The Advocacy Project: becoming an advocate for solution to my central problem, which is how campus codes of conduct(speech codes) fails to regulate cyberbullying on campus.

Anonymous
timer Asked: May 25th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $19.99

Question Description

I have wrote an Historical Conversations Project with topic about campus codes of conduct (speech codes) and I defined a problem that speech codes can regulate offensive expression on campus but fail to regulate it online (cyberbullying), Now, the assignment (the Advocacy Project) requirement says I need to become an advocate for solution to this problem. As a research paper, it need strong sources as evidence to argue and analyze, my professor recommended some good research sources and I will upload it.I will also attach my HCP paper, detailed requirement and a good example of the Advocacy Project below


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Wang 1 David Wang Professor Andrew Tonkovich Writing 39C 3 May 2019 How campus codes of conduct have failed to regulate cyberbullying on campus Abstract: In this paper, I will argue that campus codes of conduct in many universities have failed to regulate and discipline offensive and inappropriate expression on the Internet, which is called cyberbullying. I discussed the insufficiency of campus codes of conducts by referring to the First Amendment and citing an expert’s words that it is impossible to supervise the Internet. Then I utilized the data and figures from several studies of cyberbullying indicating the urgency and scope of this issue. Analyzing the specific campus code of conducts at Cornell university and Hostetler, David R and Philip Lee’s statements, I point that cyberbullying should be involved in the regulation of campus code since it brings harassment to students and destroy their educational well-being which is under protection by campus code of conduct. And I indicated government should provide more instruction and support in addressing cyberbullying issues which is a possible solution of the problem. Wang 2 Campus codes of conduct are policies enforced in universities to manage individuals’ expression and prohibit offensive language which might lead to physical or mental damage. However, codes are not as powerful as a law or an act of the legislature. Since the First Amendment claim absolute freedom of speech, the campus codes can only apply on school level to regulate students’ expression at most. The controversies of whether the speech code violates the First Amendment still exist and different universities have different campus codes depends on their particular situation. For the complexity of creating campus codes of conduct, those codes are insufficient in protecting students from all harmful speech and building absolute clean and safe study environment. Students who express discrimination and improper speech on campus will be disciplined but when they bullied victims on another platform, Internet, will sometime get away from punishment. The problem of campus codes on conduct is the absence of regulation on cyberbullying. According to Kenneth Trump, the president of National School Safety and Security Services, he claims the problem that “Schools can work to set some policies and behavioral expectations, but it's nearly impossible for school administrators to police the internet” (Trump). Campus codes of conduct serve to prohibit protected expression on campus but they are failed to perfectly regulate cyberbullying, which on a more complicated and wider platform. Cyberbullying, defined by an official government website stopbullying.gov, is “bullying that takes place over digital devices like cell phones, computers, and tablets”. It is becoming a serious and growing issue with the development of electronic devices and more usage of the internet. A survey named Teen Online & Wireless Safety Survey indicated that sixty-eight percent of students agree that cyberbullying is a serious problem. According to a recent study “Cyberbullying, Trends and Tubes” accomplished by Chris Moessner, nearly forty three percent Wang 3 of them have been bullied online, which means almost half of people live under the threaten of cyberbullying (Moessner). What’s more, bullying victim are 2 to 9 times more likely to consider committing suicide. The main reason is that bully in the real life always requires exceeding physical power and in risk of being arrested. However, cyberbullying can be done by anyone on the internet; the property of the internet also makes the cyberbullying much harder to trace and punish. Figure 1: Lifetime Cyberbullying Victimization Rates Among Ten Different Studies In Figure 1, it is obvious to notice that there are 27.9 percent of students have experienced cyberbullying among ten different studies from 2007 to 2016 concerning cyberbullying in average. “We have surveyed more than 20,000 students from middle and high schools from across the United States in twelve unique projects”, Justin W. Patchin explained. Wang 4 Based on such number of students, cyberbullying is already in a position that need to be solved as soon as possible. Speech code, defined by Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) on the website, is “any university regulation or policy that prohibits expression that would be protected by the First Amendment in society at large. Any policy—such as a harassment policy, a protest and demonstration policy, or an IT acceptable use policy—can be a speech code if it prohibits protected speech or expression” (FIRE). By the definition, a speech code as a policy regulates inappropriate expression and protect students from harassment on campus, thus, cyberbullying should be involved and under control by the speech code on campus as long as in universities. The campus code of conduct at Cornell university indicated three essential principles, which are “attain their educational objectives”; “the generation and maintenance of an intellectual and educational atmosphere throughout the University community”; and “the protection of the health, safety, welfare, property, and human rights of all members of the University community, and the safety, property, and reputational interests of the University itself”. It informs to the public that any behaviors on campus break the previous principles will be disciplined by the campus code of conduct. Bring mental and physical damage to people and having possibility of destroying a safe educational environment, Cyberbullying definitely violate the speech code and should be regulate completely. However, it leads to another problem that what kind of behavior should be considered cyberbullying, or in other words, how could universities distinguish cyberbullying. According to the First Amendment that the freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution, the supreme court and legislature