Social Networking: Boundaries and Limitations Part 2 ... - Springer Link

Social Networking: Boundaries and Limitations Part 2: Policy By Nelda Isaacs, Karen Kaminski, Antonette Aragon, Sharon K. Anderson, Colorado State University

I

n this segment we investigate federal internet usage guidelines, public school Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) as they pertain to social networking, as well as the social networking policies of higher learning institutions in the United States. We include institutional examples of policies that are currently in place in both public schools and schools of higher education. One key point that emerged during our investigation is the challenges public educational institutions face in terms of embracing the educational value of social networking sites while protecting the security, safety, and integrity of the learning institutions. Since the educational and research needs of public education and institutions of higher education are inherently different, social networking policies run a broad gamut from no access, institution and department monitored access, to complete access. We conclude with suggested guidelines for faculty who are interested in using social networking websites for educational purposes. While many public schools and higher education institutions laud the educational power and significance of social media, they are also aware of the ramifications of appropriate and 10

inappropriate use (Cain, 2008; Fox, 2010; Streich, 2008). We were challenged when we started our search for existing policies on the use of social networking in K-12 and higher education. The growing prevalence of social networking is causing school districts and higher education institutions to revise their Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) to determine how far reaching these policies can and should be in protecting staff, students, and institutions from inherent dangers that permeate social networking sites. Recent incidents of unconscionable behavior by some public education employees with students and the growing concerns with cyber-bullying and stalking in public schools and higher education institutions have caused these entities to struggle with maintaining a balance between developing policies that deal with appropriate electronic communications and embracing the educational value of social networking (Cain, 2008; Bosco, 2010). Social networking sites literally have connected the world with infinite possibilities, yet they have also become a breeding ground for inappropriate communications that in part rely on the internet’s shroud of anonymity. And therein lays the conundrum. How do learning institutions unharness the vast potential and

TechTrends • May/June 2014

Volume 58, Number 3

benefits of social networking sites while also protecting the safety of staff and students and holding staff and students accountable for ethical behavior with their communications?

K-12 Public Education The Federal Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires that public schools receiving E-rate monies ensure that internet safety policies and filtering systems are in place to safeguard students from inappropriate materials or materials that are harmful to minors. E-rate money is money the Federal government provides for rural schools to design technology infrastructure. Some of the terms mentioned in this act, such as “inappropriate matter” and “harmful to minors” are broad and nebulous; however, the law gives local school boards carte blanche in defining those terms. Therefore, as part of meeting CIPA policy, public school boards can create guidelines to meet the mores of their local communities. In part, the CIPA states, “A determination regarding what matter is inappropriate for minors shall be made by the school board, local educational agency, library, or other United States authority responsible for making the determination (47 U.S.C.  §  254(h)(1)(B)). The CIPA also defines “harmful to minors” as: Any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that – (i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; (ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and (iii) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors” (Secs. 1703(b)(2), 20 U.S.C. sec 3601(a)(5)(F) as added by CIPA sec 1711, 20 U.S.C. sec 9134(b)(f )(7)(B) as added by CIPA sec 1712(a), and 147 U.S.C. sec. 254(h)(c)(G) as added by CIPA sec. 1721(a). Further, CIPA does not require that the schools enforce monitoring of minors’ activity on the internet, but school policies must provide for the safety and security of minors when using e-mail, chat rooms and other forms of direct electronic communications. While these laws provide some guidance, they do not specifically address the use of social networking within the context of the school. State Boards of Education offer little assistance and are reticent about developing state Volume 58, Number 3

