of these messages included: “You should die” and “why don’t you go kill yourself?”

Twelve-year-old Katelyn Roman and 14-year-old Guadalupe Shaw were charged with aggravated stalking and arrested as juveniles. Just one month later, the charges were dropped, and the war between Norman and the authorities began. According to CNN, Norman’s attorney said in a statement that he plans to sue both the  Polk County School Board and one or both of the girls who were arrested in the case.

Bullying: Social Media

The main reason that the charges against Roman and Shaw were dropped is because of the lack of available evidence. Many of the sites that Sedwick was bullied on were “disappearing apps,” meaning that the messages would automatically be deleted after a short period of time. In an attempt to gain justice for Sedwick and prevent future online bullying cases from going unidentified, Norman continues to work to develop a safer social media environment. Recently one the websites that Sedwick used, Ask.fm, added a “Safety Tools” page that details its anti-bully safety features.

Click here to read more about bullying and social media.

Rebecca’s Law

In response to Sedwick’s suicide as a result of bulling, Florida is considering Rebecca’s Law, which would punish bullying as a  misdemeanor and aggravated bullying as a third-degree felony. In Florida where Sedwick was a resident, there is no legislation that can punish an individual legally solely based on the loosely defined term “bullying.” If the bill passes, alleged bullies could face fines or in more severe consequences jail time.

This is not the only case that has resulted in the suicide of a school-aged child or teen. In response to the tragedy, the Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2013  was proposed to crack down on bullying in schools. Its main purpose is to outline anti-bullying policies, which include creating a comfortable and safe environment at school for every child. The bill calls for the state to submit an annual report evaluating the programs being used to end bullying in secondary and elementary schools. The bill calls for evaluation of training programs for professionals, as well as a survey of parent involvement.

Case Study: Grace’s Law

Fifteen-year-old Grace McComas of Howard County, Maryland committed suicide on Easter Sunday 2012. Similar to Sedwick, McComas was repeatedly harassed on online social media sites, which ultimately drove her to suicide.

In response to the death of McComas, Grace’s Law  was passed in 2013 to end cyber bullying through the banning and regulation of electronic harassment. The law prohibits “a person from using a computer or computer network to disseminate certain data with the malicious intent to psychologically torment or harass a minor.” Anyone who chooses to violate this and bully someone under the age of 18 could be punished with a misdemeanor charge.

Suicide on College Campuses

Suicide at Universities

College is a stressful time for many students; they are in a new environment, have to make new friends, and are under the pressure of maintaining both good grades and the responsibility of extracurricular activity. College can be a balancing act, and often stress, depression, and loneliness can affect and overwhelm students. In extreme cases they resort to what they feel to be the last option, suicide. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, “Suicide is the third leading cause of death on college campuses” and the Jed Foundation reports that, “half of all college students have had suicidal thoughts.”

Not only does suicide affect the friends and family members if the deceased, it also puts universities at risk for lawsuit.

University Responsibility

Many schools adhere to the No-Duty-to-Prevent-Suicide rule; however, there have been cases in which families of students who committed suicide sue the school based on its mental health policy. One such case, Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County occurred in Maryland. The parents of Nicole Eisel sued the School Board for the middle-school counselor’s failure to report Eisel’s expression of suicidal preoccupation. This case set a standard for both counselors and schools: “School counselors have a duty to use reasonable means to attempt to prevent a suicide when they are placed on notice of a student’s suicidal intent.” A school will not necessarily be convicted in the case of a student suicide, yet if the student expresses obvious signs and the school fails to intervene, it may be held liable. In contrasting cases such as White v. University of Wyoming, Jain v. State, and Bogust v. Iverson, the No-Duty-to-Prevent-Suicide rule held and the schools were ultimately exempt from accountability for student suicides.

Organizations to Prevent Suicide at Universities

The most recognized organization in suicide reform is the organization started by Alison Malmon, Active Minds. It was founded in Washington DC in 2003, three years after Malmon’s brother committed suicide due to mental health issues. Active Mind’s main mission is to eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness and urge students to seek help.

One parent, whose college-aged son committed suicide created the Jason Foundation, which works to prevent youth suicide through awareness and education. The organization is working to create a smartphone app that will connect people contemplating suicide directly to a hotline to receive support and immediate intervention.

There are also organizations such as the Jed Foundation that focus on student mental health and work to end suicide in the college population through campus counseling and programs. The Jed Foundation is fighting to have congress include a mental health screening within its health reform bills.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness offers several education and support services for mental health crises, as well as support the battle to end suicide on campuses.

