<p>"The timing of the news was almost uncanny, coinciding with the start of “Project Civility” at Rutgers, the state university of New Jersey. Long in the planning, the campaign will involve panel discussions, lectures, workshops and other events to raise awareness about the importance of respect, compassion and courtesy in everyday interactions.</p>
<p>Events scheduled for this fall include a workshop for students and administrators on residential life on campus, called “Respect Resides at Rutgers,” and a panel discussion titled “Uncivil Gadgets? Changing Technologies and Civil Behavior.”</p>
<p>Rutgers officials would not comment on the death or the arrests, or say whether the two defendants had been suspended. But a spokeswoman issued a statement saying “the university takes these matters very seriously and has policies in place to deal with student behavior.”</p>
<p>^ Wait, was it a video camera or a webcam? Because most computers these days come with a webcam already built in, so all he had to do was pop open his laptop and just press “allow” when the computer pops a message on the window desktop asking if he wants to turn on the camera.</p>
<p>I just hope they find his body for some sort of closure. I heard that they found a body of a white male about 4-5 hours ago near the bridge but have yet to confirm if it is his (although I suspect it might be him). </p>
<p>I can’t imagine what was going through his head during that hour-drive before he took his life. :(</p>
<p>Northstarmom - the teaching of ethics needs to be embedded in all that we teach; I’m not excusing parents from their responsibility but some of the most formative experiences regarding the equality,or inequality, of justice occur in school. This is the first place where they come in contact with people other than family -others who are truly ‘other’. I really appreciate the teachers that made my kids think about ethical issues and took time to discuss them in class among their peers - where they saw the discussion as relevant to their lives. It would have been so much easier to just make sure they got the right answer on the test and the pay rate would have been the same. </p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with striving for excellence in our school systems and sporting teams but things go terribly wrong when the winning outcome is over emphasized. When my girls were younger a rival swim team started their competition with a team chant that mentioned throwing a toaster in the pool to, presumably, electrocute the opponents. Of course parents and coaches on our team were appalled. But the parents on their team sat happily in the stands - they had a winning record. Their coaches helped compose the little chant.</p>
<p>That win at all costs mentality leads kids to value others based on their ability to further the cause, whether it be a team win, an academic award, or any other competition. When they learn to value others on a narrow criteria, the petty intolerance of youth is far more likely to be indulged in terms of us vs. them and perceived as justified by what has been modeled for them.</p>
<p>Parents can preach tolerance and acceptance all day long, but if they don’t see it put into practice at school and ethical considerations aren’t given the same time share as winning strategies, the lesson won’t be learned nearly so well. Most of their waking hours are spent at school.</p>
<p>I think the posters on this thread that characterized the guilty filmmakers as “good kids” are students themselves. barrons admission of insensitivity has the echo of a competitive kid ringing loud and clear. </p>
<p>When students find their education lacking, I believe it is often this exploration of morality and ethics that they’ve missed, although they may not know what it is that they’re looking for. There isn’t a scantron sheet for it.</p>
<p>QwertKey as someone from NJ, ouch. Most of us aren’t tacky Real Housewives, Sopranos, Snookies or Situations. This kind of behavior is unfortunately not limited to any one state.</p>
<p>Again well said, bchan. And particularly because students are often more prone to really open up about moral alternatives and such when they are with their peers. They do enjoy discussing moral situations passionately, whether it be privacy, bullying, democracy overseas, environmental issues, and more. While it is definitely important for parents to set the primary tone (and students by the time they enter college should know instinctively what parental positions might be on particular even undiscussed issues, given a moral framework that should be learned at home), it is important for adolescents to engage in give-and-take validation, challenge, and questioning among their peer group.</p>
<p>“Most of us aren’t tacky Real Housewives, Sopranos, Snookies or Situations.”</p>
<p>If you could just find one who isn’t and who can afford OOS tuition, send them over to Michigan, we’re in short supply over here. Though I know you guys can’t all be as bad as your representatives over here, you’re not giving us much positive to judge the state on. To differentiate the serious part of my post from the part that’s just state bashing, I will say that this part is only half-serious.</p>
<p>Now, seriously, especially when you do consider that this is New Jersey (not that this would only ever happen in New Jersey, there are mean people in all states), is this actually surprising? Sad yes, but surprising? Some of you genuinely seem to be surprised.</p>
<p>Really? From Michigan today of all days you want to state-bash? Hows that assistant attorney general of yours doing? </p>
<p>Uncalled for. Tyler Clementi was from New Jersey, too. He deserves better than that. And I would think that most folks can separate reality TV from reality.</p>
<p>Disappointing commentary. Leave it at “there are mean people in all states” and leave the posturing for another day. Please.</p>
<p>“Hows that assistant attorney general of yours doing?”</p>
<p>Yeah, he’s a jackass. We have a couple too. </p>
<p>I’m not basing my New Jersey stereotypes on what I see on TV, but the people I’ve met from New Jersey. But regardless, as I said, the state basing isn’t the serious part of the post. The actual question is whether or not this really is surprising.</p>
<p>The foundational moral code, ethics, and humanity that would never allow a person to commit this horrific act were learned by most of us well before the age of heading off to school. </p>
