Cheek 1

Jonathan Cheek
ENGL101
Prof. Landrus
Rhetorical Analysis
Cyberbullying is a growing issue in todays society that needs a solution. Parents, law
makers, and school administrators have discussed possible solutions for years. Some school
districts believe they have found the answer in social media surveillance. Since cyberbullying
typically occurs between students, it makes sense to think schools should have some
responsibility in resolving the issue. Several school districts in California, Florida, and Alabama
have begun to monitor students online posts. Unsurprisingly, questions about the legality of this
strategy have emerged. Emily Suski, a professor at Georgia State University, has explored how
cyberbullying laws allow this sort of surveillance and the potential effects of these laws. In 2014,
Suski wrote an article concerning this issue titled Beyond the Schoolhouse Gates: the
Unprecedented Expansion of School Surveillance Authority Under Cyberbullying Laws. In this
article, Suski argues how the broadness of cyberbullying laws have allowed schools to conduct
surveillance and how this surveillance harms students. While the article does suffer from an
overall lack of pathos, Suski makes use of multiple rhetorical strategies such as ethos, logos, and
pathos to compose an overall well written persuasive article.
Before discussing the contents of the article, it is important to discuss the context that
urged Suski to write her article. In the fall of 2013, a California school district hired a company
to monitor students social media activity in an attempt to stop cyberbullying. A school district in
North Carolina soon adopted a similar policy (Suski). Suskis article was published at the

Cheek 2

kairotic moment, as this sort of policy was gaining more popularity among other school districts
at the time of publication. At the time, little guidelines on school authority were available, so
Suski provided legal guidelines. Suski further aims to provide reasons for caution for schools
who have or are considering this policy. Saying this, the article is primarily targeted at school
policy makers, as they have the power to create and modify the laws. The length and diction of
the article seem to confirm this as well. The article is also divided into three sections, so policy
makers know exactly what is being discussed.
Suski immediately makes an appeal to logos in the introduction to demonstrate the need
for cyberbullying legislation by establishing the exigence of the cyberbullying issue. According
to one study of twelve-to-seventeen-year-olds, 72 percent of Internet users reported at least one
instance of bullying in the immediate prior year. Of those in the study, 51 percent reported
experiencing online bullying by other students in their school (Suski). Because these statistics
reveal the prevalence of the issue, one is lead to ask about the solution. She uses this as a
jumping off point to argue how current cyberbullying legislation is well-meaning, but grants
schools unlimited authority.
Suski also makes appeals to logos by making logical statements to create guidelines for
school authority based on past court rulings. For example, several court cases are mentioned
while discussing the privacy infringement of school social media surveillance. One of those
cases is Vernonia School District vs. Acton. Suski uses the reasons given by the court for their
ruling and applies them to cyberbullying laws. Similarly, the cyberbullying laws arguably fail to
satisfy the metric for reasonableness articulated in Acton. Acton requires that in order for
suspicionless, in-school student searches to be reasonable, they need to be limited in scope,
among other things (Suski). Judges use precedent established in previous cases and apply

Cheek 3

them to current cases so Suski is essentially assuming the role of judge by considering
established precedent to provide legal limitations on school authority to monitor social media.
Although Suski makes frequent use of logos when discussing privacy and freedom of
speech violations, the section regarding the harms of school surveillance lacks the frequency of
appeals to logos found in the earlier sections, which is unfortunate because this section really
beckons for it. Instead, Suski makes an appeal to ethos by citing several other credible lawyers
and professors. Although these lawyers and professors are credible, this section would greatly
contribute from the use of logos. At times, this section relies too heavily on the credibility of
others. For example, when arguing how school social media surveillance discourages students
desire to express ideas, Suski cites a professor at the University of Washington by saying, As
Neil Richards persuasively argues, without the freedom to develop ideas, the ideas may not
develop at allSurveillance then can serve as a form of social thought control. It can lead to the
suppression or failure to formulate creative, new ideas. (Suski). While this may be true, this a
subjective statement. No statistics or logical reasoning to prove this statement are provided. The
reader has to trust that the author would only include statements that have some sort of factual
backbone. It may be more effective to some information from a survey or some other form of
data. Fortunately, Suski did more than a good enough job of gaining credibility.
The rhetorical strategy that is most apparent is the appeal to ethos. Suskis multiple law
degrees and years of experience as a lawyer indicate that she very knowledgeable of legal theory,
which makes readers much less likely to question the logical connections she makes in her
article. According to her profile on Georgia State Universitys website, where is currently a
professor, she specializes in family law and education law and has years of experience working
with adolescents. Suskis experience as a lawyer is very apparent throughout the article. Suskis

Cheek 4

expansive knowledge of state cyberbullying laws and relevant privacy and freedom of speech
court cases is a central piece to her argument. For example, the first sentence of the first section
of the article, which argues how the broadness of laws allows unlimited school authority is:
Under cyberbullying laws in the forty-six states and the District of Columbia, the grant of
surveillance authority to schools falls into one of three categorical levels (Suski). The three
categories that follow relate to the level of nexus related to school or school related activity
(Suski). Obviously, she would need to have a firm knowledge of the details of each states
cyberbullying to categorize them in such a way. In addition, her background as an experienced
lawyer makes readers less likely to question the accuracy of her categorization.
To further build her credibility Suski acknowledges the limitations of some of her
arguments. For example, Suski discusses how two different Supreme Court case rulings
regarding the Fourth Amendment establish limits on schools authority to conduct surveillance.
Rather than continuing to her next point, Suski notes that these cases are not the best guidelines
for establishing limits on school authority. That said, student search doctrine both in T.L.O. as
well as in Acton still does not provide perfect guidance for interpreting the limits of school
surveillance authority for at least three reasons, and then goes on to explain those reason
(Suski). Suski gains the readers trust by not omitting information that could potentially weaken
her argument.
Towards the beginning of the article, Suski makes an appeal to pathos to engage the
readers emotions. Suski details a hypothetical situation in which the broadness of cyberbullying
laws could have an undesired effect. To quickly summarize the situation, two female friends get
into an argument over summer break but they are suspended when they get back to school
because the school has considers their conversation to be disruptive to a learning environment

Cheek 5

despite the fact that the issue was resolved (Suski). However, this is one of very few examples of
pathos found in the article. Combined with the fact that the article is rather long, the appeals to
pathos are far too sparse to consistently keep the reader engaged. To Suskis credit she does use
good sentence structure and keeps paragraphs to reasonable lengths. Generally, there are two to
three paragraphs per page, which makes the text much easier to read. Additionally, Suskis
intended audience is not casual reader. Rather, it is targeted at school policy makers, so her goal
is to move them emotionally. Her aim is to provide sound logical arguments to persuade them
into ratifying cyberbullying laws. Overall, Suskis appeals to pathos are effective but are scarse.
Suski relies much more heavily on logos, as well as ethos, to make her argument.
In conclusion, Suski composes an effective persuasive article through the use of ethos,
pathos, and logos. Ethos is definitely the most apparent appeal throughout the article. The
authors background, discussion of limits on her points, and dependence on others credibility
combine to make a tremendous use of ethos. Appeals to pathos and logos could have been used
more frequently in certain sections to create a more well-rounded argument. However, they are
not absent and they make an impact when they are used. Suski traditionally made appeals to
logos by presenting logical statements, but also occasionally used data. Appeals to pathos were
also made by creating hypothetical situations to better help the reader relate to the potential
harms presented. Overall, Suski made strong appeals to several rhetorical strategies to craft an
effective persuasive article.

Cheek 6

Works Cited
Emily F. Suski. Beyond the Schoolhouse Gates: The Unprecedented Expansion of School
Surveillance Authority Under Cyberbullying Laws. 65 Cas. W. Res. L. Rev. 63. Web.