considered the cyberbullying unconstitutional. One of the news reports on FIRE said “Supreme Court of North Carolina Finds Cyberbullying Wang 5 Law Violates First Amendment”. The failure leads to an absence of specific laws to prohibit cyberbullying. Only in the situation that cyberbullying bring physical damage or threats of violence, then those behaviors are unlawful and turn into a crime which will not be protected by the First Amendment anymore. The campus code of conduct has purpose of protecting students from harassment. However, since most of the cyberbullying will remain anonymous and operate on electronic devices, it is hard to determine whether it is under control of campus code of conduct. In the Off-Campus Cyberbullying: First Amendment Problems, Parameters, and Proposal, written by David R. Hostetler, he claimed that “Cyberbullying can threaten victims' educational wellbeing both on and off campus because of its debilitating emotional, social and other consequences. Nevertheless, few courts have addressed the legally complicated problem of off-campus cyberbullying. The extent, therefore, to which schools can effectively address this problem without running afoul of First Amendment free speech rights is unclear” (Hostetler). From the quotation, even the Supreme Court cannot address this problem due to the protection of free speech from the First Amendment. In order to prohibit cyberbullying, campus code of conduct will be a good method protecting students’ educational well-being but require the university to distinguish what behavior should be considered as cyberbullying and involved in the regulation of the speech code. A professor from the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law named Philip Lee indicated that when the cyberbullying creates a hostile learning atmosphere by spreading rumors, harms students’ educational well-being and disturb the regular teaching process then it should be prohibited by the campus code of conduct. He claimed that “if a student’s online cyberbullying is likely to reach the school and the school can show that preventing this speech protects a student’s wellbeing, the school should be able to Wang 6 regulate the speech”. (Lee) Lee is providing the guidance to help universities addressing cyberbullying. His offers a complete and deliberate solution of the cyberbullying issue. Another problem of cyberbullying is that people cannot easily distinguish whether those behaviors were happened on campus or off campus. Justin W. Bathon claims that campus code “cannot regulate off-campus speech, the power to regulate is achieved by effectively bringing the speech on campus.” (Bathon) And when it breaks the principle that bring harassment to students “the off-campus speech is considered on-campus under the eyes of the law.” (Bathon). It can help university regulate cyberbullying better since any cyberbullying that negatively affect universities educational atmosphere or harm students can all be considered “on campus” even though it was not physically happened on campus. Refer to the official government website stopbullying.gov, cyberbullying “includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else”, and “It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else causing embarrassment or humiliation. Some cyberbullying crosses the line into unlawful or criminal behavior”. It implies that any bullying or harassment that occurs online is a form of cyberbullying. However, under the protection of free speech by the first amendment, only behavior that have potential threat to people or bring actual harm to victims will be punished because those behaviors were treated unlawful; those minor cyberbullying behaviors includes sneering at others’ sexual preference, express inappropriate words about race and disturb studying environment. Sometimes they can escape from punishment since the consequence are not serious enough to attract attention from university. Wang 7 The indifference to regulating cyberbullying lead to a result that the majority of the states do not even have such law to protect students from online violence. The stopbullying.gov, an official government website indicates that “Although all states have laws requiring schools to respond to bullying, many states do not include cyberbullying under these laws or specify the role schools should play in responding to bullying that takes place outside of school”. This quotation implies that most of the states government cannot address the issue of cyberbullying on campus perfectly under the condition of not breaching the first amendment; even though some states do have cyberbullying law but without certain instruction informs the school how to deal with cyberbullying, they do not have clear demarcation on cyberbullying to determined whether it should be punished or not. Moreover, due to several pervious examples that schools were sued by excessive punishment on cyberbullying cases, the administrators will not take too much attention on this issue until the legislature passed the cyberbullying law with particular guidance. According to what Justin W. Patchin claimed in Cyberbullying Laws and School Policy: A Blessing or Curse, “To be sure, schools should bring their bullying and harassment policies into the 21st Century by explicitly identifying cyberbullying as a proscribed behavior, but they need to move beyond the behaviors that occur on school grounds or those that utilize school-owned resources. But in order to do this they need guidance from their state legislators and Departments of Education so that they draft a policy and procedure that will be held up in court”,(Patchin) the school, which is a place to educate people, have no ability to address the issue alone; the support from the government in many forms including passing a law and providing specific instruction is necessary during the process of restraining cyberbullying. Wang 8 Works Cited Bertin, Joan E. “NCAC Analysis: The First Amendment and School Policies on Harassment and Bullying.” National Coalition Against Censorship, ncac.org/resource/ncac-analysis-the-firstamendment-and-school-policies-on-harassment-and-bullying. Bathon, Justin W. Basic Student Rights: Off Campus Speech and Cyberbullying, d2wldr9tsuuj1b.cloudfront.net/2802/documents/Middle School/MS Counselors/Cyber Bullying.pdf. “Campus Code of Conduct.” Cornell University, 20 June 2018. Hostetler, David R. “OFF-CAMPUS CYBERBULLYING: FIRST AMENDMENT PROBLEMS, PARAMETERS, AND PROPOSAL.” Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal. Koebler, Jason. “Cyber Bullying Growing More Malicious, Experts Say.