The Campus Suicide Prevention Grants program targets students with mental illness and substance abuse issues. It aims to improve services and expand access to services for students who are at a higher risk of suicide. Both private and public institutions of higher learning can apply for the grant 

Suicide Prevention: National Innovation

Surgeon General Regina Benjamin is a strong backer of the national initiative to decrease suicide in the United States. A National Strategy containing four main pillars has been proposed:

1. Direct a focus to the family, the individual, and the community.
2. Develop better preventative techniques.
3. Provide efficient and easily accessible treatment for mental health.
4. Improve the surveillance of data and enact appropriate and timely methods based on the analysis.

Medicaid has already started to cover depression screenings. According to USA TODAY, “physicians will be rewarded by Medicare and Medicaid for screening depressed patients for suicide risk.” This is an incentive for doctors to follow through with care, and highlights the importance of mental healthcare.

Two bills currently being considered by the House of Representatives are aimed at mental healthcare improvements. HR 3717, the “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” covers psychiatric support for families and patients that have the most crucial needs. HR 4574, the “Strengthening Mental Health in our Communities Act of 2014″ includes offering more community-based services accessible to individuals with mental health needs. Organizations such as The National Alliance on Mental Illness, are strong supports of this legislation and are petitioning to have it enacted into law. 

Suicide Prevention: State Level

Case Study: The Matt Adler Suicide Assessment, Treatment, and Management Act of 2012

Lawyer Matt Adler committed suicide in February 2011 due to extreme depression and anxiety. In response to her husband’s death, Adler’s wife Jennifer Stuber worked with the state of Washington to take legislative action to prevent future suicides. One year later in March 2012, the Matt Adler Suicide Assessment, Treatment, and Management Act was signed into law. The Act requires “mental health professionals, social workers, and occupational therapists to receive six hours of training every six years, as part of their continuing education requirement.“ This mandatory training ensures that professionals are better equipped to identify and handle signs of suicide. 

Click here to see Washington State Bill that requires mandatory training for clinical professionals on suicide prevention.

Almost every state has a plan to prevent suicide, including similar tactics to combat the issue, such as education, suicide-awareness initiatives, survey and analysis of statistical evidence, and improvement of medical and support services are all strategies to fight the epidemic. To see a few of these suicide prevention plans, click on the state link: Colorado , Indiana, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, California, Texas, and Idaho.

Methods of Action

Zero Suicide Academy

Although suicide barriers and hotline support can stop the act of suicide, they do not address the underlying issues at hand — the victim’s mental health. Even if someone is deterred from suicide once, it does not guarantee that the thoughts will be permanently eliminated. People who contemplate suicide tend to have a suicidal tendency based on mental or environmental causes.

In response to the nationwide epidemic, the Alliance for Suicide Prevention held a conference in Washington, DC in June 2014. Participants discussed several methods of identifying risk factors and methods of action to reduce suicide rates. The discussion revolved around the “Zero Suicide Toolkit” that includes six components:

1. Creating the Zero Suicide Culture. This consists of creating efficient and reliable care for people at risk, while also ensuring that the clinicians themselves receive care and compassion in order to maintain a healthy and effective environment for both the patient and the professional.

2. Ensuring Every Person Has a Pathway to Care is an important element in identifying suicidal behaviors and preventing the patient taking action based on their specific risk level and needs. Follow-up care is also an important component in ensuring every patient receives the most effective care.

3. Developing a Competent Workforce  is key to keeping employees mentally healthy. This consists of developing a system where there is “collaboration, team approaches, and effective communication” in place. Employees and behavioral health staff should be aware of suicidal signs and react in a supportive manner. The behavioral staff, should be trained and able to provide the mental health needs of staff at risk. 

4. Identifying and Assessing Suicide Risk Level is important in understanding each individual’s specific situation and reacting based on a plan tailored to that person’s specialized treatment needs.

5. Using Effective, Evidence-based Care  focuses on keeping the individual out of a hospital setting if possible. This consists of collaborative therapy with a focus on behavioral and problem-solving strategies.

6. Continuing contact after care is a vital component in ensuring that the patient will remain healthy. Follow-up services and support groups are a key element in maintaining an individual’s well being after initial care.

Click here to see the conference framework in its entirety.

Conclusion

There is progress being made toward slowing the suicide epidemic in this country, including action at the local, state, and federal levels to decrease the rate of suicide. Education, awareness, and supportive services for families, communities, and mental health professionals are all part of broad framework to combat suicide. Suicide is a mental health issue with subjective impulses, so it is to completely eliminate, yet as a society we have started to recognize the signs and are taking policy and legislative action to combat this epidemic.

