Virtual Reality? Implications for Advancing Technology

Patrick I. Romero-Aldaz

In a world that is becoming dependent on technological advancement and the use of computer aided or virtual modalities for communication, education, and relationship building it is inevitable that such advances may have positive as well as negative implications. Of those negative impacts, educators are now having to deal with the new challenge of addressing, preparing for, and safeguarding against virtual incivilities that have made their way into our classrooms and onto our campuses (Dickerson, 2005).

Kowalski, R., Limber, S., and Agatston, P. (2008) argue that since virtual incivilities like cyber-bullying and virtual assault have recently become globally pervasive, educators are just now beginning to understand the issues associated with cyber behavior and are scrambling to develop effective policies to address the activities associated with those behaviors. A problem in addressing this effectively can be the very nature of virtual worlds; they tend to operate within an arena of perceived or actual anonymity. Skillful bullies can use the technologies out there to extend that anonymity to almost untraceable fashions using multiple email addresses and screen names (Dickerson, 2005).

Another issue that arises in addressing this type of behavior is that such actions are often born of required activity in a classroom setting. In this type of situation the professor or administrator. ask or require students to join virtual arenas for the purposes of education without understanding the terms and conditions of services provided by these virtual worlds. Where this becomes a problem is that often the terms and conditions of membership may safeguard the activities taking place by securing a person’s profile, and denying any responsibility for what occurs within the realm of this alternate reality (Bugeja, 2007b).

One such situation is documented in some cases involving virtual rape or other types of sexual assault in the virtual world Second Life used by many universities and professors as a way of conducting some virtual education. Bugeja (2007a) in an article about Second Life found that by the end of 2006 Linden Labs, the creators of this virtual environment were receiving over 2000 notices of virtual abuse per month. Of the reported abuses virtual rape was the most egregious, but reports also included unwanted sexual advances, detaining avatars against their will, and use of hurtful, vulgar, and demeaning language that could be considered violent, sexist, and homophobic. Could this activity if part of a required university experience result in a violation of an institutions code of conduct? Should it?

The rub for higher education professionals to understand and embrace is that most of the research regarding virtual harassment, assault, and bullying revolve around K-12 educational arenas, but they are clearly present in higher education. How do we help students, faculty, and staff if we don’t accurately know how pervasive this activity is in higher education? These acts can lead victims to engaging in activities that include self-harm after consistently being subject to this type of behavior. In their study, Hay and Meldrum (2010) found that similar to traditional bullying and harassing behavior, cyber bullying and virtual harassment are positively related to self-harm and suicidal ideation by the recipients of the bullying. Victims reported feeling real grief, fear, anger, and hurt as a result of these virtual activities giving evidence that virtual activities can result in real harm. Another anecdotal examples occurred in September 2010, when the higher education community witnessed the use of technology as a tool of terrorism and it’s resulting tragedy when an 18-year-old student at Rutgers University committed suicide after being victimized by his roommate using such technologies as twitter and a personal web camera.

With the advance of technology and higher education using these mediums to increase access and innovation, it is important that we get on the forefront of this issue. It’s important for educators to understand all aspects of technological advancement before such fear is created that we lose out on all the positive attributes of such environments. It is essential that Administrators, faculty, and legal counsel offices begin to explore the liabilities exposed, the processes and polices that must be adhered to and how to safeguard our students, faculty, and staff as best possible. With ramifications a minor as a lawsuit for creating an environment where virtual harassment can cause real psychological harm, to something as major as the loss of life as a result of these activities. Higher education needs to take note and act.

References

Bugeja, M.J. Avatar Rape. Inside HigherEd. February 25, 2007. Available at: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/02/25/bugeja

Bugeja, M.J. Second Thoughts About Second Life. Chronicle of Higher Education. September 14, 2007. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Second-Thoughts-About-Second/46636/

Dickerson, Darby, Cyberbullies on Campus. University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2005.

Hay, C. and Meldrum, R. (2010) Bullying Victimization and Adolescent Self-Harm: Testing Hypotheses from General Strain Theory. Journal of Youth Adolescence. 39:446–459.

Kowalski, R, Limber, S. and Agatston, P. (2008) Cyber Bullying: Bullying in the Digital Age. Victoria: Blackwell Publishing.

