School video that mocked student with disabilities posted on YouTube
at the TechLearning blog
]
A video production teacher at Montville High School in New
Jersey had her students create a public service announcement (PSA) as a class
assignment. The students
decided to make an anti-bullying video
and assigned roles for the skit.
B.B., a junior with multiple cognitive and social disabilities, was selected to
be the victim. Other students then emptied garbage cans on his head, slapped
him, and pushed him to the ground. The video concluded with a teacher breaking
up the bullying activity and an anti-bullying message.
Sadly, the
video was then edited by some students and posted on YouTube
. The YouTube
version omitted the anti-bullying aspects of the video and only showed B.B.
being bullied. The YouTube version was viewed over 3,700 times before it was
taken down. B.B. became the subject of taunts and teasing in school, severe
enough that he missed school for a month. His mother has now sued the teacher,
principal, superintendent, and school board under the state’s anti-bullying law
for failing to sufficiently protect her son after the teasing began.
This incident raises multiple issues worthy of consideration. In no
particular order, here are a few questions and thoughts…
- Where did the original video file reside? Presumably the editing of the
PSA was done at school since it was a video production class. What precautions,
if any, were taken regarding storage and/or possible dissemination of the PSA?
Did each student involved in creating the video get a copy?
What rights does each party have to do with the video what it wishes?
school’s AUP should cover the offending student’s behavior. Although the
offending student was identified, it is unclear what disciplinary action, if
any, was taken against him/her.
policy. Can a minor student with multiple cognitive and social disabilities
legally consent to “fake” bullying? Is there any argument of consent or assumption of risk
for this situation?
victim’s reputation was harmed substantially enough to warrant a legal remedy.
Is this harder to prove for a minor student than it would be for an adult,
particularly given the rampant teasing that occurs in schools?
There are lots of issues here, but these are the ones that initially jump out
at me. I think B.B.’s attorney was right when he said that B.B. never should
have been selected in the first place to be the bullying victim. That said, any
of the students conceivably could have been teased if they were in his place.
B.B. just appears to be a particularly sensitive student because of his
disabilities.
As teachers and students in schools continue to create more digital content
as part of coursework, we will see more stories like this. The portability and
modifiability of digital files, combined with the openness of the Internet and
the ready availability of content creation tools, make these types of situations
difficult to prevent. The challenge for schools will be to balance appropriate
safety and supervision concerns with the pedagogical advantages that often
accompany the use of digital technologies. Think about the digital content that
is created in your school: is your organization at risk for similar
inappropriate appropriation of content by a student or staff member?
[thanks to Jim
Gates at Tipline
for pointing me to this story]