Resources

Healthy Children: Help Stop Teen Suicide 

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: Preventing Suicide 

UCLA Center: School Interventions to Prevent Youth Suicide

ABC: Mom of Suicide Tween Rebecca Sedwick to Sue ‘Those Responsible’

Crimesider: “Rebecca’s Law” aims to punish bullying in Fla.

SPRC: Success and Inspiration at the Zero Suicide Academy 

The New York Times: The Urge to end it all 

Action Alliance: Zero Suicide in Health and Behavioral Health Care

USA Today: Surgeon General Urges new Focus on Suicide Prevention 

USA Today: Suicide Prevention the Focus of new Government , Campus Programs 

Huffington Post: How to Prevent Your Ivy League Student From Becoming Suicidal 

USA Today: Recent has University Reflecting on College Stress 

CNN: Police file raises questions about bullying in Rebecca Sedwick’s suicide

Baltimore Sun: Grace’s Law, a cyberbullying bill, called ‘landmark legislation’

Fordham Law Review: Keeping Students Alive: Mandating On-Campus Counseling Saves Suicidal College Students’ Livesand Limits Liability

UNC Law: Student Suicides and School System Liability

Ledger: Lakeland Girl Commits Suicide After 1½ Years of Being Bullied

CNN: Sheriff: Taunting post leads to arrests in Rebecca Sedwick bullying death

USA Today: Surgeon General Urges New Focus Prevention on Suicide Prevention

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suicide Prevention Policies Aim to Curb Epidemic appeared first on Law Street.

One of the greatest fears of parents today is that their child or teen will be the victim of cyberbullying. Increasing numbers of young people today are engaging in malicious bullying acts online targeting their peers, which has emerged from the growing amount of social media platforms that enable them to hide. While there are factors that contribute to the likelihood of an individual being subject to this kind of bullying, the income of the family of targets seems to play a minor role if any. According to new data released by researchers at Michigan State University, cyberbullying affects young people in poor and rich households alike.

While traditional bullying rates still trump those of cyberbullying, the online version of cruelty among young people is increasing yearly. An academic study published in 2012 defined cyberbullying as “sending mean, vulgar or threatening messages or images, posting sensitive or private information online, pretending to be someone else online in order to make a person look bad or intentionally exclude a person from an online group.” From 2009 to 2011 alone, the number of those affected by cyber bullying increased from 1.5 to 2.2 million. Unfortunately, information released in 2011 is the most recent available data.

It was previously assumed that cyberbullying was predominantly the activity of young people in affluent areas. The reasoning behind this was the assumption that those living in impoverished conditions would have less access to the kinds of resources needed to participate in cyberbullying. This presumed difference in access to digital devices is referred to as the ‘digital divide,’ and according to Thomas J Holt, an MSU Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, does not exist based on their findings from researching cyberbullying.

Another contributing factor to these balanced levels of cyberbullying is the fact that significantly more young people have access to technological devices that can be used for this purpose. According to findings on cyberbullying.us, an October, 2013 survey found that of 400 middle school students interviewed, 97.5 percent had been online in the 30 days preceding, showing that the vast majority of youths have access to the Internet.

The MSU study seems to be one of the first of its kind, as it is only every few years that organizations release findings regarding rates of bullying. The team spearheading the research surveyed 2,000 students in rich and poor middle and high schools. The results revealed that living in poor, crime-infested neighborhoods was a significant predictor of physical, verbal and online bullying.

What can be Done to Eliminate Cyberbullying?

Teachers and parents of all socioeconomic levels need to increase their involvement and more closely monitor the online activity of their students and children. Holt emphasizes the importance of teachers and administrators to learn to combat bullying in both real and online settings.

Such a message is vital to ensure all forms of bullying are given equal emphasis

-Thomas J Holt

According to endcyberbullying.org, parents communicating with their children and setting guidelines for the use of technical devices can drastically lower the chance that they will engage in bullying activity in the long run. It goes both ways, however; youths are encouraged to speak with a parent or other trusted adult if he or she becomes the target of bullying.

[MSU Study]

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PublicEpicness via Pixabay]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cyberbullying Knows No Socioeconomic Bounds appeared first on Law Street.

Millennials love the Internet, and most can tell you that from a young age, bullying was as present there as it was on the playground. As states have struggled to keep changing technology on the books to prevent bullying, they have faced challenges when it comes to preventing, or correcting, behavior that happens online and outside of school.