Faculty Development

Faculty Development in Higher Education
By: Emma R. Brown


Another “hot topic” in higher education is that of faculty development. Faculty development simply refers to faculty members keeping current in teaching in their respective fields through continuing education. This includes issues related to pedagogy, or studying ways to teach and be a teacher. Instructors often become comfortable in the material they teach and the methods they use. This can be harmful both for the instructor and the students. New methods of learning must be embraced as different generations of students enter the world of academia expecting different types of learning environments.

Fink (2003) addresses that almost half of college graduates are not learning basic levels of general knowledge because they are memorizing information for exams and do not retain any of it. Student recall of information declines steadily after the course is over. Fink’s cause for these failures is that faculty, despite their desire for the students to learn, continues to use the same methods of teaching even though it has been proven ineffective. Of course, nothing is ever black and white. Failures fall on students as well when they do not complete assignments, but there are some responsibilities on the instructor to present material in fresh ways.

It can be intimidating to have to go against what one is comfortable with. Blanton and Stylianou (2009) stress how a learners “identity” influences their openness to faculty development (p. 83-84). They go on to explain faculty consists of newcomers and the “old timers,” with newcomers often looking to those who have taught longer for input and ideas on how to teach (p. 83). The problems that can arise here are if the “oldtimers” are stuck on a specific teaching method and unwilling to allow the new faculty to institute change. Most research suggests that more often than not, this is not what halts faculty development. Instead, it is a lack of institutional or departmental support. This is especially necessary in specific fields of learning, where instructors may already feel they are an expert in their field and do not see the need to improve their teaching methods.

Kezar (2009) states in her article that it is unfair to say instructors are resistance to pedagogical changes in higher education because there are too many stakeholders involved that fight over where resources should go. Faculty become so consumed in their normal daily activities that they fail to see the connection between learning new technologies and teaching their students, or they don’t even know the options to learn it are available (Kezar, p. 19). Finding ways to engage the faculty in development, and in some cases challenge their views on teaching can be tricky at best.

Kezar (2009) also states that when faculty development initiatives are completely unconnected to university boards and mission statements, a strain can come about when those in administration feel resources or funding is not going where it “should be.”

It is the opinion of this author that continuing faculty development is crucial for both the faculty and the student population. Students need to be exposed to new methods of teaching and new technologies in the classroom. There are many ways for students to learn successfully. It is also important for faculty to keep themselves current and try new things. Good teachers know that they are always learning, just like their students.

The goal of pedagogical improvements is made easier when it is more than just a single instructor’s decision for self improvement. Kezar (2009) suggests that campuses “can and should” choose what to focus on and what they consider important priorities in campus life and curriculum (p. 21). With a campus wide encouragement and support for continuing development, it will help to motivate instructors to better themselves and possibly even be a push in that direction.

Blanton and Stylianou (2009) also emphasize the need for a “culture of professional development” and making it clear to faculty how to go about faculty development (p. 79). Maintaining improvements in teaching is an ongoing process. In many cases, there are resources available on campus for teachers. The upside is new technologies are made available and explained for use in instruction. The downside is, these centers are multidisciplinary and the focus on general issues in pedagogy can limit development for specific programs.

Stets, Coertjens and Petegem (2010) found that instructional development actually showed greater results for instructors in specific disciplines. Therefore, it is the opinion of this author that specific programs should actively research resources for teachers to study pedagogy in their respective fields, and make that knowledge readily available. If there are no resources locally available, then they should create such opportunities themselves.



Works Cited

Blanton, M. L. and Stylianou, D. A. (2009). Interpreting a Community of Practice Perspectives in Discipline-Specific Professional Development in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(2), 79-92.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Kezar, A. (2009). Change in Higher Education: Not Enough, or Too Much? Change, 41 (6), 18- 23.

Stets, A., Coertjens, L., and van Petegem, P. (2010). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: an impact on teaching approach. Higher Education, 60(2), 187-204.

Service-Learning in Undergraduate Medical Education: Critical Thinking, Communication and Citizenship

By Jamie Burriss

Ongoing budget cuts and decreased government funding has resulted in elevated accountability for publicly-funded colleges and universities. Preparing graduates who will be successful in the workforce requires dedication in developing students who are critical thinkers and engaged citizens. As a response to such trends, service-learning has become increasingly popular in all aspects of education spanning from public health and social work to engineering and economics (Sedlack et al., 2010; Seifer, 1998).

While many definitions of service learning are in print, they generally encompass the principles of collaboration with the community, opportunities for critical reflection, and a balance of academic learning objectives and service contributions (Maudsley & Strivens, 2000; Sedlack et al., 2010; Seifer, 1998). Collectively, this ideology produces unparalleled experiences in comparison with the traditional classroom setting.

A plethora of encouraging outcomes are correlated to learning through service, which include the advancement of critical thinking skills, leadership development, social awareness, and continued civic engagement (Sternberger et al., 2005). When shifting the focus toward medical students, additional positive outcomes have been noted. The development of solid patient-communication skills and gaining a deeper understanding medical care with regard to financial, social and ethical aspects are some of the major benefits (Seifer, 1998).

For the purpose of this article, I will concentrate on the three C’s which are specifically beneficial to medical students who encounter service-learning as part of their educational curriculum. The three C’s include critical thinking, communication, and citizenship skills.

Critical Thinking Skills. The development of critical thinking skills is a necessity for any profession, particularly in the field of medicine. Service-learning enhances this ability through the process of reflection and problem-solving, lending way to problem-based learning in undergraduate medical education (Maudsley & Strivens, 2000).

While service alone does not ensure learning, the process of reflection cultivates critical thinking skills. A review of literature recommends a reflective component such as journaling or blogging throughout the service-learning course, which encourages analysis of critical-thinking dimensions including elements of reasoning, abilities of reasoning, and traits of reasoning (Sedlack et al., 2010; Sternberger et al., 2005; Cashman & Seifer, 2008).

Communication Skills. Developing the ability to communicate effectively with patients is essential for medical students who desire to be successful in their chosen careers. Because they will inevitably encounter individuals from various cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, learning to convey information to patients in a respectful manner is vastly important. Through service-learning, medical students can focus on the verbal and non-verbal aspects of communication in dealing with diverse populations (Cashman & Seifer, 2008). Additionally, increased levels of confidence and self-esteem have been noted as a consequence of this type of interaction (Sedlack et al., 2010). Through this type of learning, medical students connect with dissimilar individuals, which is often unachievable via traditional medical curriculum.

Citizenship Skills. Immersing medical students into their communities, whether locally, nationally, or internationally, helps them to experience the needs of fellow citizens. In turn, the meaning and significance behind the student’s education is intensified. As a primary focus of the curriculum, service-learning concentrates on bettering the quality of life for others by highlighting issues of concern and addressing them through social change (Seifer, 1998; Cashman & Seifer, 2008). Such experiences then prove beneficial for all stakeholders involved including students, faculty, community partners, community members, and the academic institution.

Conclusion and Recommendations

As for the future of service-learning, many advances are being made by universities across the world to integrate service-learning curricula into missions and course objectives (Sternberger et al., 2005). Though this type of education is judicious to implement, the benefits clearly outweigh the initial investment of time and resources. Further research should be conducted to follow medical students upon complete of their undergraduate medical education to track their commitment to civic engagement.

The For-Profit Debate

Higher education institutions have recently come under great scrutiny from both the general public and government leaders. In particular, for-profit institutions have to defend themselves as their entire business operations are under governmental review. According to an Inside Higher Ed news release (2010), the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) found evidence of for-profit recruiters encouraging students to commit fraud and that questionable or misleading practices were identified at all 15 for-profit colleges that investigators visited. Congress is now looking into their recruiting practices, accreditation, quality of education, and student loan issues. For-profit institutions find themselves under this examination due to their record making financial profits, while students obtain much higher federal loans to pay their tuition; therefore, it is fair to claim that these universities are benefiting from the federal government. The intent of this paper is to examine the recent trends of for-profit institutions and review some of the concerns regarding them.

