2015 BLOG ASSIGNMENT #6

Read Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety.

Use Graff/Birkenstein’s They Say/I Say template to identify, pull apart, and respond to the article. Your response should be at least 250 words and should:

1. Have a clever title properly capitalized.
2. Use They Say/I Say template to fully develop both the author’s and the writer’s arguments.
3. Accurately identify a central claim of the article.
4. Appropriately lead into, blend, parenthetically cite, and discuss at least one quote or key fact/statistic from the article.
5. Explain each quote and discuss your reaction to it (agree or disagree).
6. Have concluding sentences.

Graff/Birkenstein’s They Say / I Say template:

Title: ______________________________

The general argument made by author X/the article in her/his/the work, _____________ , is that _____________. More specifically, X/the article argues that ______________. She/he/it writes, “_______________________.” In this passage, X/the article is suggesting that _________________. In conclusion, X’s/the article’s belief is that _____________.

In my view, X/the article is wrong/right, because ___________________________. More specifically, I believe that _____________________________. For example, __________ ________________________________________. Although X/the article might object that ___________________ , I maintain that ___________________________. Therefore, I conclude that _______________________________________________.

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “2015 BLOG ASSIGNMENT #6

  1. Schools invading student’s social media
    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his article Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety. More specifically, this article argues about reducing the rates of teen suicide created by social media. He writes, “The gathering of public information found online doesn’t violate free-speech protections.” In this sentence, the article is suggesting that they’re not violating any rights because the students are making it public. Meaning that anybody can see it. So, these paid organization can go through student’s information. It’s actually quite creepy having unknown people stalking through your post trying to figure out if people are getting cyber-bullied. In conclusion, this article’s belief is good that there using investigators to help prevent cyber-bulling.

    In my view, the article is right and wrong because it may prevent a death made by hateful post then that’s good. A con about this article is that there wasting money in this program rather than funding schools. Mostly because there in need of a lot of school supply. Another con is that you need to be mindful about what you post. More specifically, I believe that this invasion of privacy is invading amendment 1. Plus, cyber bulling is not in every case. For example, I had never experienced cyber bulling neither any of my friends. I personally believe that the school is trying to help people that are doing bad things: drugs, alcohol and are in gangs. Although the articles might object that their soul purpose is to help people in cases of cyber-bulling. Therefore, I conclude that there trying to do a right thing but there’s some pros and cons about going through student’s social media

  2. Title: Now Schools Are Monitoring Social Media Too

    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his article is about schools monitoring students’ social media. Getting into more detail, the article is discussing whether it is right or not for schools to do this. The article tells us how the Glendale school district hired a company named Geo Listening, to monitor the social media of the district’s students and to report anything that might go against school conduct. The article says, “The effort, for which the district is paying $40,500, is aimed at unearthing the earliest signs of bullying and harm,” and this is a pretty good cause and reason to monitor social media, but there are so many other things besides these two that happen on social media that would be seen. Yes, social media is a public forum and you shouldn’t put things on there that you aren’t ok with being seen by hundreds of people, but when students put things on social media, most of the time they aren’t worried about their teachers and the administrators at their school seeing their posts. Students now can be punished for other things besides bullying and harassment on social media, things that they were not worried about being seen by adults at school and getting punished for. Overall I don’t really think that the article clearly stated what side of the argument it was on as it had interviews with multiple people from both sides and used quotes from the interviews to present the argument. When it comes to which side of the argument I stand on, I think that social media monitoring of students is not right and I don’t agree with it. Some people might say that it can help stop things like harassment, bullying, and self-harm in the student body, but I think if things like this are going on and people really wanted help, they would go seek it out to help themselves and that students can intervene to help end the problems. So in my opinion, I think that the Glendale school district should not monitor the students’ social media.

  3. The School District That Knows All About Their Students

    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar,in “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety”, is that the Glendale school district has hired a company to monitor students social media. More specifically, the article argues that the students were deprived of privacy.while interviewing students Christopher Chung of Hoover High School claims that he was unaware until a fellow student told him, “Our principal hasn’t said anything about it.” he says. In this passage, Supt. Dick Sheehan is suggesting that the monitoring of students social medias is to prevent acts such as cyberbullying, suicidal thoughts, and vandalism. Sheehan expresses that if the students feel the need to post online then there is no invasion privacy.For, they are the ones who posted for the world to see. In conclusion, Ceasar’s belief is that the Glendale school district did indeed go too far and gave the students no warning.

    In my view, this article on the Glendale school district monitoring students social media is right, because I feel that it is an invasion of privacy. More specifically, I believe that it is wrong for the school not to give out so much as a permission slip . For example, when I register for every year I receive a paper that my parent then signs asking if my face and name is allowed on things such as the town newspaper or school website. If a parent is that concerned about privacy I would feel they would like to know if their child’s social media is in a way, being stalked. Although the district of Glendale might object that there is no invasion of privacy and the program simply scans students profiles looking for “key words”, I maintain that schools should not interfere with the lives of students beyond school grounds, some districts don’t even allow students to follow or add teachers to social media how is this program any different. Therefore, I conclude that lines need to be drawn and this program has gone too far, if the schools wish to continue I would prefer that they have the consent of both my legal guardian and myself.