In Illinois, the Senate just passed a law that would ban students from using phones and computers as mechanisms for cyberbullying- whether in school or at home. The bill is on its way to the governor’s desk, and if signed, would be one of few around the country to include such far-reaching rules for cyberbullying; most only tackle in-school behavior. But critics call into question whether the bill can be effective, and even if it is, whether or not it goes too far- making school administrators step in where law enforcement should instead. The law in Illinois previously covered cyberbullying only if it took place on school computers- this new bill goes far beyond that.

This Illinois bill, while in many ways necessary, calls into question a number of things, the first of which being the jurisdiction of a school’s administration. If cyberbullying is taking place outside of school altogether, it is hard to find legal precedent for why the matter should be brought inside the school. Some critics of this bill, and of others like it, say cyberbullying is best dealt with by local police authorities instead of those at the school. Furthermore, not all cyberbullying is a result of students being victimized by others at the same school- it is entirely possible that the bullying can happen from students in other school districts, other states, or even other countries.

Another potential problem with this bill would be the mechanisms by which it is enforced. The simplest way to keep track of this cyberbullying would be to have victims show school administrators websites or other social media platforms that have the bullying. But oftentimes, victims are too scared or embarrassed to do that. And even for those who do come forward, social media websites like Facebook and Twitter, and other new platforms like YikYak (which has already been called a haven for bad behavior), can allow bullies to act anonymously. Of course, some simple sleuth work or help from law enforcement would be able to dig up a lot of information on the root of the cyberbullying, but with many schools being underfunded and understaffed, there are questions about how effective administrators could be about looking into all of these instances.

But even if it were possible for school officials to effectively monitor this kind of behavior- what are the legal complications of instituting this kind of policy?

1. Historical Precedent

At public schools, students are granted a degree of free speech, and there have been a plethora of court cases trying to define such boundaries. One of the earliest is the famed Tinker v. Des Moines, which held students have the right to free speech so long as they don’t disrupt what’s supposed to happen at school (learning in a calm environment). One of the reasons cyberbullying is difficult to mesh in with a case law on free speech, is because it usually does not take place on campus, so that “disruption” is more difficult to pinpoint.

2. Different ways cyberbullying is defined

Currently, 13 states have off-campus behaviors included in their cyberbullying policies, all to varying degrees. Some states, like Arkansas, require off-campus attacks to be directed at students or staff and be “intended for the purpose of disrupting school, and has a high likelihood of succeeding in that purpose.” Other states, like Connecticut, define cyberbullying a bit more broadly, considering cyberbullying anything that “creates a hostile environment at school for the victim.” Obviously, the more broadly defined, the more instances of bullying it will include, and the more work that will need to be done by school officials as a result.

In Illinois, bullying is defined as “any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act of conduct, including communications made in writing or electronically” that results in a student fearing harm of self or property, that substantially interferes with academic performance, or causes harm to a student’s physical or mental health. That definition has always been in place in Illinois, just now extends further to cover off-campus online bullying, too.

It is not yet clear where the line will be drawn in terms of cyberbullying rules each school can enact. It seems that as long as schools can prove the bullying (on campus, or off) led to significant disruption within the school, they are within their rights to enact these policies.

[Education Week] [State Facts] [Tinker v. Des Moines] [boston.com]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr- woodleywonderworks]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illinois Tries to Expand Cyberbullying Laws Outside of Schools appeared first on Law Street.

It goes without saying that bullying is a condemnable practice and that it remains a crucial problem to solve in this country. But can we really punish children for bullying with the law?

A bill, which ultimately failed during a final vote held on May 20, would have made bullying a criminal offense in Carson, California. Jim Dear, the mayor of Carson, wanted to designate his city as a bully-free zone. Dear and the city council supported a bill that would have made bullying a misdemeanor for culprits that are 25 and under. The ordinance imposed a fine on those convicted of the misdemeanor. Mayor Dear felt that this measure would help to prevent bullying.

Two reasons why the bill failed:

1. The language used was extremely vague, making the bill hard to interpret. The bill did not define bullying, and it’s lack of specifications as to what actions constitute bullying was worrisome to many. The ambiguous language could have allowed law enforcement officers to determine that bullying had occurred at their own discretion.

2. Many members of the Carson community expressed concerns over the measure’s application to young children, noting that elementary school children are still beginning to develop and cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.

But while the measure failed, the fact that it was close to passing puts great importance on the matter of whether ordinances against bullying should be enacted into law. Moreover, although the Carson bill did not pass, a similar measure in Florida will soon be put to a vote.

Controversy: should bullying be considered a criminal offense?

Susan Porter, author of Bully Nation, thinks not. Porter, a seasoned educator and counselor, debated the issue with Mayor Dear on a public radio station in California. In her book, Ms. Porter expressed that through her experience in schools, she found that increasingly harsh anti-bullying policies in schools did not decrease the amount of bullying in schools but made the situation worse. She claimed that school policies labeled children as bullies or victims, and that these children continued to adhere to those roles in the future.

Many anti-bullying policies treat the situations as black and white, attempting to solve the problem by shielding victims rather than working with both children to resolve their conflict in a less harmful way. By focusing on the punishment rather than the problem, the issue of bullying in American schools has yes to be resolved. Given this view on bullying, Ms. Porter argued against Carson’s proposed law, viewing the measure as another method of focusing on the punishment rather than taking steps to prevent children from bullying in the first place.

For more insight into Susan Porter’s argument against anti-bullying laws, check out this interview with her from Reason TV:

Despite Susan Porter’s reasoned argument, many municipalities and cities are still considering anti-bullying laws on the books. In fact, several cities already have, including Milton, Wisconsin. But while Carson’s potential anti-bullying law was met with a great deal of criticism and media attention, Milton’s law, which has been in place for four years, has not had any issues in its enforcement.

What, then, can cities like Carson learn from Milton’s law in shaping anti-bullying policy?

For one thing, Milton’s policy allows for schools to internally handle the first instances of bullying rather than immediately resorting to law enforcement. This can allow schools a chance to work with students to teach them why bullying is wrong rather than simply stating that it is wrong through formal punishment. While schools still need to improve the ways that they handle bullying, allowing the schools to handle offenses first gives them the opportunity to guide children in the error of their ways before they are convicted of bullying. This practice, if coupled with successful school counseling, could lessen the number of bullies that would be formally charged by the law.

Additionally, the policy gives a clearer definition on the kind of practices that constitute severe bullying. Jim Martin, the Milton school policer officer, noted that he “only engages the most severe cases, and draws a sharp distinction between the kind of behavior that requires intervention and the usual push and pull of the schoolyard.” Ensuring that only serious cases of bullying could be brought to court gives a clearer sense of what actions would violate the law and does not put children who name call and those who beat up others into the same category. 

With a clearer definition of what actions make bullying a crime and allowing schools to work with children to teach them about the harm bullying causes rather than immediately punishing them, the Milton law remains a good example of an anti-bullying policy. If cities feel that enacting an ordinance against bullying will help curb the problem in their schools and communities, careful wording must be put into the law to allow for the proper handling of these situations.

[NPR] [SCPR] [Susan Porter] [Desert News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post New Anti-Bullying Bill: 2 Reasons Why it Failed appeared first on Law Street.

For years now schools have had to continually ask themselves, “How do we deal with bullies?” It seems like no matter what, when you put a bunch of young people together in a building to spend day after day with just a few teachers to supervise, you end up with some kids who pick on others. So schools have to figure out how to confront this issue, and unfortunately ome of them do a very very bad job at it.

Candler Elementary in Buncombe County, NC made a pitiful attempt to stop the bullying of a young boy who carried a “My Little Pony” backpack. Instead of punishing the bullies who targeted the boy or even telling them to stop, they told the boy to stop bringing the backpack to school.

Caprock Academy in Grand Junction, Colo. barred a 9-year-old girl from attending school for not following the school’s dress code. The dress code was created to ensure that students look similar and don’t create any distractions. So how had the girl violated the code? She shaved her head in solidarity with her friend who has cancer.

These instances send messages to students that I find incredibly problematic.

3. The message it sends to bullies. 

Removing kids from school because they’re in any way nonconformist tells kids that it’s not OK to be yourself — and that’s a dangerous message to send to bullies because it validates their behavior. It tells the bullies that there is something wrong with these students and they deserve to be treated differently as a result.

This is almost exactly what happened in Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota a few years ago. In just two years, 2009-2011, nine kids in the district committed suicide. Many were either gay, or thought to be gay by their classmates. Anoka-Hennepin actually banned all discussion of homosexuality from its schools during this period. Teachers had to avoid talking to their students about homosexuality or identity for fear of losing their jobs. Students weren’t allowed to form a Gay Straight Alliance. They couldn’t talk to staff about fears, concerns, or crises they were having. As Jefferson Fietek, a teacher at Anoka Middle School, pointed out, “LGBTQ students don’t feel safe at school. They’re made to feel ashamed of who they are. They’re bullied. And there’s no one to stand up for them, because teachers are afraid of being fired.”