Traditional higher education institutions in America have recently gone through great budget reductions. These budget restraints resulted in shrinking personnel and turning away students because they lack the resources to handle the demand. Concurrently, for-profit institutions have invested heavily into their educational programs and are enrolling a record number of students. “Enrollment in the country's nearly 3,000 career colleges has grown far faster than in the rest of higher education—by an average of 9 percent per year over the past 30 years, compared with only 1.5 percent per year for all institutions” (Wilson 2010). For-profit universities do an outstanding job focusing on students’ needs with educational programs that tailor towards non-traditional students. In comparison, they offer various degrees with flexible class schedules and many more online programs. While these business practices have unequivocally fueled their substantial growth, the concerns of their business processes are increasing as well.

A number of for-profit institutions have been accused of instituting inappropriate recruiting techniques. These institutions have placed recruitment quotas on recruiters and tied financial bonuses to the number of recruitments. These practices have caused recruiters to become more aggressive in their recruiting techniques, which lead to them to purposefully misinform potential students, and to sign up those students who obviously do not meet college standards. For-profit universities could support better recruiting practices if they advise recruiters to focus on enrolling quality students, instead of focusing on quotas and financial incentives based on the bottom line.

There are a variety of Accreditation agencies that examine and grant accreditation to for-profit institutions when minimum criteria are met. The primary reason why for-profit universities need to be accredited is because they can only receive federal financial aid, such as, student loans for their students if they have accreditation. The government is now evaluating these accreditation agencies and there seems to be an emerging trend of stricter criteria for obtaining such accreditations. Furthermore, some for-profit universities have been accused of having subpar educational programs and accreditation agencies have set out to review the quality of such programs.

For-profit institutions have relatively higher tuition rates and they can be significantly more than that of a community college or even a four-year state institution. According to the College Board (2009), the average annual tuition this year at a public, two-year college is $2,544, compared with $14,174 at a private, for-profit institution. In order to finance their education, students are taking out loans in record numbers to pay these hefty tuitions, and consequently, having difficulties paying back these loans once they have completed their degrees. Evidently, students who graduate from for-profit institutions carry a higher amount of student loans and are more likely to default in repaying them. “Forty-two percent of students who graduate with an associate degree from a for-profit college leave with more than $20,000 in debt, compared with 1 percent of those who graduate with the same degree from a community college” (Gonzalez 2009). For-profit institutions need to re-evaluate their pricing structures to make their educational degrees more affordable, and therefore lowering the amount of student loans. If they do not act immediately, they may be forced to comply with the proposed “gainful employment” rule being championed by congressional leaders. This new rule would stop federal aid to programs whose students have a substantial debt and are unlikely to make repayments.

For-profit institutions will continue to play an important role in educating American citizens. They offer an assortment of educational programs and they are a perfect match for non-traditional students due to the flexible time schedules and online courses options. However, the general public and congress cannot divert from the fact that for-profit executives are making record profits from American citizens. For-profit institutions need to focus on providing a high quality education at a more reasonable price, and they need to appropriately recruit students who can be successful. Last year, President Obama outlined a goal of having the world's highest number of college graduates by 2020, and the bottom line is that for-profit institutions will play a vital role in order for this plan to succeed.

RESOURCES

College Board. (2009). Trends in College Pricing 2009. Retrieved from
http://trends.collegeboard.org/files/2009_Trends_College_Pricing.pdf

Gonzalez, Jennifer. (2009). For-Profit Colleges, Growing Fast, Say They Are Key to Obama’s Degree Goals. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Say-The/49068/

Inside Higher Ed. (2010). Has the Conversation Changed? Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/08/09/forprofit

Wilson, Robin. (2010). For-Profit Colleges Change Higher Education’s Landscape. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/For-Profit-Colleges-Change-/64012/

Student Loan Debt and the Role of Higher Education

Student Loan Debt and the Role of Higher Education

Todd A. Wells

University of South Florida

How much are college students borrowing to attend college and how do they learn about the repayment process? The answers to these questions must be investigated as administrators in higher education help students develop sound principles of financial literacy for a lifetime of success. Data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Postsecondary Student Aid Study reveal that while many students are accumulating high levels of debt, these students remain the exception (Steele, P. & Baum, S., 2009). “Debt levels are increasing for all students, but more rapidly for students in the for-profit sector and for all of those earning certificates and two-year degrees.” (Steele, P. & Baum, 1, 2009). However, the increase in student loan debt is relatively small for bachelor’s degree recipients in public and private four-year colleges. No matter how small or large the amount of student loan debt, administrators from all types of colleges and universities must work to help students understand the value of student loans and the ability to pay the loans back.

