Though you may look at him and think, hey, he turned out OK, an LBCC student wonders aloud, as part of the Civil Discourse series, “Could I have turned out better,” had he not been so reliant on devices throughout his childhood?
Phones at the Corvallis Museum are off or tucked away. A full house of community members sit together, giving their attention to one another on a Wednesday night in January. They have come to consider cell phone usage in schools –Should students be able to have their phones in class?
Still, at the time, as a child, the student resented his dad, whom he deemed strict for regulating his access. Ultimately, now, he has sided with his dad – “He was trying to look out for the best for my future.”
Numerous unidentified speakers from the crowd shared their opinions throughout the evening.
On the other side of the argument, the pro-cell phone users hold resentment too – against teachers.
To make classes interesting teachers need to AI-cheat proof their courses. They are overworked, at least in regards to their abilities to effectively police cell phones, it was argued, so perhaps they could outsource and have AI redesign their classes –much like hiring a thief to design a security system to deter other thieves. If challenged, teachers need only describe their reliance on AI vaguely as “a tool.”
Another student, while oozing charm and a charismatic, wide smile, said that if teachers really cared they would make a more fun learning experience. But then, as a supposed justification for his position, he conceded – “Students already don’t listen.”
At several points, evidence of cell phone harm was used as justification for their continued use. Why try to fight the inevitable? There was an air of sad defeat and surrender. Perhaps proof of phones sapping our drive and independence.
Even another participant, who described themselves as a teacher, argued both that it was futile and frustrating trying to police her middle school students’ phone usage, but also claimed it was teachers themselves who are responsible for not being engaging. Yet, when she was in class as a student, she admits that she cared more about the “safety of my pigs.” (She is also a pig farmer with 12 sows).
Even the speakers who said they didn’t want a ban, several clarified that there should be a ban for some – for students younger than themselves. None argued that phones did not hinder learning.
One argument went almost exactly as follows: “Teachers shouldn’t be disciplinarians.” If teachers did try to ban phones they would create “enemies of students.”
The students who hate their teachers are “simply trying to connect with their peers.”
Excellent teachers will quit. Other teachers just “trying to maintain any sort of positive relationships with their students” will not follow the rules either.
The pro cell phone debater continued, “Like it or not,” “there is no putting the cat back in the bag.” To try to do so is a “hopeless cause,” “not motivated by critical thinking. It is a desperate attempt to bury our heads in the sand,” which will inevitably harm mental health. Within a classroom of kids engaged in the same task, “children will become socially isolated” without their phones. And so parents on the other side are the ones who “need to show they are not afraid to face challenges.”
If this is an emotional argument, it is because the speaker admitted he doesn’t know data on the topic. It is exceedingly tough to rhetorically recover when he also admitted that phones have been terrible for his own attention.
Still, rather than basing a child’s education on this crucial information, he thinks students should study these matters in health class, with phones in hand. Which would lead to the bizarre scenario where students would not be paying attention to a lecture on the topic of how students aren’t paying attention, because phones are a distraction to learning.
Such a class could include a lecture from his school’s Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Mental Health Professional Jana Svoboda, who would say “we know that screen use affects the brain. There’s a flicker that happens with screens that we don’t really consciously detect, but it is taxing on the brain. And that light that comes in through there is also affecting our melatonin levels or circadian rhythms in ways that are going to cause disease and are going to cause insomnia. When our sleep’s affected, that screws up all our hormonal cycles.”
Svoboda describes how students “as a result of spending so much time with virtual communication instead of face to face, they’re getting less and less comfortable with face-to-face communication. And anxiety breeds anxiety.”
If parents and teachers do not display the courage to give the students what they want, as one speaker advocated for, then they can be blamed for being hypocrites, as a poll conducted by another speaker demonstrated that all the adults in the room were attached to their phones too.
If the counter, anti-phone argument was anecdotal too, it was also demonstrable, as a homeschooler argued persuasively that he was denied regular access to devices and that it made him a sharper thinker and a better student. The homeschooler pointed out that you can simply wait 30 minutes to talk to your friend in the hallway and that people are merely making excuses, because they want to keep their phones. Indeed, the pro cell phone side’s haphazard and inconsistent argumentation could easily be interpreted as the desperate justifications of an addict.