  4. Title: The secret company that is attempting to save teenagers lives in the shadows.
    The general argument made by author Stephen Ceaser in, Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety, is that nothing is being done that is wrong here, all the school wants is that no one will do life threatening decisions. More specifically, the article argues that there have been many suicides in the area lately that have derived from cyberbullying. He writes, “The Company’s computers scour an untold number of public posts by students on blogs, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, for example. Analysts are alerted to terms that suggest suicidal thoughts, bullying, vandalism and even the use of obscenities, among other things.” In this passage, the article is suggesting that no one in is in the wrong here, and that it is only placed that if anything that were to happen with any of the topics above, it would tell the school and the parents of the student. In conclusion, X’s/the article’s belief is that it should be kept to monitor the students, and to make sure nobody else falls victim to any of the topics above.
    In my view, the article is right, because many people are cyberbullied online all the time and I think it’s hard on developing teenagers and it can affect their life choices. More specifically, I believe that if they continue to monitor people, they will indeed continue to provide the needed support for some of these students. For example, Glendale schools Supt. Dick Sheehan said the district was reeling from the recent suicides of students in the area and was searching for ways to reach out to those who need help. Although the article might object that it is an invasion of privacy, I maintain that since many people put this out in the open, why shouldn’t we be able to make sure it isn’t harmful to other teenagers lives. Therefore, I conclude that no one is in the wrong here, and that they continue to monitor these schools students.

  5. The general argument made by author Stephen Ceasar in his work, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety,” is that maintaining regular surveillance over students’ public posts on social media is to ensure them assistance in life threatening, violent, or harmful situations. More specifically, Caesar argues that one of the reasons for this program was to unearth the causes of an elementary girl’s reason for committing suicide and how cyberbullying played a role in it. He writes, “Friends and family said she suffered constant online harassment from friends who had turned against her in a dispute over a boy. Rebecca was “absolutely terrorized on social media,” Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told reporters.” In this passage, Ceasar is suggesting that this program is truly purposeful and beneficial and isn’t just to invade students’ lives outside of school. In conclusion, Ceasar’s belief is that this program’s positive contributions to students’ safety overshadows its flaws.

    In my view, Ceasar is right because the schools aren’t necessarily invading a student’s privacy if they are only monitoring a student’s posts that are public. More specifically, I believe that what this program does is praiseworthy because this makes students more conscientious of what they put out about themselves for the whole world to see. For example, the article highlights that the founder of this program says, “No matter where they are, if they are advertising it in the public domain, it’s no different than if they’re standing in front of a teacher.” Although Ceasar may object that “It’s students’ expression of their own thoughts and feelings to their friends,” I maintain that the program’s benefits, such as providing assistance and interventions earlier on in life threatening, harmful, or violent situations, would help more than it would hurt the students’ privacy rights.

  6. Watch Out For The Effects of Monitoring Students

    The general argument made by Stephan Ceasar in his article, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety,” is that if schools are going to monitor their student’s social media, then the students’ rights may be in jeopardy. More specifically, the article argues that the monitoring of social media may negatively impact the freedom of speech of the students. Stephan Ceasar stated that the monitoring could, “have a chilling effect on students’ free speech.” In this passage, the article suggests that students will feel they need to alter their social media posts in order to avoid school punishments for things that happened outside of the school environment. In conclusion, the article’s belief is that if schools are going to monitor the social media of their students, then regulations and limitations must be put into order.

    In my view, the article is wrong, because the students’ social media should not be monitored in the first place. More specifically, I believe that there are alternatives to prevent cyber bullying than spying on the school’s students. For example, instead of monitoring a student’s social media, the school may want to develop a program that allows students to make reports personally or anonymously of students who are bullying, being bullying, or show any signs of unhealthy behaviors. Although the article might object to the fact that not everyone will be courageous enough to report themselves or others, I maintain the belief that giving the option of being anonymous will give students the motivation to speak up. Therefore, I conclude that instead of monitoring each and every students’ social media accounts, giving the option to make reports of abuse may give similar or even better results.

  7. Should Schools Hire Private Companies to Monitor Students’ Social Media Usage?
    The general argument made by author Stephen Ceasar in his article, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student”, is that regulating students’ social media usage may prevent atrocities connected to social media can be beneficial or detrimental. More specifically, Ceasar argues that the motive behind a school district is the tragic suicides of two girls over threatening online posts. The school district then hired a private company, Hermosa Beach-based Geo Listening, to monitor the social media activity of roughly 14,000 students in the district to discover the early signs of bullying, self harm, etc. He writes, “The list of issues the company looks for is extensive. It includes controlled substances, self-harm, disruption of class or school activities, hazing, sexual harassment of peers or teachers, threats or acts of physical violence, use of fake identification, hate speech, racism, weapons and suicide or despair” ( Stephen Ceasar “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety”). In this excerpt from the passage, Ceasar is arguing that monitoring students’ behavior on social media can lead to the decline of online threats, harassment, and other sorts of defiance of common sense. The private company now has access to inform the school of a particular individual by screenshotting the offensive or threatening post including the details, time and date, the user’s name, and a short description describing why the post caught the attention of monitors. In conclusion, the article’s belief is that social media monitoring is beneficial to the lives of others and can prevent school atrocities from occurring.
    In my view, the article is in the right because the media monitoring will save the lives of the students that are currently being victimized by their peers. Too many lives have been lost because of social media and the occupants of the site. If this idea had been created beforehand, the teens that have been traumatized and or committed suicide could have prevented and the torturers apprehended. More specifically, this program allows the students to contemplate their actions and the harm it may occur. Ceasar writes, “…includes controlled substances, self-harm, disruption of class or school activities, hazing, sexual harassment of peers or teachers, threats or acts of physical violence, use of fake identification, hate speech, racism, weapons and suicide or despair”(Stephen Ceasar “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety”). Although the author might object to the intrusion of free-speech by the company, I maintain that that the company does not in fact intrude into students’ free-speech. Writing threatening posts is free-speech, but there are consequences into writing those posts. Therefore, I conclude that the hiring of Hermosa Beach-based Geo Listening is justified because it could reduce the number of hateful posts and loss of lives without intruding into students’ free-speech.

  8. Media Monitoring: Menacing Protector

    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his article, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety”, is that Glendale Unified is monitoring student’s social media for protection and whether or not it is an invasion of privacy. More specifically, the article argues that this form of protection is jeopardizing a student’s freedom of speech outside of school. Brendan Hamme stated in the article, “’But this program is sweeping and far afield of what is necessary to ensure student safety and intrudes deeply into students’ privacy and conduct outside of school’”. In this passage, Hamme is suggesting that meanwhile the program’s intention was to protect students; it may have violated students protected rights. In conclusion, the article’s belief is that the good intentions are causing tension and a loss of a right.

    In my view, the article is right, because schools monitoring the social media of students outside of school are out of reach of its jurisdiction. More specifically, I believe that the school does not have that much control of our lives to monitor us online while we are not on campus. For example, if a student is cyberbullied during school, it is occurring on school property and has to be controlled by the school; however if it occurs outside of school, schools are not in control of social media and are not able to force things to happen. Although the article might object that it is not controlling the student’s media and are just trying to find signs of bullying, I maintain that it is still crossing the line of what a school can do and that there should be a better way of preventing cyberbullying. Therefore, I conclude that schools cannot violate a right by monitoring student social media; however they can try to find a more reasonable way to combat bullying.

  9. Title: Monitoring Social Media, Invasion of Privacy or Protection?
    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his article “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety”, is that the monitoring of students’ social media is for student safety. More specifically, Stephen Ceasar argues that the monitoring of social media is to prevent cyberbullying from happening. He writes, “’They have a good purpose for what they’re trying to do — stopping cyberbullying,’ Christopher said. ‘Nobody really understands what it is about or what the main objectives are of the program’.” In this passage, the article is suggesting that students and the parents are not giving this system a chance. By providing this context the author is suggesting that people just don’t quite understand the program yet. In conclusion, Stephen Ceasar’s belief is that the program of monitoring students’ social media is actually justified due to current online situations going on.
    In my view, the article is right, because I see a lot of people posting inappropriate things online. More specifically, I believe that monitoring what students post will have students think about what they are writing for once. For example, if a kid was thinking of shaming a peer online by tweeting something embarrassing, he will think about it because he knows he is being watched. If everyone was to think this way, all of the cyberbullying problems would go away. Therefore, I conclude that not only should the GUSD monitor students’ social media, but for every school to monitor their students.

  10. Invasion or Monitoring?
    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his article is “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety,” is that Glendale district is monitoring students social media and not as an invasion of their privacy. More specifically, the article argues that the effort, for which the district is paying $40,500, is aimed at unearthing the earliest signs of bullying and self-harm. It writes, “They have a good purpose for what they’re trying to do, stopping cyber bullying,” In this passage, is suggesting that the program is a fantastic way to stop cyber bullying but the students see it as an invasion of privacy. In conclusion, Stephen Ceasar’s belief is that this program will help stop cyber bullying and is a justified thing to do to keep their students safe.

    In my view, the article is right, because I feel they’re trying to protect their students from bullying. More specifically, I believe that this isn’t an invasion of privacy or stopping any of these students of their right of freedom of speech For example, I was bullied a lot when I was little and I wouldn’t want any other people have the same experience I had. Although the article might object that this program is an invasion of piracy of the students, I maintain that isn’t not it’s just a check up on everyone and see if there is any problems with any of the students that they can handle with at school. Therefore, I conclude that this program is a great idea and should implement it in every school so that no one has to get bullied and can be at school without any worries.

  11. School District Invade Students’ Privacy

    The general argument made by author Stephen Caesar is that students from the GUSD are having their activities on social media monitored by a third party company. More specifically the article argues that this monitoring could affect their freedom of speech. He writes, “The effort, for which the district is paying $40,500, is aimed at unearthing the earliest signs of bullying and self-harm.” In this passage, the article is suggesting that it is worth $40,500 to insure the safety and prevent self-harm for students that attend the GUSD. In conclusion, Caesar’s belief is that students attending the GUSD are being monitored online to keep them safe but it may limit their free speech.
    In my view, Caesar is wrong because you can’t express yourself freely online because of the fear that your teachers might see what you say. More specifically, I believe that not being able to express yourself limits your free speech. For example, if you wanted to put song lyrics with obscenities in them then that could get you in trouble and limit the way you express yourself. Although the article might object that the monitoring is for your own safety and to prevent self-harm, I maintain that the monitoring of social media will affect the extent of which someone can express himself or herself. Therefore, I conclude that if the GUSD continues to monitor the activities of their students then the students’ free speech will suffer.

  12. Title: Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety.
    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his work,
    “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety”, is that schools and teachers should have the rights to “monitor our social media.”. More specifically, the article mentions that if they monitor our social media, it will help prevent bullying, drugs, and suicides. But how so sure that those will be the only things the teacher will monitor. He writes, “They have a good purpose for what they’re trying to do — stopping cyberbullying.” If you think of it, other students can just report this problem to either the school or teachers, rather than invading the students’ privacy. In this next passage, the article then said, “No matter where they are, if they are advertising it in the public domain, it’s no different than if they’re standing in front of a teacher,” Frydrych said. I personally think that there is a huge difference from being told off from social media than talking to a teacher up front. In conclusion, the article’s belief is that checking on students social media will limit the words said by students and possibly stop bullying.
    In my view, I think this article is stupid, because teachers are viewing it more on their perspective rather than the students. More specifically, the article it also stated, “I heard rumors that GUSD was doing a little bit of monitoring — but nothing as official as this,” he said. “The only way students were finding out about it was through social media. Our principal hasn’t said anything about it.” Teachers or the school should have a vote with the students whether or not teachers should be allowed to do this or not. For example, what if it was the other way around. What if the students were monitoring over the teacher’s social media. How would they feel about it? Although the article might object that it will stop cyber-bullying I maintain that their reasons and the ideas supporting this article is completely wrong and stupid. Therefore, I conclude that teachers, as well as schools DO NOT have any rights whatsoever to invade and limit what we can say and do on either Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and any other types of social media.

  13. Title: Safety or Spying?
    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his article ” Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety” that the Glendale district monitoring students on social media is a safety measure. More specifically the article states that the huge price tag of about $40,500 is to help spot early signs of self-harm and bullying , and also helps look for an extensive list of issues throughout the school. He writes that ,”However in situations where students write about hurting themselves, threaten to harm others or use hate speech toward a particular person, intervention for student safety can be reasonable.” In this passage , it suggest that to a certain extent a third party company would be a beneficial factor in the way a school could monitor its students. In conclusion the article believes that having social media monitoring for schools is beneficial and could help schools in many different ways.

    In my opinion the article is wrong because I feel that by monitoring everything a student says is taking away the right to free speech. More specifically the company monitoring each of these students could take something miniscule and small and blow it up due to the context. For example,a simple joke or even a sentence taken out of context could be blown up by the fact that someone read something wrong and could affect students in a dramatic way. Although the article states that it could do more good then harm by monitoring the students. I maintain that there is problem a lesser amount of wrong the monitoring would find on social media due to the fact that no matter what someone will find a way around it and it is probably a waste of money. Therefor, i conclude that due to the high cost for this service and the fact that it takes away privacy from students and hinders their first amendmant that this social media monitoring is not benificial.

  14. Title: Protecting Students and Their Privacy

    The general argument made by Stephen Caesar the article in his work,“Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety,” is that the school board is watching over the students so they’re not in trouble or in danger . More specifically, in this article it argues that a lot of teenagers these days post about their personal life and thoughts. It writes, “Analysts are alerted to terms that suggest suicidal thoughts, bullying, vandalism and even the use of obscenities, among other things. When they find posts they think should spur an intervention or anything that violates schools’ student codes of conduct, the company alerts the campus.” In this passage, the article is suggesting that there should be a program to watch over these teenagers who pour out their feelings through social media. In conclusion, the article’s belief is that if more schools and districts have programs for watching over students on social media things will be better for them. They wouldn’t have to worry if their student is in danger or is being immature and being mean to someone else online.