A September 2010 Washington Post article indicated that the amount of student loan debt being amassed by college students and their parents totals more than $848 billion (Singletary, M., 2010). The total amount of $848 billion dollars in student loan debt does not tell the full story of most individual borrowers, and it is important to understand the distribution of debt level among college graduates. The typical debt levels of college graduates can be manageable for those who successfully enter the workforce, but there is growing concern that students who borrow much more than the average and end up with burdensome repayment obligations (Steele, P. & Baum, S., 2009). According to the College Board Policy Brief (2009), among all students who completed a degree or certificate in the 2007-2008 academic year, 41% percent graduated with no debt and over one-third had total loan debt exceeding $20,000.

With all that is known about student loan debt and the amount that students are choosing to acquire to pay for their education, are students facing a lifetime of student-loan debt? Most people are able to borrow a reasonable amount of money, pay it back, and lead better lives for having gone to college (Wilson, R., 2009). For every student that has taken reasonable amounts of student loans there are many students that are facing very real problems with the amount of acquired student loan debt. Almost 8 percent of undergraduates borrow at least double the national average (Wilson, R., 2009). Many students are not paying attention to the debt ceiling and their future ability to pay back those loans.

The amount of loan debt is also being linked to future career choices of undergraduate students. A report on negative student loan debt cited several examples of students opting out of public service career opportunities because of unmanageable student-loan payments (Rainry, A., 2006). Our society needs more students to take on careers in teaching, public service, and social work but students are choosing not to base on their ability to repay student loans. How can administrators, faculty, and staff continue to encourage students to take on public service careers when their student debt ratio becomes more than their future salary can handle?

Recommendations

Higher Education Administrators must stay informed on the level of student loan debt on their campuses. Those that work at for-profit universities and those that work at nonprofit colleges and universities face different challenges in providing financial literacy for college students. Bloomberg Business Week 2009 states that experts continue to debate the usefulness of teaching financial know-how to debt strapped students while some undergraduates are learning to manage debt themselves. American colleges and universities must step up and educate all students that take out student-loans on the concepts of debt control and repayment. A simple online loan exit tutorial is no longer enough to help students learn financial literacy. Financial counseling clinics and volunteer debt management programs are popping up at universities and colleges around the nation and are starting to provide more knowledge to debt filled and scared students.

We are at a critical point for Higher Education where we must help our students to become financially literate. All systems and cultures found in Higher Education must work together to provide students with financial information that is relevant to their current life stage. Providing modules and key educational experiences for students on budgets, account management, credit cards, debt management, and loan management will become key to the success of all students working towards becoming successful and productive citizens.

References

Bloomberg Businessweek (2009, July 23). Financial Literacy: Reaching the College Crowd. Retrieved from: http://businessweek.com/investor/content/jul2009

Rainry, A. (2006). Loan Debt Could Affect Career Choice. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 52, No. 32. Retrieved from: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?sfi=AC00NBGenSrch&csi=171267&shr=t

Singletary, M. (2010, September 3). What’s that sound? Student loan debt tick, tick, ticking up. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://washingtonpost.com

Steele, P. & Baum, S. (2009). How Much Are College Students Borrowing? The College Board: Policy Brief.

Wilson, R. (2009). A Lifetime of Student Debt? Not Likely. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 55, No. 37. Retrieved from: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?sfi=AC00NBGenSrch&csi=171267&shr=t

When Considering an Online Graduate Degree, Proceed with Caution

By Alejandra Picard

There is little doubt that the emergence and rapid expansion of distance learning programs has been one of the most significant developments in higher education, impacting it in ways that are yet to be understood. Within this new virtual landscape, one can find a wide variety of graduate degree programs across all disciplines. This rapid expansion has been driven by demand, demand of students seeking to fulfill professional aspirations in a more flexible manner, and demand of employers seeking to fill positions with qualified individuals. Butcher and Sieminski (2006) observe that, this trend reflects a “drift towards obligatory formal continuing professional development.” This is particularly the case when one looks at the growing market of professional doctorates, which meets specific professional needs and has more of a practice orientation, as opposed to a research orientation (Butcher & Sieminski, 2006). Though there are several very positive aspects of these programs, such as giving access to a graduate education to individuals that would not otherwise have access to it, there are several issues of concern that they raise and should be addressed.

Even though the market for distance education programs has grown in response to employer demands, studies have found that, more often than not, hiring managers will show a bias against applicants that have been awarded a graduate degree from an online institution (Bendersky, 2008; Carnevale, 2007). This is a problem of perception, which of course is critically important when one is under review for a desired position. One factor that may be significantly contributing to this negative view is the lack of understanding about the large variations of programs. Despite the fact that they vary greatly in their structure, accreditation status, entrance requirements, work load, and overall quality, many individuals tend to lump them together into one category. Carnevale (2007) explains that surveyed hiring personnel often associate the distance education degrees with the “spam of corporate colleges,” and others assume that the applicant must have bought their degree, as opposed to earned it. The latter sentiment may be explained by the fact that some online for-profit universities have little to no admission requirements (Bendersky, Isaac, Stover, & Zook, 2008). Some employers also voice concern over the lack of communication skills that an online student may demonstrate, due to the potential absence of personal interaction and collaboration in the virtual environment. The extent to which these perceptions match reality can be debated; however, students should be aware that these negative attitudes about online graduate degrees continue to exist, despite a growing acceptance. It is therefore critical that prospective students be educated on the matter, understanding what their job prospects are post graduation. In addition, it is essential that students be able to recognize a quality graduate degree program from a legitimate institution versus those offered by “diploma mills.”


Lumadue (2006) offers a very informative and almost shocking review of the pervasiveness of bogus degrees, which he blames for “prostituting the educational process.” Though the term “prostituting” may seem harsh, when one considers how diploma mills operate, it becomes clear that it is entirely appropriate. According to Lumadue, a diploma mill is an institution that markets its degrees as being equal to those offered by legitimately accredited agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. He further explains that because these institutions operate in the absence of proper supervision, the degrees they offer are essentially worthless. Besides having no entrance requirements, diploma mills may offer graduate credit for “life experience” and may allow individuals to purchase mail-order diplomas (which would be seen as fraudulent by the U.S. Department of education). It is therefore essential that prospective students understand the role of accreditation, and the potential limitation of a graduate degree from an institution not accredited by a regionally recognized body.

Despite the many concerns raised by online graduate programs, it is important to recognize that there are many effective and high quality programs in the world of virtual learning. They make it possible for a significant number of working adults in need of flexibility to be given access to a graduate education that allows them to successfully meet their career goals (Butcher & Sieminski, 2006). Graduate distance learning is here to stay, of that we can be certain. It is therefore necessary that we (university students, faculty, administrators, and researchers) address the issues raised by this facet of higher education and better educate the public on its complexity and challenges.


References

Bendersky, K., Walter, L., Stover, J., & Zook, J. (2008). Psychology students and online graduate programs: A need to reexamine undergraduate advisement. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 38-41.
Butcher, J. & Sieminski, S. (2006). The challenges of a distance learning professional doctor
in education. Open Learning, 21 (1), 59-69.

Carnevale, D. (2007). Employers often distrust online degrees. Chronicle of Higher Education,
53 (18), 28-30.

Lumadue, R. T. (2006). When graduate degrees prostitute the educational process: degrees
gone wild. Christian Higher Education, 5, 263-278.

Free Speech In A Digital World: From Censorship To Enlightenment
Jennifer B. Espinola
University of South Florida