The case of the young man with the My Little Pony backpack isn’t that far from what Anoka-Hennepin did. By removing all mention of homosexuality from that school, administrators were saying that it was indeed wrong, and that young people struggling with their sexuality didn’t deserve resources, understanding, or protection. They said that the bullies are right because those kids are, in fact, harmfully different. By removing that kid’s backpack from school, administrators at Candler Elementary are doing the same thing. They are saying that he is wrong and deserves to be taunted.

Now, it’s important to note that both schools have since changed their policies. Anoka-Hennepin School District, after the tragic rash of suicides, started providing resources to LGBTQ students. And Candler Elementary has since allowed the backpack back in school. But the fact that this was the automatic reaction on the part of the school district is unquestionably concerning.

2. The message it sends to the victims. 

Such actions on the part of the school sends the opposite message to the victims. It tells them that their abuse is justified. It propagates a bullying culture. It essentially tells students that they need to conform to their bully’s expectations in order to avoid being bullied. But adolescence is when people explore their likes and dislikes, their personalities, and their passions. And to teach children to hide those things because it could expose them to the bullies is ridiculous. Instead, bullies should be taught not to bully. They should be taught that treating another human being that way is abhorrent and utterly unacceptable.

Victim blaming is a bad way to deal with bullying, but it often seems like an immediate reaction on the part of the school. For example, look at this story of a girl in Missouri who was bullied because of her body. According to a report on the issue, “Tammie Jackson contacted her daughter’s middle school to complain about her daughter Gabrielle Jackson being bullied, as reported by Fox News. Allegedly, a school official at Central Middle School in Moline Acres, Mo., said Gabrielle would be bullied unless she transferred schools and had breast reduction surgery.”

That’s utterly ridiculous. Telling a young girl, who is probably already insecure about her body, that she needs to get breast reduction surgery in order to avoid being bullied is disgusting. Instead, we need to teach the bullies that you shouldn’t be a gigantic, disgusting, jerk.

1. The message it sends to the rest of the students. 

It teaches other students to be bystanders. Years after taking an Intro to Psych course, the Kitty Genovese story has always stuck with me. For those of you who don’t know this story, it’s essentially one of the most well known examples of the bystander effect. In 1968, Kitty Genovese was stabbed outside her home in Queens, New York. She screamed for help the entire time, but none of her neighbors, despite being able to hear her, did anything. They all thought that it wasn’t their responsibility and that someone else would obviously step in to help. But no one did, and Genovese died that night.

When schools blame victims for being bullied, they are teaching their students to just stand there for fear of being bullied themselves. They are teaching students that nonconformity is a bad thing, and that there’s no need to defend those being bullied. And in some ways, that’s the most dangerous lesson of all, because no matter where you go in life there will be bullies. Whether it’s a pushy coworker, or an obnoxious neighbor, or an angry driver on the road, there will be bullies in life. And if we teach our young people to stand up for others, that’s the first step to counteracting those bullies. Teaching students to just stand by and watch will just make the problem worse.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [TwentyFour Students via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schools Need to Change How They Deal with Bullying. Now. appeared first on Law Street.

NFL prospect Michael Sam revealed to the public this week that he is gay. Sam’s decision is undoubtedly brave; if drafted (and he probably will be), he will be the first openly gay male professional athlete in a sport that manufactures traditional male stereotypes. But Sam is no stranger to bravery or to breaking stereotypes. Michael Sam was the first member of his family to attend college, and one of the few children of JoAnn Sam not to clash with law enforcement. Since Sam is used to breaking molds, he may not have needed legal protections to come out. But if we want to enable his choice in more workplaces, two laws could prompt similar behavior.

1. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): ENDA is a federal bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with at least 15 employees. If enacted, ENDA would prohibit employers, employment agencies, and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity for decisions such as hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation (read the Human Rights Campaign’s breakdown of the law here). Despite the growing support for ENDA, Govtrack.us gives the bill only a 14 percent chance of becoming law.  Without it, many LGBT employees could face the painful dilemma of lying to co-workers about their identities or risk losing their employment (although it’s worth noting that 21 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws). ENDA does have friends in Washington however, and is rumored to become law for federal contractors through executive order.