    In my view, the article is right, because there are a lot of teenagers these days who pour out their personal beliefs and thoughts onto social media. I think that their personal information should just stay out of social media because it can go against them somehow. More specifically, the information you post online can be seen by anyone so it’s bad but also good because sometimes social media can catch attention to other people who are cautious of other people. For example, in my personal experience I had been cyber-bullied online and it really did suck, but I ended up suspending my social media account for a while so that I wouldn’t have to deal with the dumb bullies. I think that cyber bullying is the dumbest thing ever because it’s very weak of the bully to talk bad about you through social media. Although the article might object that social media is bad , I maintain that social media will always be something bad but it has its good sides. Therefore, I conclude that there should be supervision with the students who have social media accounts to help them to be safe and secure.

  15. Are Online Cyber-Monitoring Companies Our Generation’s Big Brother?

    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar “Glendale District Says Social Media Monitoring is for Student Safety,” is that the work that social media monitoring firm Geo Listening does is for the benefit of students. More specifically, it argues that monitoring of social media is key in helping and protecting students. Ceasar says,” …alerted to terms that suggest suicidal thoughts, bullying, vandalism and even the use of obscenities…” This article suggests that this is an extremely effective way of protecting students. In conclusion, Ceasar says that although there are pros and cons to this form of cyber monitoring, the actions of Geo Listening and other companies of its kind are okay.

    I disagree with Ceasar not on the overall motivation of these companies, but on their execution. I am a proponent of companies such as Geo Listening; I believe that they are doing the right thing in making an active effort to protect our youth. Therefore, I find no fault in the companies. I do find fault in the school systems. I believe that a lie of omission is a more serious offense than online monitoring. As Hover High School junior Christopher Chung stated, “I heard rumors that GUSD was doing a little bit of monitoring – but nothing as official as this. The only way students were finding out about it was through social media. Our principal hasn’t said anything about it.” This is unacceptable behaviour from the Glendale Unified School District. As previously stated, I am okay with cyber monitoring. However, the fact that the school system didn’t notify the students that their activity was being monitored is, in my eyes, a violation of basic human rights. The author of this article may argue that if students are aware that they are being monitored, they will alter their online behaviour; however, I maintain that the students have the right to know whether their words are being scrutinized. Therefore, I conclude that although we are headed in the right direction, we have to change some things before online monitoring is widely accepted.

  16. Not enough freedom of expression
    The general argument made by author Stephen Ceasar in his work, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety” states that students should be monitored on their online status. . More specifically, the article argues that this is a huge violation of students privacy. Although it makes parents feel safe for their children to go online it still brings them to be afraid of what they may place online. As he wrote, “While acknowledging some of the benefits, critics of the program contend that the monitoring could also have a chilling effect on students’ free speech.” In this passage,Stephen Ceasar suggested that by having students be monitored for going online doesn’t allow them the same amount of freedom as they would if no monitoring was made. In conclusion, this articles’s belief is that by doing this it may have a significant amount of progress but at the same time hold them back.
    In my view,this article is right by agreeing that people should have their own privacy. More specifically, I believe that having administration view your social media is up to their parents. Along with this, i feel eventually they will be sending students to the office for no reason. For example, if a student is sad one day and posts about it, that does not allow them the right to judge them and assume they are suicidal or in any other case. This article might object that this would only provide them to be viewed and their would be regulation, I maintain that this is invalid as anyone can be judged by what they see in the media, how much of it is true or completely vaild is another thing. Therefore, I conclude that students should not be mindlessley viewed and feel the need to have to cover their feeling for the sake of not being judged

  17. Students in the Glendale School District Argue for Their Right to Free Speech

    The general argument made by author Stephen Caesar in his work, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety”, is that the idea of schools monitoring social media is very controversial. More specifically, the article argues that students feel like their privacy is being violated while the school feels that this will prevent bullying, self-harm, and suicide. Caesar writes, “Glendale schools Supt. Dick Sheehan said the district was reeling from the recent suicides of students in the area and was searching for ways to reach out to those who need help.” In this passage, the article is suggesting that the school district felt that they could prevent suicides like the ones that occurred recently by monitoring social media to check if there are any indicators that a student might try and harm themselves. In conclusion, Caesar’s belief is that the Glendale school district isn’t going to stop monitoring their students’ social media and the students are going to keep arguing that this is a violation of their privacy.

    In my view, the article is right, because no student wants their teachers, even principal looking at what they post online. More specifically, I believe that the students have some validity in what they are arguing. For example, if I knew my school district was spending their money to monitor my social media account I would feel uncomfortable. Although the school district might object that it is for the greater good and could help prevent bullying and suicide, I maintain that everyone has a right to free speech and if you know your school is looking at what you say, wouldn’t you feel restricted? Therefore, I conclude that I don’t exactly agree with what the Glendale school district is doing, I see where they are coming from.

  18. The general argument made by Stephen Caesar in his article, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety”, is that the Glendale school district is monitoring student’s social media for the safety of its students. More specifically, the article argues that this program is to help identify and prevent cyber bullying that leads to self-harm and violence. He writes, “The effort is aimed at unearthing the earliest signs of bullying and self-harm”. In this passage the article is suggesting that the purpose of the program Glendale school district has established is to stop cyber bullying, and does not invade the students privacy. In conclusion, the article’s belief is that the school district of Glendale is doing the correct thing in order to keep their students safe.
    In my view the article is right to a certain extent, because a program like this can identify cyber bullying. More specifically, I believe that monitoring student’s social media is a good thing, but what a student does on social media should not be taken into account unless it has to do with the safety of themselves or other students. Students should not be disciplined for matters outside of school. For example, if a student gives out an opinion on social media or is having some sort of problem, the school should not interfere. The students have their right to free speech. Although the article might object that monitoring does not violate free speech, I maintain that the monitoring program should be used for safety purposes, and not for any less severe violations of school rules. Therefore, I conclude that the Glendale School District student-monitoring program has a helpful purpose, but it has its limits and flaws.

  19. Title: It’s for your safety

    The general argument that was made by Mr. Stephen Ceasar in his work, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety,” is that the Glendale Unified School District is monitoring the social media accounts of students at three of its high schools to prevent cyberbullying. More specifically, Mr. Caesar argues that this is in the best interest if the students, that it prevents people from taking their own lives because of comments and threats made over the Internet. He writes, and quotes from an interviewee, Mr. Christopher Chung who said, “They have a good purpose for what they’re trying to do — stopping cyber bullying.” In this piece of writing, Mr. Ceasar suggested that for the most part, the monitoring of various social media accounts are beneficial for the protection and overall safety of students. In conclusion, Mr. Ceasar’s belief is that there might be some privacy issues involved with the execution of this program, but through a simple cost-benefit analysis this is a price that people should be willing to pay.

    In my opinion, Mr. Ceasar’s view is perfectly feasible, because people should not have to worry about their privacy if they simply don’t do “dangerous” or inappropriate acts online that can threaten themselves and others. For example, “No matter where students are, if they are advertising inappropriate acts or behavior they are doing so in a public domain, it’s no different than if they’re standing in front of teacher.” Although the article does bring up the point that “the monitoring of students’ social media accounts could have a chilling effect on students’ free speech, and it opens the possibility that students could be disciplined for comments made outside of school.” I maintain my stance that the benefits of this program outweigh the cost. Therefore I conclude, that the Glendale Unified School District is doing their part in protecting the safety of their students. It’s not even about privacy; it’s about holding students accountable for their behavior and comments online.

  20. Overstepping Privacy Boundaries

    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his work, Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety, is that monitoring student media is effective for student safety without overstepping privacy rights. More specifically, the article argues that by hiring a specialized company to monitor student media for trigger sensitive content, GUSD is simply ensuring student safety and not overstepping boundaries concerning student privacy and freedom of speech. He writes, “[Chris Frydrych] stressed that the company monitors only publicly available posts and isn’t peeking into private correspondence or hacking into accounts.” This suggests that GUSD isn’t overstepping privacy boundaries because their sources are purely public information that students acknowledge as open information when they post. In conclusion, Ceasar’s belief is that GUSD is completely in the right to take the actions that they have.

    In my view, Ceasar is wrong, because while protecting students from bullying and depression is certainly a noble cause, GUSD is opening doors for less savory activities and unspoken societal lines are being blurred. More specifically, the distinct separation between school and the social lives of students are no longer quite so distinct, and the bleed-through could leave a bad taste in the mouths of students. For example, a flagged tweet, despite not being necessarily relevant to the school’s focus, might reveal information that causes an unconscious shift in admin’s behavior and treatment toward a student, which could be construed as unfair punishing when the school district has no right to do so. Such judgments, intentional or not, would make students uncomfortable with interacting on any level with admin or members of the district, a problem that could lead to a student’s mistrust of the aforementioned officials. This lack of trust will make it harder to effectively handle situations the school is hoping to stop, like depression and bullying, because engaging those students in order to fix the problem will be decidedly more difficult. Although Ceasar might object that the identities of students are completely confidential until the district determines that a flagged issue is worth investigating, I maintain that since it is possible, by illegal and inappropriate means, to acquire identification, this protective barrier is not an effective way to preserve student privacy. Therefore, I conclude that monitoring student social media is a violation of student privacy and an unnecessary and inappropriate method of combatting bullying, suicide, depression, and other problems.

  21. Freedom of Speech
    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his article, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety,” is that the schools participating are trying to keep students safe. More specifically, Ceasar argues that Geo Listening is meant to stop bullying and self-harm before it turns into an accident. He writes, “No matter where they are, if they are advertising it in the public domain, it’s no different than if they’re standing in front of a teacher,” Frydrych said.” In this passage, Ceasar is suggesting that anything a student posts in any public forum can be held against them whether or not were at school. In conclusion, Ceasars belief is that students need to be monitored in order to be kept safe.

    In my view, Ceasar is right to an extent, because students should be allowed some freedom to say how they feel without someone inspecting their every word. More specifically, I believe that students need to be taught what freedom truly means. For example, a student has the right to say what they want, where they want. However, students need to learn that they can be held accountable if someone feels threatened. Although Geo Listen might object that they are being safe by taking precautions, I maintain that looking for obscenities and anything else that is not harmful to people is going overboard. Therefore, I conclude that keeping students safe should be a top priority to any school as long as they know how far is too far.

  22. social media monitoring, spying or protecting?

    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his article, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for students safety” is that the school district of Glendale has paid Hermosa Beach-based Geo company to monitor and surveillance students social media accounts. More specifically, the company is monitoring if a student is getting harassed or bullied on social media. The article argues that students may have lost their freedom of speech as well as their privacy. While being interviewed Brendan Hamme mentions “Such programs must balance safe and supportive schools with student privacy and free speech.” In this passage the article is suggesting that Frydrych company only monitors publicly available posts and isn’t peeking into private ones. In conclusion Dick Sheehan did go a little too far by not telling the students at first but had good intentions on doing it so.
    In my view Stephen Ceasar article was wrong on not telling their students first because they are snooping on their life seeing what they do out of school without permission and at least having a meeting to discuss it. More specifically, I believe that the school has lost their students trust for not mentioning or discussing that their were going to have this new program watch their social media for their own good. For example, when students are registration for school, their parents must read for new changes or allow the school to have the son or daughter name on articles or anything else. Although the article might object that they only monitor public services and not private ones, I maintain that the school should have at least give the students a heads up or a brief meeting what was going to happen. Therefore I conclude that the district of Glendale were doing it for the right cause but they should inform students and parents first.

  23. Is Social Media Monitoring a New and Beneficial Way to Protect Students?

    The general argument made by Stephan Ceasar in the article “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety” is that social media monitoring is appropriate in order to protect students from cyber bullying, self-harm, and suicides. In more detail, Ceasar argues that by monitoring students’ online it is a way of protecting them and does not “violate any free-speech protections.” Supporters of this program also state that the program is “designed for student safety and making sure kids are protected.” What this suggests is obvious, all the school district wants is a safe environment both inside and outside of school. The author also mentions quite a few times that social media posts are public, so the school district monitoring online posts does not violate any rules or cross any privacy lines. In conclusion the articles belief is that social media monitoring is a safe way to protect students while at the same time not violating any rules or laws.

    In my view the article is right because the main purpose of the program is to save lives and ensure student safety. More specifically, I believe that the monitoring program is a beneficial program that does not violate any privacy rules. For example, students, post content on social media knowing that it is not all private, so why do people have a problem with programs monitoring posts? Also cyber bullying, self-harm, and suicide are all common issues with teens that can be prevented with monitoring and can even save lives. Although critics of the program might argue that social media is a way for students to express their thoughts and feelings and it is wrong to intrude, social media is online and public, anyone can technically intrude. I maintain that there is nothing wrong with social media monitoring. Therefore, I conclude that social media monitoring does not invade privacy and it is a beneficial program that can help save lives and ensure student safety.

  24. Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety
    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety” in his work, he talks about his idea about student social media and his idea is that student social media needs to be monertured. More specifically, the article argues that cyber bulling is a big issue. he writes, “….hate speech, racism, weapons and suicide or despair.…”. In this passage, the article is suggesting that if students are posting about hurting them selfs or others that they confront and try to help the students. In conclusion, Stephen Ceasar’s belief is that social media moderating is good for students is good.
    In my view the article is wrong because i believe it is an invasion of privacy. More specifically, I believe that social media is a place for students to rant about school and life. For example, i sometimes complain about my home work or about classes on social media. Although the article might object that they are trying to make students safer, I maintain that it is an invasion of privacy. Therefore, I conclude that monitoring students social media by schools is not apporiate and not fair for schools to do.

  25. A Better Alternative?
    The general argument made by Stephan Ceasar in his article “Glendale District Says Social Monitoring Is for Student Safety” is that the decision made by the Glendale district to monitor their students’ social media has brought much controversy since it is dealing with both the protection and invasion of privacy of a student. More specifically, he presents the opinions of opposing sides, from supporting school officials to skeptical critics. In the article, he includes a statement from Chris Frydrych in which he says, “No matter where they are, if they are advertising it in the public domain, it’s no different than if they’re standing in front of a teacher.” This statement suggests that if students are really concerned about what will be seen on their media, then they should act just as if they were in front of a teacher. To contrast, Stephen Ceasar also included a statement from Brendan Hamme, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, saying that “…such programs must balance safe and supportive schools with student privacy and free speech…. This program is sweeping and far afield of what is necessary to ensure student safety and intrudes deeply into students’ privacy and conduct outside of school.” Unlike the previous statement, we can see that this critic, while concerned with student safety is also advocating for the privacy and speech of students and claims that a line should be drawn. In conclusion, Stephen Ceasar’s belief is that drawing a line between student safety and privacy is a difficult task.
    In my view, I think that the article has a very good point because in truth, how is one to determine where the line between privacy and safety should be drawn? More specifically, I believe that while student safety is very important, it is also important to take in to account that many students may not be comfortable with sharing their personal lives with their superiors. I also believe that if schools are truly preoccupied about cyberbullying, then instead of spending $40,500 on supervising students out of school on their social media, they should invest in educating their staff and the students’ parents first. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to educate teachers and parents so that they KNOW how to raise responsible and caring children rather than “punishing” (suspending or expulsing) students once or twice for their actions? Therefore, I conclude that there may be better alternatives of keeping students from harm’s way.

  26. Rules Over Rights

    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his article, “Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety,” is that monitoring student’s social media can be both harmful and helpful. More specifically, Ceasar argues that there is a very fine line between infringing on a student’s freedom of speech and protecting that safety of students, especially those with suicidal tendencies. He writes, “Such programs must balance safe and supportive schools with student privacy and free speech.” In this passage, the article is suggesting that programs that monitor student’s social media can be beneficial if the student’s rights are upheld. In conclusion, Ceasar’s belief is that monitoring a students social media is justified because it has the safety of the students in mind.
    In my view, the article is right, because whether the student harasses a classmate directly or through the web, school codes are still being violated. More specifically, I believe that vulgar or threatening comments posted on a school campus are absolutely open to be scanned by the school. For example, if a student blatantly disrespects a teacher on social media at school, that student should be disciplined as if that student had said the same thing to the teacher’s face. Although the article might object that the student’s rights are the first priority when considering monitoring student’s social media posts, I maintain that justice should be carried out in the cyber world in the same way it is in the real world. Therefore, I conclude that the monitoring programs implemented at GUSD are exceedingly useful for upholding school codes and should be applied in all schools across America.

  27. The Invasion of the Schools
    The general argument made by Stephen Caesar in his work, Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety, is that monitoring a Students social media profile is beneficial by preventing bullying. More specifically, the article argues that monitoring should be used to an extent. He writes, “However, in situations where students write about hurting themselves, threaten to harm others or use hate speech toward a particular person, intervention for student safety can be reasonable.” In this passage, the article is suggesting that within reason, schools should monitor and notify schools for student’s safety. In conclusion, the article’s belief is that monitoring social media to an extent is helpful.
    In my view, the article is wrong, because I believe students should be allowed their privacy. More specifically, I believe students should be able to go on social media and have a place to express themselves. For example, some students may be in an environment at home where they can’t freely speak their mind and social media is the only place where they can express themselves worry free. Knowing that someone is monitoring their accounts, would make them feel like they lost a safe haven. While I do know that monitoring can be helpful and save lives, it is an invasion of privacy. Although the article might object that it is necessary to keep a safe learning environment and teaches students to be mindful of what they post, I maintain that rather than being mindful, it makes them paranoid to post anything and it makes them better at hiding their social media. Therefore, I conclude that it is a violation of privacy and takes away yet another place of freedom away from adults.

  28. Helping students through social media
    The general argument made by Stephen Ceasar in his work, Glendale district says social media monitoring is for student safety, is that the district wants to use social media as a way to detect early signs of bullying, self-harm, and any other obscenities. More specifically, Ceasar argues that the reason they are doing this is to ensure students safety and stop suicides. He writes, “Authorities are investigating the role of cyberbullying in the suicide last week of Rebecca Ann Sedwick, a 12-year-old Florida girl who jumped to her death from a platform at an abandoned cement plant near her home”. In this passage, the article is suggesting that because of the harassment Rebecca, and other students, receive on social media by their peers it can end tragically. In conclusion, the article’s belief is that monitoring the students social media could help prevent cyberbullying, or at least warn them of any students being harassed.
    In my view, the article is right because it can be beneficial to students who are too afraid to say anything to teachers but show that they are in trouble through social media. More specially, I believe that this will help people think twice what they are doing to other people and also what they decide to post. For example, I know some people in a different school who occasionally post themselves drinking and other forms of substance abuse. Although the article might object that the students might not feel free to express their thoughts, I maintain that this can help students decide what is appropriate to post because it is a public and the world can see what you’re doing. Therefore, I conclude that this can potentially help students who are experiencing cyberbullying or self-harm get the help that they need.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s