New technology and social media formats have created some interesting modern twists for campus conduct offices to navigate. Obviously the recent suicides associated with cyber-bullying or public humiliation are calling attention to the use of webcams, Facebook, Twitter and other tools for mass distributing personal attacks or private matter (Hubbard, 2010). But there are even more obscure examples of online harassment that have universities spinning. For instance, “Second Life” is an online virtual world explored through a created character called an “avatar” which can socialize with other avatars, participate in individual and group activities, create and trade virtual property and services, or travel throughout the world (which is referred to as "the grid") (Rosedale, 2003). Within the startup site for Second Life, there is a category specifically for Education and Enterprise (2003) and it advertises that Universities around the country, including MIT and Notre Dame, are using Second Life for distance learning and social interaction for students. The potential is interesting, but the challenges are expected. An article from InsideHigherEd.com discusses conduct like rape, harassment, and other hate crimes within Second Life and how universities are dealing with the allegations (Bugeja, 2010). It will be interesting to see how it holds up in Court if a student is suspended for the virtual rape of another student in Second Life and sues the institution for First Amendment infringement. It seems that a code of conduct charge of harassment would have more footing because a student that is stalked or harassed online in a way that deprives him/her the ability to participate in the community and feel safe, gives the institution a legitimate interest in intervening the same way it would for a real-life on campus case of harassment. Robin Hulshizer argues that even case law concerning the intentional infliction of emotional distress and doctrines behind unprotected “fighting words” can be combined to offer principles for writing a legally-sound and effective model Student Code, which makes sanctionable conduct any verbal slur directed at an individual which is intended to harass, intimidate or humiliate and has the reasonably foreseeable effect of inflicting injury (1991).

Another example of the online interactions causing problems concerns the “www.Boredat____.com” websites (Kolowich, 2009). Jonathan Pappas, a student at Columbia University in 2006, developed the first site (www.BoredatButler.com) as a place for students to post their anonymous thoughts. He meant it to serve as an open forum with the anonymity allowing for truly open expression of ideas or musings about campus life. However, it turned into a Petri dish for racist slurs, personal attacks, rants, and harassment to the point where the creator shut the site down (2009). And this has happened with JuicyCampus.com as well, even though several other sites have been established to take their place. Attorneys caution against university censorship in online media by stating that “holding colleges responsible . . . for ‘stop[ping] the harassment of ... students on gossip sites in cyberspace’ sets up an impossible standard for colleges to meet” (Storch, 2009). However, when matters or incidents are brought to the attention of university officials, they are encouraged to investigate and proceed as prescribed by their procedures (Lipka, 2008).

As a Student Affairs practitioner, I am guided by case law against attempting to censor the content of student speech, regardless of its vulgar or vicious nature. The Supreme Court in Papish v. Board of Curators stated that "the mere dissemination of ideas - no matter how offensive to good taste - on a state university campus, may not be shut off in the name alone of 'conventions of decency” (1973). Instead of censorship, higher learning institutions should use their most valuable tool - education. The more educators dialogue with students and create opportunities for them to interact, the less likely they will be to hide behind the electronic veil that shields their identity online where most of today’s hate speech and harassment can be found. Disturbing incidents are teachable moments for creating and moderating real and virtual forums to discuss the impact of such speech on the community. The key is facilitating students’ self-moderation. They must confront each other and decide together what the standards will be. Universities cannot protect students from hearing vile language and ideas, which are gaining prominence even in mainstream television, radio, and internet sites. So it is the job of institutions of higher learning to help the students acknowledge the message, critically think it through and challenge that which they disagree with in respectful and effective ways. We must encourage the voices of the rationale, caring and open-minded students whom will lead against the residual yet persistent bigots and fear-mongers of the world.

References

Hubbard, Jeremy (October 3, 2010). Fifth Gay Teen Suicide In Three Weeks Sparks Debate. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-teen-suicide-sparks-debate/story?id=11788128.

Rosedale, Philip (2003). What is Second Life? Retrieved from http://secondlife.com/whatis/?lang=en-US.

Rosedale, Philip (2003). Education and Enterprise. Retrieved from http://secondlife.com/whatis/?lang=en-US#Education_&_Enterprise.

Bugeja, Michael (February 25, 2010). Avatar Rape. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/02/25/bugeja.

Hulshizer, Robin (1991). Securing Freedom From Harassment Without Reducing Freedom of Speech: Doe v. University of Michigan, Iowa Law Review. 383, 397-400.

Kolowich, Steve (December 11, 2009). Vent No More. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/12/11/bored.

Storch, Joseph (September 17, 2009). In Loco Parentis, Post-Juicy Campus. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/09/17/storch.

Lipka, Sara (March 7, 2008). The Digital Limits of ‘In Loco Parentis.’ The Chronicle of Higher Education 54 (26), p. A1. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/After-a-Suicide-Questions-/124803.

Papish v. Board of Curators. 410 U.S. 667, 670-71 (1973).