2. Workplace Bullying Legislation: This type of legislation is another means to combat discrimination at work and thus possibly encourage LGBT employees to be comfortable at their own jobs. Unlike ENDA, workplace bullying laws may provide private claims for employees against other employees who bully or create toxic working environments through bullying. Some state legislatures have proposed insulating employers who act responsibly to thwart workplace bullying. Despite the growing trend of anti-bullying laws being passed on behalf of public schools, workplace bullying legislation has not been enacted in any U.S. State or at the Federal level. The lack of seriousness regarding workplace bullying laws may soon be a thing of the past, however. Sixteen states have proposed workplace bullying laws since 2009, and the high profile case involving the alleged harassment in the Miami Dolphins locker room may push this issue to the forefront.

Michael Sam’s revelation fortunately lacked the backlash that many expected. Sam’s former teammates on the Missouri Tigers supported him when he privately came out, and several prominent athletes showed support for Sam when he  revealed the news publicly. But tolerance can be fleeting, and Sam’s journey is just beginning.  With laws in place to protect LGBT individuals from workplace discrimination or harassment, his journey is more likely to have a happy ending, and more likely to prompt others to follow in his cleat prints.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia/Marcus Qwertyus]

Andrew Blancato

The post 2 Laws That Could Encourage More Michael Sams to Come Out appeared first on Law Street.

In the moment, it may seem harmless to share a provocative photo with a significant other during the comfortable times of a relationship. However, when in emotional turmoil these photos can spread across the internet like wildfire, ruining your reputation and in some cases your life. There is one specific type of public humiliation with regards to nude photos and while not everyone may be aware of this new trend called revenge porn, others are reaping the legal ramifications for it. Revenge porn consists of sexually explicit material shared publically through the media and is often posted by either exes or in some cases hackers. Before rushing to Google to make sure that one of your own compromising photos has not been leaked across the web, you can feel some comfort in the fact that one of the key contributors for these revenge porn sites was arrested by the FBI on Thursday, January 23, 2014.

Hunter Moore, created a business out of revenge porn through the foundation of his website IsAnyoneUp.com, lasting for sixteen months. This site was originally intended to be an outlet for angry exes to post nude pictures of their previous partners, accompanied by the subject’s full name, city of residence, profession and links to their social media profile. As if all of this humiliation was not enough, Moore would also guarantee that the posted photos be displayed across Google for everyone to see, including bosses, professors or even parents. In its prime, IsAnyoneUp.com boasted around 350,000 views daily and 15 to 30 unlucky victims featured on the site per day ranged from infamous celebrities such as the real housewives to mothers and schoolteachers. All of this spiteful sharing of photos, has earned Hunter Moore the title; the most hated man on the internet. Not to worry though, this revenge site was shut down in April 2012, when it was bought by Bullyville.com

Moore and his hacker associate Charles Evens, spent their work days not only receiving photos of unfortunate victims but also hacking into the email accounts of chosen victims to steal sexually explicit photos to fuel their website. The two are currently facing the consequences as they are being charged with a 15 count indictment, involving identity theft, conspiracy and computer hacking. If the pair of hackers are found guilty of the accumulation of charges, they have the possibility of facing up to 42 years in prison.

The specific date of this hacking has not been completely uncovered, but there is email evidence dating back to October 2011. This emailing back and forth between Moore and Evens consisted of conversations regarding how to hack email accounts as well as plans to exchange up to $250 for nude photos of 6 males and 6 females. It is documented that as the ringleader of the website, Moore paid his hacking assistant up to $900 in individual installments through March 2012.

Officially, the indictment involves seven counts of unlawful entry into a computer to obtain personal information, seven accounts of identity theft and charges the two men with conspiracy. The indictment includes a list of seven victims, identified by their initials, all of whom had email accounts containing “among other things, nude pictures of themselves and others.” The indictment is signed by four attorneys within the United States, working in intellectual, cyber and property crimes as well as the United States attorney’s Criminal Division.

Those affected by Moore are not the only ones facing an issue with publicized explicit content on the web. Embarrassing situations revolving around the topics of sexting and nude photos have become a point of debate across the United States legal system. Many victims are attempting to eradicate revenge porn sites, such as Maryland woman, Annemarie Chiarini. On January 28, 2014 Chiarini begged the Maryland House Judiciary Committee to create new criminal laws preventing revenge porn, after her ex boyfriend published her explicit photos across the internet. Actions are actually being taken to prevent the defamation faced by victims such as Chiarini, as Dels. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D- Montgomary) and Jon S Cardin (D- Baltimore County) are attempting to extend protection against sexual harassment on the Internet. Such legislation would stop someone from sharing explicit material featuring another person without their consent as well as requiring proof that publicizing this content was meant to cause emotional pain. Chiarini is pushing her state to move forward in revenge porn legislation, while other states such as New Jersey and California have labeled this type of public sharing of explicit photos as a crime.

