On the face of it, the concept of filtering out objectionable or age-inappropriate material on the Internet sounds relatively benign – even possibly good. After all, isn't the charge of the school to act in loco parentis? Yet when one studies what filtering means, how filtering affects the quality of education, it's clear that filtering is not the answer to the problems posed by unrestricted access to the Internet.
A filter is a technological device that blocks people from accessing certain Internet websites. There are several different software manufacturers that produce filters. The most popular are Solid Oak Software's CYBERsitter and N2H2's BESS. To block sites, each company creates a list of URLs (Universal Resource Locators, or "addresses") or a list of "hot words" (like "breast," "sex," "XXX") and sets up the software to deny users access to those specific sites. These sites and their criteria for exclusion are usually closely held secrets. There is a mechanism that allows a school administrator to turn the filter off, and schools can request that specific sites be unblocked permanently. Many schools, including some independent schools, use some form of filtering. Schools that don't currently use filters may be forced to do so in the near future by the recent passage of the Children's Internet Protection Act. In all, the global market for access-control software is expected to reach $250 million by 2003.
Why wouldn't a school want such a device? The biggest problem with filters is that they offer a false sense of security, fed by an almost blind faith in the technology. Despite all the money spent on filtering, many experts see it as a losing battle. "They [filters] are hopelessly outgunned," says Donald Telage, chairman of a panel that recommended to the U.S. Congress earlier this year against a proposal to install filtering software at schools and libraries that receive federal money.1 The belief is that filters block pornographic and other harmful sites; the reality is that owners of these sites (as well as enterprising teenagers) can always find ways around the filters.
Another, more insidious problem with current filtering programs is that they also censor valid educational sites. Peacefire, a nonprofit organization that fights against filtering, puts it bluntly. "The controversy over blocking software does not center on the blocking of chicken breast recipes, breast cancer information, Anne Sexton, or 'Superbowl XXX.' It is true that these sites are accidentally blocked by blocking software programs that scan pages for certain keywords, as almost all of them do. However, the controversy centers on sites that are blocked not accidentally but deliberately." Peacefire is referring to URL's that come pre-packaged on the list of sites to be blocked by the program, regardless of the content of the pages themselves. CYBERsitter, for instance, has blocked Time magazine. Cyber Patrol has blocked the websites of Envirolink animal rights and the Ontario Center for Religious Tolerance. BESS, which controls Internet access used by about 3 million students in the U.S., blocked the antiracist HateWatch website and the Marijuana Policy Project, a page that advocates the use of medical marijuana. X-Stop's list of blocked URL's, includes the AIDS Quilt and the official homepage of the Quakers.2
A non-scientific survey of members of the Independent Schools Section of the American Association of School Librarians (via the listserve), reveals a certain logic to the decision by some independent schools to use filters. For one, it appears that the majority of schools using filters have a boarding component – based on the fact that it is difficult to monitor student online activity when the students are behind closed doors. The reasons behind the decision to filter were not always clear, but the implication is that schools feel a need to protect students from immoral material (theoretically material their parents would object to, though studies suggest that society is, in fact, asking schools to put greater restrictions on students than their parents would). Another finding is that, in many cases, the technology director and/or the head of school has made the decision to filter (and had chosen the program), often without consulting the librarian.
This latter point is particularly troubling for professional librarians. If more schools consulted with librarians before buying into the concept of filtering, they would find a voice of reason and experience that could help guide them through the process.
One librarian, who had been ignored in the decision process at her school, put together a proposal to remove the filter from her school's library computers. In the proposal, she acknowledged reasons to filter: It reassures worried parents about what their children may be viewing and/ or reading at school. Teachers don't have to worry about leaving students to their own devices at computer screens, knowing that the students will only be able to access "educational" materials.3 Then she countered with reasons not to filter: "Keyword filtering can block sites that contain information often found in books, magazines, and newspapers. Filtering has a direct impact on the curriculum... The library's selection policy is compromised when an outside vendor (and its "Human Review team") becomes responsible for deciding what our students may or may not read/view."4 This proposal points out the most critical effect of filtering, one that schools in their rush to "protect" students often forget: the negation of the already stated and implemented policies that govern material and resource selection in the library.
Regardless of process, though, the question boils down to this: Is it better to broadly block access to hundreds of Internet sites (knowing you will also block access to some valid information for intellectual inquiry), or is it better to have open access, establish community rules about computer use, and teach students how to conduct responsible research? The former may be easier, but is it aligned with the mission of your school?
I would argue – as would many librarians – that it is not.
Ideally, each school has a trained professional librarian who understands how to locate quality re-sources for various topics. Schools should require a class in electronic resources taught by this librarian. Such a class teaches students about the different types of electronic resources (databases, Internet sites, and CD-ROMs) and trains them how to access the best information available and how to evaluate the resources for potential bias, accuracy, and authority.
Teachers (in all subject areas) and computer lab staff can also teach techniques on searching electronic resources effectively. It helps students to know, for instance, how to create and use keywords, how to use Latin names for animals, and how to know which search engine is best for a particular search. Such instruction should alleviate some of the stress of searching and lower the number of irrelevant "hits" the searches bring up – and thus lessens the possibility of stumbling upon inappropriate sites.
More importantly, though, it should help engage a student's intellectual curiosity.
Instead of being afraid of what the Internet holds, we should think of Internet use as an opportunity for real education. Mistakes and wrong turns and fruitless searches, or searches that turn up propaganda, are teaching moments. When a student logs into www.whitehouse.com (a porn site) instead of www.whitehouse.gov, that's a teaching moment. When a student finds sites about the San Diego Zoo's pandas instead of information about the animal itself, that's a teaching moment. When a student realizes that using quotation marks, or Boolean terms, in a search will bring up accurate results, that's a teaching moment. There are many such epiphanies in other classes – ones when genuine discovery lights up a student's face with understanding. Why should the research process be any different? In addition, I have had many occasions in my library to watch students work on difficult, perhaps controversial, topics for classes and learn a great deal about themselves.
A few years ago, a student of mixed ethnicity came to me. He was a senior, doing research for his Current Politics and Culture class on the Columbine shooting. He wanted to know what the shooters at Columbine had found when they were looking at hate sites and how such sites could have contributed to their brutal actions. Given the nature of the subject, my student was concerned about searching at home (he'd heard about cookies) and at the local public library (he didn't want to offend other patrons). I reassured him that using the school's library computers for this purpose was exactly right – that no one would think he was doing this for any reason other than this paper. Sometimes, after he searched for a couple hours and took notes, we would talk about what he had seen and examined this information in light of his original question.
Last year, a student wanted to study Hitler. More specifically, she wanted to look at what Hitler had written about his own childhood and early years in Mein Kampf and compare that to more objective biographers. We have a copy of the book in our library, and I was able to help her search for sites and books that would help her discover for herself the hagiography Hitler had indulged in (and how that might have influenced his followers). This year she did a paper on the continuation of racist stereotypes (Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, lawn jockeys, etc.).
Blocking filters would have prevented both of these students from conducting valuable, educational research. Without the filters, they were able to learn more about a world they had heard about, but could not understand. Other students have done similar research (from pornography to abortion to the origin of the Ku Klux Klan) and have had similar experiences.
The important point is that these students are doing this problematic research in the open, with an adult nearby to help them and to discuss with them the implications, biases, and mis- and disinformation they might encounter. As one network/system administrator said in a letter he sent to the Federal Communications Commission regarding the CIPA, "It is better for students to explore the vastness of the Internet with a trained teacher who understands how to judge the appropriateness of website content and turn every click into a learning experience, then for students to deal with the Internet alone in the privacy of their bedrooms."5
The push for Internet filtering is no doubt borne out of concern for the emotional and physical well being of children. There is particular concern about children, in a vulnerable state, being susceptible to misinformation that can drive them to violence. Politicians cry out that our schools must be safe places for children. Statistically, however, it is not at school that students find the predators and hate sites; it is in the privacy of their rooms at home.6 Just consider the Columbine gunmen and Sam Manzie (the teenager in New Jersey who met a man on the Internet and later killed a boy in his neighborhood). They were at home when they found these sites/people/information, not at school. Still, because it's easier to control schools than parents, politicians are pushing to compel schools to place greater strictures on students' ability to access quality, current resources via the Internet. This is all part of an unfortunate trend to shift responsibility for moral behavior and values from families to schools. It's not that schools should ignore morality (actually everything I'm arguing for is based on moral imperatives); it's that independent schools (public schools, too, one would think) need to be as free as possible to pursue their missions.
The recent passage of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) may force schools to filter. Directly linked to the E-rate, and indirectly tied to other government funding (via the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Institute of Museum and Library Services grants), schools may lose both funds and resources if they do not comply with the new regulations. The act explicitly states that "visual" images must be blocked by a "technological device." (The full text of the Act is available at www.cdt.org/legislation/106th/speech/001218cipa.pdf.) Since no such specific "devices" exist, however, filters must be used. Many independent schools do not believe that they will be affected, because they do not use E-rate funding for their Internet connection. Unfortunately, the implications of the CIPA on second and third tier funding may have an impact on the schools' ability to participate in consortium databases (both local and state provided) or in other funding opportunities. Should this new Act directly affect the ESEA monies, some school libraries will lose their ability to purchase new software and other computer-related items if they do not implement a filtering program. The American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed suit challenging the CIPA, but it is unclear how long the legal process will take or whether the Act will be overturned.
So, what should a school do?
Clearly, filtering is not the answer. Filters undermine the curriculum, lessen the effectiveness of library selection policies, and hamper students doing valid research on difficult issues. Instead, we should use the opportunity to teach students to be responsible users of information by training them to search effectively. We should trust that adult supervision within a library, computer lab, or another academic area with computer access is enough to stop blatant abuse of Internet use (and that the stated Acceptable Use Policy or Code of Conduct contains enforceable disciplinary language). We should also take the opportunity to convince parents about their vital responsibility in all of this. The gunmen at Columbine did not have adult supervision when surfing the Internet; they had the computers in their bedrooms at home, behind closed doors. An effective school-parent partnership is the best deterrent to misuse.
It also would not hurt to contact your Senator (www.senate.gov) and Representative (www.house.gov) and tell them that you believe that passage of the CIPA was misguided and harmful to the role of the school.
Notes
- Cheney, Peter. "A solitary obsession that can ruin a life." (Toronto) Globe and Mail 5 Dec. 2000: A5.
- Bennett Haselton and Peacefire.org. "Blocking Software FAQ from Peacefire." 1 Feb. 2001 (www.peacefire.com/info/blocking-software-faq.html).
- Jane Chesney. "Proposal to Remove Filtering Software from the Middle/Upper School Library Computer Network at the John Cooper School"; John Cooper School. January 10, 2000: p. 2.
- Ibid.: p.1.
- Cuza, Raul. "Comments with FCC." E-mail to [email protected]. 15 Feb. 2001.
- Michael Mayles. "Cyberjake: Mythology and Internet Filtering." Teacher-Librarian Dec. 2000.