social networking policies for public schools. They have left it to local school districts to revise their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) to address social networking issues as needed. However, one exception is the Texas Board of Education who, on December 26, 2010, changed its code of ethics to read, “The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging or other social network communication” (Texas Code of Ethics, Standard 3.9). This change was suggested by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) after it received disciplinary case referrals about the number of e-mails and time of day teachers were sending numerous messages to students, some of which indicated that students were being “groomed” for future sexual relationships (TEA News, 2010; Brown, 2010). All public schools receiving E-rate monies require students and parents to sign an acceptable use policy. The acceptable use policy delineates the restrictions of internet usage while the students are using school computers. After students and parents sign the district’s acceptable use policy in which they agree to abide by the rules outlined in the policy, the schools assign each student a password to access the school’s network. The school’s IT department maintains a list of the passwords, and the school can and does monitor school activity of the server. By accessing the student’s password, the instructional technology (IT) department can monitor all activity under that password if policy, personnel, and time allow them to do so (Harris, 2010). However, social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. are proprietary sites whose content cannot be monitored by the school unless the student “friends ” or is required to “friend” an administrator. Schools have reacted across the spectrum from either not allowing access to these social networking sites through the school’s servers or being proactive and allowing teachers to only use these sites to contact students for class or school related activities. Some teachers have been allowed to establish Facebook pages for class use thus embracing social networking while still under the scrutiny of the school’s IT department (Harris, 2010). For example, Mansfield ISD in Texas, has established school Facebook pages which can be monitored by their IT Department (Fox, 2010). Some policies mandate that parents be notified that teachers are using these sites to communicate with students, and some go even further and require

TechTrends • May/June 2014

11

that parents give their approval before such a site is utilized (Dysart, AUP, 2010). In an innovative and proactive policy, Dysart Arizona School District gives parents the option to receive any electronic communication between staff and students (Dysart, AUP, 2010). In contrast, the Albuquerque, New Mexico public schools’ faculty handbook does not allow faculty to utilize social networking at school. Their policy states, “Do not engage in social networking during the school day” (Albuquerque AUP, p. 15). Poudre school district in Colorado blocks social networking sites and while not in policy, the district strongly discourages its employees from contacting any student over a social networking site at any time (Poudre school district, June 8, 2011). Atlanta schools also discourage its teachers from communicating with students over social networking sites (Personal Communication, Central Office, February 28, 2011). In an attempt to curtail inappropriate communication at all times between staff and students, Manatee Schools in Florida found itself embroiled in a lawsuit over a proposed policy (Dymond, 2010; O’Donnell, 2010; Sensenig, 2010). In an effort to safeguard students from inappropriate communication, Manatee Schools may have treaded upon first amendment’s rights to freedom. In part, a proposed policy reads: Inappropriate communications of any kind with students, regardless of setting, are strictly prohibited. All ethical expectations set forth in the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession for teacher/student relationships and communications apply in regard to any communication with a student. This subparagraph applied to communications using the District’s systems as well as privately owned systems. (Manatee proposed policy 4.7, (c)) While social networking and ethical behavior are intrinsically intertwined, the teachers’ union feels that the Manatee district has gone too far and has filed a lawsuit claiming the proposed policy infringes on freedom of speech rights (Dymond, 2010). Although the use of social networking sites remains a contentious issue for K-12 public schools, the underlying issue for public schools districts, who are legally and ethically bound to protect its staff and students, may be a legal one. To what extent are districts liable for the behavior of their staff in the use of social networking sites both on and off campus when it concerns student and staff communications? 12

This may well be an issue for the courts to decide. The current pervasive philosophy in those districts that allow social networking sites is staff and students’ communications will be monitored by the IT department, and staff communication with students on social networking sites off campus is strongly discouraged. It comes down to a matter of personal integrity and ethical behavior when using the power of the internet.

Higher Education Social networking is a mainstay at most colleges and universities. According to Business Insider, as of January 2011, Facebook had 500 million monthly users (http://www. businessinsider.com/facebook. Retrieved May 14, 2011), According to Facebook’s website, people from around the globe spend 700 billion minutes per month on this site (www.facebook. com/press/info.php?statistics.Retrie ved June 17, 2011). Cain (2008) suggested social networking sites help college students feel connected and helps with student retention. While universities, and specifically individual colleges within universities, fully recognize the power of the internet and social networking sites, many colleges within universities have expanded the university’s existing Acceptable Use Policy by developing specific policies that protect the integrity of their colleges and the work being conducted within those colleges. For instance, the College of Veterinary Medicine at Colorado State University specifically states that photos or identifiable descriptions posted on social networking sites is prohibited by faculty, staff, clients, and visitors. Any violation of the policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal from the college (Wilson, 2010). The University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine social networking policy states persons associated with the college must refrain from “posting work/education-related information that may compromise the CVM, patient privacy or security” (CVM, Social & Online Media Participation Policy, p. 2). Other departments within the university can set policy to extend the university’s AUP. Most notable have been athletic departments that make it clear to athletes that their social networking activities will be monitored to protect the athlete, other athletes and the integrity of the athletic programs, the staff and the university. For instance, Ohio State University’s Standards of Conduct for Athletes states,

TechTrends • May/June 2014

Volume 58, Number 3

You shall not post or contribute any content to any social networking or other internet site(s) that reflects negatively (determine at the sole discretion of the University) on yourself, your team and/ or teammates, your coach(es) or the Department of Athletics. The University may monitor such internet site(s) for the sole purpose of determining whether or not you have posted or contributed any content in violation of this section. If so, you will be required to remove the information immediately, and you may be subject to loss of privileges and other sanctions as appropriate. Additionally, you may not block or otherwise prevent coaches or athletic department staff members from viewing your site(s). (Student Athlete standards of conduct). (http://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/ fls/17300/pdf/compliance/handbook09/ Chapter_4.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=17300)

by staff or students. Students or faculty may respond positively or negatively to institutional activities within their personal Facebook pages. Such behavior sets the stage for considering the lack of ethical standards in place when incidents occur within educational settings where policy is not clear regarding inappropriate Facebook use.

Policy Considerations from a ‘Cowboys and Indians” Case Study

The University of California at Los Angles warns their athletes that “Coaches, Athletic Department administrators, faculty, staff, residential life, employers, alumni, and UCLA Police Department can and do monitor these websites regularly” (UCLA Athletic Code, p. 13), and Iowa University’s athletic code allows seniors to monitor team members’ activities on social networking sites (Oppenhuizan, 2008). According to Oppenhuizan (2008), Auburn, Iowa State, Ohio State, Miami and North Carolina universities all have policies in place to monitor the social networking activities of athletes, and Ohio State requires athletes to have coaches as “friends” on social networking websites as part of a monitoring process. In contrast, the New Mexico legislative body in the spring of 2013 passed a law that prohibits both public and private universities in the state from requesting social media passwords from prospective students. (http://www. seattlepi.com/new/crime/artic le/Highlightsof-51st-New-Mexico-Legislature-4360194.php. Retrieved March 17, 2013). Institutions of higher education also grapple with the extent to which policy can regulate staff behavior when using social networking sites. Mark Clague, a faculty member at Michigan State, succinctly recommends, “Keeping wall posts and other Facebook communication in concord with standard ethical practices of the educational relationship” and “keeping official course activities in official online tools and not on Facebook.” (http://www.facebook.com/group. php?gid=2229343363&v=info). Yet, Facebook communication may be used inappropriately Volume 58, Number 3

At an institution of higher learning in the Rocky Mountain Region, a student’s attempt to create team spirit and rivalry in a Facebook event titled “Cowboys vs. Indians” invited students to dress as Native American Indians during a rival basketball game against the neighboring Cowboy team. Yet, the mascot for the host institution of this game was not an “Indian.” While the student who posted this reported no ill-intent, other students responded regarding Native Americans and the interchange became heated, derogatory, and offensive stereotypical statements against Native peoples were posted. Students in an undergraduate teaching education class discussed and wrote about the incident in relation to the ethical and multicultural issues that students should be aware of regarding social networking and answered how social networking can exacerbate unethical behavior (Aragon & Kaminski, 2012). While not a specific consideration in the discussions, students made it clear that lack of policy exacerbates the ethical challenges of social networking. Within the student writings and discussions regarding the ethical issues, they commented on the fact that “there are no restrictions or rules” and therefore “people can say whatever they want.” One student particularly stated it is a “system of under standardized communication where rules are not set to work with the negative freedom of speech.” Furthermore, another student wrote: “Students should mostly be aware that once they put something out there on the internet, it stands alone and rarely are they going to have the chance to explain themselves.” Our words may have an impact on others and interpretations may be taken out of context. If students operate autonomously, they may rely on their own self-rule to post messages that will not harm others. Thus, using words that are not causing harm to others is vitally important to consider since words may impact others positively or negatively. While institutions struggle with policy at the same time that faculty and students are increasing their use of social networking as a communication and

TechTrends • May/June 2014

13

learning tool, students indicate that they believe “there is no accountability.” While faculty can help students gain an awareness of the impact that statements can have and how quickly they can spread, they can also take steps to create guidelines and expectations for themselves and their students.