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 3 June 2011, www.usnews.com/education/blogs/highschool-notes/2011/06/03/cyber-bullying-growing-more-malicious-experts-say. Komsky, Jane. “How Should Schools Regulate Cyberbullying?” The Regulatory Review, www.theregreview.org/2017/04/25/komsky-schools-regulate-cyberbullying/. Moessner, Chris. “Cyberbullying, Trends and Tudes.” Http://Www.ncpc.org/Resources/Files/Pdf/Bullying/Cyberbullying Trends - Tudes.pdf., 10 Feb. 2014. Patchin, Justin W. “Cyberbullying Laws and School Policy: A Blessing or Curse?” 10Sep. 2010. Wang 9 Patchin, Justin w. “2016 Cyberbullying Data.” Cyberbullying Research Center. "Teen Online & Wireless Safety Survey." Cox Communications. Accessed February 14, 2014, http://ww2.cox.com/wcm/en/aboutus/datasheet/takecharge/2009-teensurvey.pdf?campcode=takecharge-research-link_2009-teen-survey_0511 “What Are Speech Codes?” FIRE, www.thefire.org/spotlight/what-are-speech-codes/. “What is cyberbullying.” Stopbullying.gov, www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/what-isit/index. Zoeller, Mary. “Supreme Court of North Carolina Finds Cyberbullying Law Violates First Amendment.” FIRE, 16 Oct. 2017, www.thefire.org/supreme-court-of-north-carolina-findscyberbullying-law-violates-first-amendment/. Do 1 Christine H. Do Lecturer Andrew Tonkovich Writing 39C 03 December 2017 Addressing Racial Discrimination Against Section 8 Minorities: Improve Funding to the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) ABSTRACT In this essay, I propose two possible solutions in order to address the racial discrimination and its consequent segregation against Section 8 minorities due to racially discriminating Section 8 landlords and local housing authorities. The first solution is to improve the funding to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Office of Fair Housing of Equal Opportunity (FHEO) so that the organization can effectively enforce the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in order to protect the Section 8 minorities. Another solution that could potentially assist Section 8 minorities is to aggressively implement the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule (AFFH), which allows local governments to reduce segregation in their community by proposing goals or actions that will help their community become more integrated. After reviewing the promises of these two solutions, the best solution to address racial discrimination against and the resulting segregation of Section 8 minorities is to improve funding of the FHEO because it will be a more direct way to solve the problem and is a more feasible initiative to pass according to the political climate of Congress today. 2760 Do 2 According to Rebecca Tracy Rotem, who earned a J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, “[t]he goals of the FHA [Fair Housing Act of 1968] and the Section 8 voucher program are aligned to end segregation on the basis of race and income level in housing” (2008). However, research suggests otherwise. In Vargas v. Town of Smithtown of 2007, the town of Smithtown, New York deliberately practiced illegal housing advertising that discriminated against Section 8 minorities from living within their community. The Fair Housing Testing and Survey Project, conducted by the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in 2010, recorded landlords racially steering, a practice of selling homes where landlords would “steer” renters away from the housing area, potential Section 8 minority tenants from renting homes in areas that offered Section 8 housing. In 2015, United States v. The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, City of Lancaster, California, and City of Palmdale, California involved Section 8 minorities being racially discriminated by the Housing Authority of Los Angeles; the Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale; and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) by unfair enforcement policies. A common trend among these events is that Section 8 landlords and local housing authorities who racially discriminate against Section 8 minorities caused these populations to become segregated. The failure to address this issue lies on the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Office of Fair Housing of Equal Opportunity (FHEO)’s failure to enforce the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which is meant to protect people from being discriminated against based on their “race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability” from “direct providers of housing (landlords and real estate companies)” (“1968: Federal Fair Housing Act”). The problem’s urgency is exemplified in Figure 1 (New York Times). In this figure, the red circles represent the minority voucher holders whereas the blue represent the white voucher holders. The numbers that point to Do 3 Figure 1: Figure 1: “Families Stuck in Poor Neighborhoods despite Vouchers | Manhattan’s New Residential Sales Record.” furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/familiesstuck-in-poor-neighborhoods-despite-vouchers-manhattans-new-reside the circles show how clustered these voucher holders are. As observed in these maps, there is not much integration within these communities. If this segregation continues, then it undermines the purpose of the Fair Housing Act and the Section 8 program: to provide equal housing opportunities for everyone. There are two possible solutions for this problem. The first solution, recommended by the National Fair Housing Association (NFHA); Professors Robert Mark Silverman and Kelly L. Patterson; and the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), who are all experts in urban studies and advocacy, is to improve the funding for the FHEO in order for the agency to be more efficient in enforcing the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The second solution would be to aggressively implement the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule (AFFH). Proposed by the HUD during the Obama administration, the AFFH would end Do 4 segregation against Section 8 minorities by “tak[ing] meaningful actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities free from discrimination” (“AFFH Rule Guidebook” 12). After comparing the feasibility of these two solutions based on observing Congress’ present political climate, I believe that funding for the FHEO is a better solution than aggressively implementing for the AFFH because the former is not a politicized issue in comparison to the latter. In order to address the initial problem of mitigating the effects of housing discrimination against Section 8 minorities, the federal government must address the internal issue that the FHEO is facing: underfunding. The FHEO is able to enforce the Fair Housing Act of 1968 through two funding programs: the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) (Silverman and Patterson 127; Soto 1). Under the FHAP, the FHEO lends grants to certified state and local governments in order for them “to enhance complaint processing, special enforcement, t ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

