In the Trenches
by Bob Ditter
We had an upsetting situation occur between two campers during the off
season that we'd like to get your thoughts about. One of our twelve-year-old
male campers began receiving threatening e-mails from a screen name I
can't share with you, but which was itself a menacing moniker. The camper,
whom I shall call Tom (not his real name), was being "watched"
or stalked online, and in an IM from the stalker, a threat was made on
The frightened boy told his parents, who notified the police. The FBI
got involved, and the screen name was traced to one of Tom's cabin mates,
whom I shall call "Jim" (also not his real name) in another
state. Ironically, the boys are close friends at camp, and when confronted
by the police and FBI, Jim, genuinely baffled that he had breached a line
and created such a stir, was truly contrite.
My purpose in writing you has to do with the fact that Tom's parents
are now refusing to send him back to camp, even though he has been with
us for several years and loves the place. Jim apologized, on the phone
and in writing, to both Tom and his parents. We feel that Jim, who is
an otherwise helpful, outgoing, sincere camper, and who now knows that
his "joke" was a terrible mistake, is only twelve and should
be allowed to learn from this. We are allowing him to come back to camp,
as he is much chastened by his prank. Tom's parents, on the other hand,
absolutely refuse to send him back if Jim is there, even though I suspect
Tom wants to return. His parents don't seem to want to budge. What can
we do? Isn't it possible that a twelve-year-old boy can make a mistake
and learn from it?
Your situation is the third of its kind I have heard about in the last
few months. Yes, children who are otherwise essentially "good kids"
are entirely capable of making huge errors in judgment, just as Jim did.
The nature of IM-ing and e-mails exacerbates this tendency. Children,
after all, often experience the Internet as a kind of pretend parallel
world, separate from the kind of reality they come into contact with in
the direct, personal interactions they have with friends. The virtual
world simply doesn't have benefit of the nonverbal clues of communication
the real world offers — facial expressions and tone of voice, for
example. As a result, many kids will say things in an IM or e-mail or
write personal things in a blog that they wouldn't dare say to another
kid in person. Add to this the fact that early adolescent children are
egocentric — meaning they find it hard to see the world from any
vantage point other than their own — and it is easy to see why Jim
thought his "joke" was harmless and might be truly baffled when
confronted with the consequences of what he had done.
All of this having been said, it does not excuse the seriousness of
what Jim did, and he, as other children, will only learn and widen his
perspective when he is presented with the consequences of his actions.
Having him apologize to Tom and his parents over the phone and in writing
is a good first step. Limiting his online privileges for some time is
an additional natural consequence that would reinforce the seriousness
of his actions. I also think it would be helpful to Jim, Tom, and other
boys at camp for Jim and Tom, with adult guidance and supervision, to
discuss the entire incident with their cabin mates at camp. In this way,
Jim must own up to his actions with his peers and make his amends to the
community (his cabin mates) that he and Tom belong to, while helping instruct
the other boys about the pitfalls of pranks on the Internet. Whether Tom's
parents would accept this as an additional assurance of Jim's "reform"
is not clear, but it wouldn't hurt to offer.
Aside from these steps, it is not clear what Tom's parents are objecting
to. Do they think Jim "got off" too easy and that he should
not be able to come back to camp? If that is the case, show them my column.
Children make mistakes and the best place for them to make amends is at
the "scene of the crime." In this case, the next best place
to cyberspace is camp, since it is where Tom and Jim experience their
relationship, and therefore it is the place where they need to repair
it. If Jim stays home, Tom may be more wounded by his friend's absence
than by the original misdeed.
I happened to catch your appearance on the Family portion of the Today
Show last July on NBC (July 7, 2004), where you and the mothers of different
campers at different camps were talking about how camps are providing
daily pictures and stories on the Internet to camp families. You mentioned
that the Internet was a "great tool" for helping create a stronger
"partnership" with parents. While I agree, I also know how many
crazy calls we get from over-anxious parents who read too much into the
look on their child's face. We had one parent call us because she found
her daughter in the background of a picture, walking behind some other
campers, and thought her daughter must be lonely and friendless because
she couldn't see who her daughter was with. Calls like these consume time
and make me wonder whether the Internet hasn't just created a whole new
thing for parents to obsess about.
— Too Much Micro-managing
Dear Too Much,
It is true that many camps receive calls from parents who are overly concerned
about their children's happiness at camp. Has the Internet created this
monster? Hardly. It has simply become the new forum for parents who have
always worried about their children. The parents who make these calls
are the same parents who years ago called when they received an upsetting
letter (or no letter at all) from their children. The only difference
is that, with unrelenting news about child abductions, violence in schools,
terrorism and bullying, parents are more nervous about their children's
safety in 2005 than they were in 1995. The Internet did not create that
anxiety; it has simply become the medium through which it is expressed.
Keep your eye on the positive responses you get from your photo gallery,
not the negative ones.
We recently learned that a former staff member of ours has been arrested
in a sting operation involving the Internet. Apparently this young man
contacted a fifteen-year-old boy online and arranged to meet him for sex.
When he arrived he found the fifteen year old was actually an FBI agent.
News of this has been on the local TV stations and in the local papers.
How, if at all, should we respond to these charges? I fear t