Recommendations for Ethical Guidelines and Institutional Policies While research has shown that the use of social networking can enhance learning opportunities and bring new perspectives to the learning activities, ethical concerns and lack of policy and guidelines inhibit many faculty and teachers from embarking in this endeavor. Institutions are setting policy and some of these policies are being challenged. Educators who are adventurous join social networking sites such as Facebook to expand the effect of the teaching/ learning process and to play a major role in their students’ educational growth. Given this fact, we suggest the necessity of guidelines for this relationship. A faculty member at Michigan State University, Mark Clague, created a Facebook group titled Faculty Ethics on Facebook (www.facebook. com/group.php?gid=2229343363&v=info). The aim of this group is to outline a set of guidelines for faculty to consider when they become members of the social networking world. The following guidelines are from this group’s Web site, listed above. We have modified the wording of these guidelines. Generally, we suggest behaviors faculty could implement rather than those behaviors to avoid. These guidelines apply to higher education and K-12 education. Suggested guidelines for faculty: 1. Maintain formal course records in the authorized online system used by the educational institution and not on social networking sites. 2. Make student participation on social networking sites voluntary and not a part of the student evaluation. 3. Wait until students have graduated before friending them or reserve becoming a “friend” on social networking only to instances when you receive a written request from the student. 4. If you do friend active students, consider whether you are willing to “friend” every current student in the class. Perceived fairness and favoritism could become an issue if an instructor is selective about whom he will “friend” on social networks. 14

5. Think through your reasons for accessing students’ accounts. If the purpose diverges from educational or academic objectives, think through the possible beneficial and harmful outcomes. 6. Become acquainted with the social networking site or group before you join. Some groups may take on or encourage perspectives that don’t match your value system (e.g., discrimination, sexual). 7. Be aware and cautious about any information you choose to display on your profile on the social network. 8. If you intend to use a social network for academic purposes, be careful to choose ones that present a good educational model for students. 9. Be honest about your identity and authentic regarding the content of your profile. 10. Stay alert to the impact of differences in power between yourself and students when you use social networking sites. 11. Be aware of any institutional policies around the use of social networking for academic purposes. Maintain posted material on social networking in accordance with the ethical standards or your professionalism as an educator. 12. Consider using social networking for feedback or responding to emailed questions by students, keeping in mind the limitation of this usage to serve the educational purposes. Other official feedback on students’ assignments should be kept on the official tools of the institution. In addition, we offer the following guidelines: 13. If you choose to access students’ personal information and comments via social networking, think through how you will maintain a just and consistent interaction with a student even in the face of reading negative comments about yourself. 14. Set communications guidelines up front. 15. If you choose to use social networking as a tool in connecting with and “friending” your students, avoid any negative comment or criticism about the students, their classmates, your colleagues, or the institution’s policies or personnel. 16. Work toward fair treatment and interaction with students whether or not they participate on the social network. 17. Only interfere in the student’s relationships with others on social networking sites when there is evidence or a good likelihood for damage or harm to the student’s self or others.

TechTrends • May/June 2014

Volume 58, Number 3

We present these guidelines as “pearls of wisdom” to be considered and not obligatory. Depending on the type of course, class, and goals for instruction, the faculty member will need to modify or adjust these guidelines to fit his/her needs.

Conclusion To summarize the situation, as Swain (2007) states: “What these new technologies mean for universities is unclear” because of the fact that the universities cannot control this virtual world. It is like the “American Old Wild West—a vast, wild, and somewhat lawless place that has attracted diverse groups of individuals seeking to stake a claim and leave a mark” (Green & Baily, 2010, 22). Therefore, further research needs to be done, especially relative to the creation of policies that streamline the relationship between faculty and students in “friending,” and the use of social networking in classrooms. Editor’s Note: Part I of this paper appeared in TechTrends 58.2 (March / April 2014) Correspondence in regard to this article shouldbe addressed to: Karen Kaminski, Colorado State University, 213 Education, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, email: Karen.kaminski@ colostate.edu, phone: 970-491-3713

References Albuquerque Public Schools. Acceptable Use Policy. Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www.aps.edu/departments/humanresources/documents/Employee%20 Handbook.pdf. American Psychology Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http:// www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx# Aragon, A., & Kaminski, K. (2012). Racist Facebook Event against Native Americans: Preservice teachers explore critical multicultural implications. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology 9 (l), 35-43. Association of American Educators. Code of ethics for educators. Retrieved from http://aaeteachers.org/index.php/aboutus/aae-code-of-ethics Atlanta Public Schools (2010). Acceptable Use Policy. Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://atlantapublicschools.us/186110121116728653/

Volume 58, Number 3

lib/186110121116728653/_files/ Acceptable_Use_Policy_for_students.pdf. Bosco, J. (2010).Acceptable use policies in a web 2.0 & mobile era: A guide for school districts. Consortium for school networking, Washington, DC. Brown, J. (2010, December, 5). State sets social media ethics rules for educators. Retrieved from http://www;star-telegram. com/2010/12/05/2681445/state-setssocial-media-ethics.html Cain, J. (2008). On line social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 72 (10) Article 10. Dymond, R. (2010, November, 15). Manatee teachers sue schools over social site policy. Retrived ebruary 28, 2011 from http://www/bradenton.com/ 2010/11/13/2735268/manatee-teacherssue schools-over. Dysart, Arizona (2010). Acceptable Use Policy. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://schoolweb.dysart.org/EdTech/Content.aspx?eiID=179. Faculty ethics on Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/group. php?gid=2229343363. Federal Communications Commission. (2001). Children’s Internet Protection Act. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from http:// www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internetprotection-act. Fox, L. (2010, August, 23). Dallas-Ft. Worth area schools grapple with social media policies. Retrieved from http:// www.dallasnews. Com/new/back-toschool/2010822-Dallas-Fo Green, T., & Bailey, B. (2010). Academic uses of Facebook: Endless possibilities or endless perils? TechTrends, 54(3), pp. 20–22. Harris, C. (2010, April 1). Friend Me?: School policy may address friending students online. School Library Journal.http://www. libraryjournal.com/article/C6724235.html. Retrieved June 1, 2011) (http://www.seattlepi.com/new/crime/artic le/Highlights-of-51st-New-Mexico-Legislature-4360194.php. Retrieved March 17, 2013). Matus, R. (2010). Teachers union files lawsuit against Florida school district’s social networking policy. Retrieved from, http:// www.tampabay.com/blogs;gradebook/content/teachers-union-files-lawsuit-against-fl O’Donnell, C.(2010, October, 24). Manatee teachers union fights website rules. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http:// heraldtribune.com/article/20101024/ ARTICLE/10241066?p=1&tc=pg. Oppenhuizen, K. (2008). Schools creating new rules for social networking policies.

TechTrends • May/June 2014

Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http:// www/usatoday.com/sports/college/200807-27-social-networks_N.htm Reilly, T. (2006). AG Riley warns parents about potential dangers of children using social networking sites such as MySpace and Xanga. Sensenig Law Firm’s Blog (2010). Update on Manatee County school district’s proposed social networking policy. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http://senseniglawfirm. wordpress.com/ 2010/10/26/update-onmanatee-county-school- district. Smith, J. (2009, January 8). Facebook surpasses MySpace in US Uniques. Inside Facebook. http// www. insidefacebook. Com/2009/01/08. Retrieved May 27, 2011. Streich, M. (2008, November 26). Social networking sites and teacher integrity. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http:// www/ suite101.com/content/socialnetworking-sites-and-teacher-integritya80863. Swain, H. (2007). Networking sites: Professors—Keep out. The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent. co.uk/student/student-life/technologygaming/networking-sites-professors-keep-out-397100.html Texas Education Agency News (2010, November, 19). Updated educators’ ethics code addresses social media. Retrieved February 28, 201l, from http://www.tea.state. tx.us /index4.aspx?od=2147489963. UCLA Student Athletic Handbook (2010). Retrieved April 11, 2011 from, http:// www.uclabruins.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_ chools/ucla/general/auto_pdf/10-11SAHBK. University of Minnosta, College of Veterinary Medicine. (2910). Social & online participation policy. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://www.cvm.edu/education/ prod/groups/cvm/@pub/@cvm/@education/documents/content/cvm_content. Wilson, M. (2010). College of veterinary medicine & biomedical sciences social media policy. Colorado State University.



15