These cases present the idea that not everything on the internet is private and something shared in confidence can easily become publicly viewed. It is ridiculous to me that a revenge porn site that was secretly stealing nude photos from email accounts could even last for sixteen months. The government is supposedly watching everything that is happening online so why did this slip past their view for so long? Privacy needs to remain sacred over the internet. The fact that images of your body can be exposed to the public without your consent makes me question what else can be so easily leaked about you. Just imagine what other information that you believed to be private is actually floating around the web at this very moment. While some states such as Maryland have begun creating legislation regarding revenge porn, others have fallen completely behind or believe that certain cases of sharing explicit photos do not fall under the category of crime. This is neither right nor just. Legislation regarding revenge porn and maintaining the privacy of Internet users needs to happen, now.  It just makes sense that if a picture or private information is being shared without your consent and with the intent to undermine someones career or reputation, steps need to be taken by the court. Victims of this injustice should be allowed the right to fight back against wrongdoing. Embarrassment is one thing, but an alteration in your entire lifestyle for the worst is another. This violating action happened to innocent victims, that never believed their information would be spread online. It could have been anyone and one day if the courts do not step in, it could be you.  

[Rolling Stone]  [The Guardian] [The Washington Post]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Cory Doctorow via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Finally Takes Action on Revenge Porn: Sign of Things to Come appeared first on Law Street.

When I hear about bullying I think of children crowded around a playground. I do not think of burly 300-pound men. Well, all of my bullying misconceptions were put to rest this week, after the increasingly odd story revolving around alleged bullying, racism and abuse on the Miami Dolphins.

Any attempt to simplify this story will go horribly astray, because the complicated web of controversy and pure weirdness keeps getting more tangled by the day. My attempt at a timeline will start with the principal players—Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito. Jonathan Martin, an offensive tackle from Stanford has stated that Richie Incognito, a guard who’d been with the team for years, harassed, threatened, and made racist remarks to him. These incidents of bullying came out after Martin left the team on October 28^th. He is currently listed on the non-football injury list and has reportedly checked into a hospital room seeking treatment for emotional distress. Incognito was suspended on November 2^nd.

The messages that Incognito sent to Martin were without a doubt incredibly offensive. The transcript of a voicemail left on Martin’s phone by Incognito was as follows:

Hey, wassup, you half n—– piece of [expletive] . . . I saw you on Twitter, you been training ten weeks. [I want to] [expletive] in your [expletive] mouth. [I’m going to] slap your [expletive] mouth. [I’m going to] slap your real mother across the face (laughter). [Expletive] you, you’re still a rookie. I’ll kill you.

When allegations first came up, the Dolphins originally claimed that they were groundless. But after they were presented with evidence and forced to acknowledge Incognito’s actions, it has come to light that according to anonymous sources, Incognito may have been told to “toughen up” Martin by the Dolphin’s leadership. Incognito still stands by his claims that he was just joking around with a teammate, and not serious about any of the things that he said to Martin. In regards to the expletive riddled voicemail cited above, Incognito stated, “when I see that voicemail, when I see those words come across the screen, I’m embarrassed by it. I’m embarrassed by my actions. But what I want people to know is, the way Jonathan and rest of the offensive line and how our teammates, how we communicate it’s vulgar. It’s not right.”

Other odd facts have come into the story: Martin has hired a lawyer, David Cornwall. Cornwall came out with a statement that claims Martin also suffered a “malicious physical attack” and endured treatment that went well beyond hazing.

Dolphin’s owner Stephen Ross has gone to the NFL and asked for an investigation into the team’s workplace condition. A special counsel will investigate. The NFL Players’ Association has stated that it is not pursuing an investigation, but will try to work with both of the players if need be.

There are also claims of other inappropriate behavior by Incognito. ABC News unearthed a police report from 2012 in which Incognito harassed a 34-year-old female volunteer at a Dolphins golf tournament.

This story has led to a number of different reactions. Dolphins team members claim  that Martin and Incognito were good friends and that they were confused when Martin made these allegations. Commentators and critics have ranged from dismayed over the culture of hazing and bullying in the NFL, to embarrassed that grown men would behave in such a way.

Unlike some past NFL scandals that have been purely about team management and playing style, for example, the Patriot’s 2007 “spygate” scandal, this has the potential to open up a national discussion on so many levels. Conversations on racism, sports culture, hazing, and management are all fair game. Clearly, all need to happen on the Miami Dolphins team.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Douglas McConnell via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Miami Dolphins Should Be Embarrassed appeared first on Law Street.