<p>Yes, schools should reinforce these values and provide an environment that upholds them --but if a child hasn’t learned the core basics of right and wrong by the age of 5 or 6, I don’t believe any school can fix that. Conscience formation…moral code…empathy and decency towards others…these are traits that are instilled in most children at very young ages, not after they’ve arrived at school.</p>
<p>^ basics, foundations, yes. I dispute that the full range of complicated moral issues are “learned by age 5 or 6.” Also, young children are still acting somewhat out of instinct and self-interest (including revenge) until they are old enough to moderate their emotions and control themselves more. I might expect similar ‘intellectual’ answers (for basic situations) out of different age groups, not necessarily the same behavioral patterns.</p>
<p>I think this situation is yet another example of how differently this generations views technology and the issue of privacy. They dont value their own privacy and they dont value the privacy of others. Just look at facebook photos - underage young people showing themselves and others drinking ETOH, smoking/looking stoned, girls with their legs spread and worse </p>
<p>I am in no way defending these students but I dont think they truly grasped how their use of technology (the webcam), that they probably use every day, would have such a devastating result.</p>
<p>This type of thing happens with such alarming frequency that we can’t discount the numbing effect of the technological environment in which our teenagers have grown up. They are always taking pictures of themselves to show to each other and to post on various media sites like FaceBook and YouTube. It’s second nature to them, almost like a conditioned response: oh, there’s a cool/fun/interesting/embarrassing/gross thing happening right now; I’m going to take a photo/video and show it to my friends. The problem is that a photo can be taken and distributed so quickly that the kids don’t have the time, or rather take the time to think it through. The most common scenario is some kid gets drunk and does something stupid or highly embarrassing. A friend or fellow party-goer takes a picture of the person in a compromising position, and in one quick second sends it electronically to a friend or two. And in that second, lives can be totally ruined.</p>
<p>Think about it. In our day, we’d have had to go get our camera, since we didn’t tend to carry one in our pocket every minute. We’d have had to snap the picture, wait until the film cartridge was used up, then take it to the pharmacy. We’d have had to wait a few days for it to be developed, then return to the pharmacy to pick the photos up, remove that particular photo from the package, carry it to school to show a friend, or place it in an envelope, put a stamp on the envelop and drop it in the mailbox. It’s doubtful after all that time that we’d still think it a good idea. In addition, photo developers often refused to develop pictures of people naked.</p>
<p>Now this situation goes way beyond just lack of thought, and I am NOT defending the perpetrators. But I do think many perfectly average kids with immature brains (as in neither more moral nor less moral than anyone else) get themselves into trouble with cameras, computers, and cell phones because of how quick and easy it is and how ubiquitous they are.</p>
<p>As for the teaching of morality, many parents are at a loss because of the astonishing array of behavioral possibilities that they wouldn’t have imagined. My college freshman D just recounted some disturbing behavior she witnessed at school. I felt the need to tell her that while I never would have thought I needed to say “Don’t do X,” I was saying it right now just to be thorough. Who would have thought? For that matter, I never said to her “By the way, don’t use your friend’s webcam to remotely tape your gay roommate having sex and then stream it.” Good thing our high school did do a whole educational program on this stuff.</p>
<p>Again, not excusing this despicable behavior or lazy parenting, but modern life is really complicated!</p>
<p>of course this is horrible, but shouldn’t we also be very upset at the “upskirting” and “downblousing” that goes on very often to women? Their pics get posted or shared without their knowledge or consent.</p>
<p>I agree with THEGFG that things are more complicated today, what we can do, etc. but not really, as far as morals and right and wrong. In the 70’s someone could open a door and snap a picture, take a polaroid photo, some took women passed out and drunk, the basic concept is that it is wrong, not how more high-tech you can be.
My daughter laughed when she read some of the items you couldn’t bring to school, some bordering on bizarre, but she commented someone must have tried to bring it in at least once and maybe legally they had to list it. (different knives, bb guns, kerosine etc)
You don’t have to mention each thing if the basics are there.</p>
<p>If the posts on justusboys are in fact Clementi’s, which seems likely, it answers the question of whether or not this was a hate crime. The tone of the posts has a veneer of bravado that obviously didn’t hold up under the pressure - and the spaces in between leave me wondering how the RA reacted and what others may have said or done in his immediate surroundings to take him from putting up a brave front to giving up on his own life.</p>
<p>Every age has it’s new technology and temptations - this generation may be moving a little faster, but it’s the same underlying moral issue of respect for the rights of others that was flagrantly disregarded here. The points made by GFG regarding the speed and ease of technology and how that makes poor choices more likely due to lack of a cooling off period from impulse to bad action are very true (and watching reality TV like Jersey Shore certainly blurs the line for kids - so much for modeling of ethics out in the real world). But in this case there was quite a bit of premeditation, enough time to think it through between the first incident and the second. Instead of realizing his mistake and trying to make amends, the second incident was set up to further invade this young man’s privacy. </p>
<p>Somewhere out there Clementi’s partner is also suffering. I just can’t imagine how this must be affecting him.</p>
<p>I don’t know that these times are any more morally complicated than any other. It was pretty complicated for 12 and 13 year olds to leave school in the '30s, head out into the adult working world on the streets of cities like NY and Chicago to hawk newspapers or shine shoes. Those whose (often “uneducated”) parents had simply taught them the Golden Rule did pretty well.</p>