Sorry, That’s Unacceptable

As the school has introduced the new technology of Apple iPads and has made it readily available to students throughout the district, there have been Internet filter issues hindering the potential benefit of the iPads. With new tech comes new obstacles, and a common issue for many students is the inability to access credible websites and resources on their iPads. With filters on Google searches and unknown sites, students have voiced their concerns with the excessive filters, while many parents are asking for even more.

   A fresh wave of complaints from concerned Kenilworth parent Monty Sullivan has increased censorship, leading to the blocking of inoffensive and extremely useful websites like the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Psychiatric Association, and even Kidshealth.org. Students now cannot access information about suicide prevention or even their own bodies – the district has determined that this content is inappropriate, raising the question of why these topics are considered offensive.

   Sullivan, father of two elementary school children and two middle school children, complained that students using creative search terms can still access inappropriate material. At a recent board meeting, he proved that pornographic material can still be accessed by holding up explicit pictures on a school-issued iPad. He continued to describe the obscene pictures after the board asked him to put the device away due to minors being in the room.

   “The filter is not working properly. I’ve lost my patience,” said Sullivan in an interview with the Argus-Courier.

   At the same meeting, one student spoke up regarding the blocking of search terms such as “rape culture.” As a survivor of rape herself, senior Sarah Stypa has been raising awareness about rape culture and has dedicated her senior project to it. Stypa expressed her concern over the censorship of the search term at the board meeting on March 8.

   “I am extremely concerned and offended by the school filter; to block such a term is not only degrading to the awareness I have been trying to raise, but also an inconvenience to students. This is real life, and we are in charge of teaching kids about what the world can be like and how we can change it to create a better, truly safer environment. I can acknowledge the legal aspects of the filters, and there are good intentions within it; however, we are covering up the problem, rather than addressing it,” said Stypa.

   Senior Lacey Gallagher agreed with Stypa.

   “The filters are a Band-aid to this problem. The filters aren’t fixing the issue. Obviously if you go looking for trouble, you’re going to find it, so what needs to happen is that the parents or the teachers need to teach [children] that they shouldn’t be looking up these things that are inappropriate,” said Gallagher.

   The Children’s Internet Protection Act stipulates that schools only receive E-rate funding if their protections block access to pictures that are obscene, child pornography, harmful to minors, or otherwise inappropriate according to community standards. Additionally, schools must monitor the online activities of minors and provide education about appropriate online behavior.

   Yet many, including Sullivan, have argued that high schoolers and elementary students should not be equally filtered.

   “I believe that the filter level should vary according to a student’s grade level, so that more restrictive filters apply to younger students and more permissive filters apply to older students.  This is, however, solely a matter for the school board to decide,” said Sullivan.

   Teachers and students alike have become frustrated with the filters. Teacher websites, such as math teacher Melinda Maderious’ Weebly website, have been blocked and classified as “adult.” Librarian Nathan Libecap discusses the issue further.

   “For instructors and teachers it has definitely been frustrating, because you don’t really know what’s blocked and what isn’t blocked. As teachers, sources that are open to us may not be available to students, so when lesson planning we may use resources and students can’t access it. It has happened to me and I’m sure it has happened to other teachers. Educators would ideally want open internet; the problem is that students have district devices that the district is in charge of and are in charge of what is accessed,” said Libecap

   In light of the grievances students and teachers have with the filters, seniors Sahara Sommer and Erin Murphy have developed a plan for lowering restrictions, beginning at a simple online form and eventually working its way up to the school board.

   “The Supreme Court said that minors could ask for sites to be unblocked if they did not fit within the definition of unprotected speech. The school has put millions of dollars into getting these iPads, but the students have seen with these filters that they have a very limited use to them,” said Sommer.

   Currently, if students want to get a site unblocked, they must go to teachers, who can request for certain websites and search terms to be unblocked. Sommer and Murphy’s proposal includes a Google form that would allow students to directly petition for a website to be unblocked. The next step would be to place this form on the school website. Sommer and Murphy have even contacted educational lawyers and a lawyer specializing in Internet concerns to ask for their input.

  The fact that students are now developing their own alternative methods shows just how eager many are for the filters to be reevaluated. The filtering has become so extensive that even websites like Amazon are blocked. Although students cannot see explicit images simply by visiting the website, by specifically searching for X-rated videos, students can supposedly see inappropriate content. However, this is more reflective of parenting style than technology. It is the parent’s’ job to monitor their children’s Internet use, and it is the district’s duty to educate students about appropriate online behavior. While H.I. classes are now discussing Internet behavior, further steps need to be taken in lower level schools to educate children: the problem lies in the education of students, rather than the advent of new technology.

  The benefits of the iPads are outweighed by the detractors of the filters. High schoolers, a quarter of whom will soon be legal adults, clearly don’t require the same amount of censorship as a kindergartner, and it’s far past time for the school board to understand this.