henryprofessor
School: UT Austin

i will deliver
Attached.

Solution to Cyberbullying on Campuses – Outline
Thesis Statement: The anti-cyberbullying policy of higher education institutions should be
developed according to the outcome of their needs assessment on the extent of the problem and
include training, coaching, mentoring, and monitoring strategies for their students, faculties, and
other members of staff.
I.
II.

Abstract
Introduction

III.

Evaluation of the impacts of cyberbullying

IV.

Proposed solutions to the problem

V.

Conclusion


Solution to Cyberbullying on Campuses – Outline
Thesis Statement: The anti-cyberbullying policy of higher education institutions should be
developed according to the outcome of their needs assessment on the extent of the problem and
include training, coaching, mentoring, and monitoring strategies for their students, faculties, and
other members of staff.
I.
II.

Abstract
Introduction

III.

Evaluation of the impacts of cyberbullying

IV.

Proposed solutions to the problem

V.

Conclusion


Solution to Cyberbullying on Campuses – Outline
Thesis Statement: The anti-cyberbullying policy of higher education institutions should be
developed according to the outcome of their needs assessment on the extent of the problem and
include training, coaching, mentoring, and monitoring strategies for their students, faculties, and
other members of staff.
I.
II.

Abstract
Introduction

III.

Evaluation of the impacts of cyberbullying

IV.

Proposed solutions to the problem

V.

Conclusion

Attached.

Surname 1
Name
Professor
Course
Date
The Solutions to Cyberbullying on Campuses
Abstract
Cyberbullying, which is defined as the aggressive acts or behaviors that are carried out against
defenseless online users or students, is one of the issues that represent the dangers of technology.
As an electronic means of the victimization through the specific targeting of other students,
cyberbullying affect the academic performance and emotional wellbeing of the victims through
the destruction of their self-esteem. While this problem is not exclusive to the higher educational
institutes in the country, the efforts by the leaders of these academic settings should be guided by
evidence-based actions and practices. Also, the deviation of the perpetrators of cyberbullying
from the traditional category including the bystanders and bully-victim implies that the
approaches that are used for dealing with the problem are different from those used for the faceto-face practices. In this regard, the anonymous nature of the Internet and the effectiveness of the
technologies to spread the bullying faster than the offline approach makes the prevention of the
unruly behavior outside the campus difficult for administrators. Therefore, the ineffectiveness of
campus code of conducts to deal with cyberbullying can be addressed through the integration of
anti-cyberbullying policies, fair and equal enforcement, and education and training of students,
faculty, and other staff members.

Surname 2
Issues with Current Measures to stop Cyberbullying on Campuses
Higher educational institutions in the United States have created and implemented a campus
code of conducts as the primary measure for preventing and dealing with inappropriate behavior.
The underlying principle of the policy is the regulations of inappropriate verbal and written
expressi...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations !

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors