Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Bullying Outside School Gates
Bullying is a widespread vice affecting a majority of schools across the globe. America is not exempted from the trend, with studies indicating that between 20 and 25 percent of youths are involved either as victims or perpetrators (Junoven & Graham 159). Today, the emergence of technology has elevated bullying to a new level. Bullies now perform their acts from the comfort of their phones and computers outside school jurisdiction areas. A debate has consequently arisen over whether schools should take prospective action against their students found guilty of bullying others outside the school compound. While the prospect evokes mixed reactions, the most critical question remains what action schools should take against such offending students. Schools should play a bit-part role in solving bullying cases that occur outside the compound.
Computers and cellphones are private property and may not be subject to school authorities‘ search warrant, especially when they are used during off-days. Principles are, therefore, right to refer parents to state authorities when cases of bullying that occur over the weekends or at home are reported to the school. The statement is not a denial of the school’s responsibility to shape students into responsible adults. It is an acceptance that the parents also have a part to play in their children’s development and that the school cannot shoulder all the responsibility. The main reason why schools should take a lukewarm stand is that many states’ laws do not explicitly state their role in such scenarios, others are contradictory while the rest instruct schools to stay out (Hoffman). By keeping a safe distance, school authorities do not expose themselves to possible backlash from parents who would prefer their cases to be handled externally.
School administrators who choose to solve bullying cases happening outside school gates should do so out of their own volition. Since state laws in some regions do not provide specific regulations, the school could face legal constraints (Hoffman). Such hurdles are likely to be costly and worthless. A willing individual should, however, not be restrained by the school from intervening. If the parents have no issue with the school, then the individual administrator is free to act. However, the school should save itself from parents of bullies who would defend their children by claiming the incident did not happen at school, so there is no moral authority from the school to investigate or punish anyone.
Despite the possible difficulties for schools attempting to punish bullies who act outside of school, stern action should follow if the activities either directly or otherwise interfere with other students’ comfort at school. For instance, if students create a social media page degrading one of them, then the other class members laugh at the victim in class, the school should respond. In that circumstance, the offending student(s) can be deemed to have interfered directly with another student’s school affairs. An example of such a scenario is Bethel School District v. Fraser, in 1983, where the Supreme Court upheld Matthew Fraser’s suspension for using sexual innuendos in a student government nomination speech of another student. Although Fraser’s case happened before the era of cellphones and happened within the campus, it can relate to a scenario where an act outside the school has a significant impact on another student and threatens their right to receive an education.
Nancy Willard, an attorney by profession, opines that off-campus actions may draw the school’s reaction if they ‘create a hostile environment for the student that is preventing that student from receiving an education’ (Majid 26). She argues that actions that substantially disrupt school or interfere with other students’ rights at school deserve a response. However, she posits that schools have no right to impose moral values on students or respond to speech contrary to their mission. Administration experts share Willard’s viewpoint, arguing that although jurisdiction is hard when an action affects the learning environment, the school has a responsibility to act (27). For instance, a weekend fight that spills over to Monday is likely to disrupt the learning environment at school. Therefore, the school does not necessarily have to investigate the cause of the fight, but the administration has a responsibility to restore a proper learning environment.
The debate over whether schools should punish bullies whose actions are committed outside school gates continues to draw mixed reactions partly due to the uncertainty surrounding different states and their laws on the subject. However, it would make sense if schools were allowed to punish students as long as they remained registered in the institutions. Like English football players who know their clubs can take prospective action against them if they break the rules regardless of their locations, students should spend their weekends knowing that any misbehavior, if reported to the school, would have consequences. It is not only a way of ensuring higher discipline standards, but also a method of producing responsible adults who will understand the importance of coexistence. Admittedly, schools are not the moral platform from which students should get all their lessons. Yet, they must play their part in molding the young generations while avoiding possibly unfavorable situations that might result from unwelcome punitive action.
References:
Hoffman, J. “Online bullies pull schools into the fray.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia, 28 June 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/style/28bully.html.
Juvonen, Jaana, and Sandra Graham. “Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and the plight of victims.” Annual review of psychology 65 (2014): 159-185.
Majid, L. “It Didn’t Happen at School, but…” NAIS – Home, 2009, www.nais.org/Articles/Documents/THSummer09ItDidntHappenatSchool.pdf.