Sure, we give the kids alcohol, let them drive, let them vote- wait we don’t!? What do you mean there’s always been these kinds of differences!?
Using these as an excuse for arbritary additional restrictions doesn’t make your arguement stronger, it makes those restrictions morally suspect. This arguement means we need clearer frameworks on what is and isn’t a reasonable restriction on account of age to avoid the drinking age being a justification for erosion of rights
I wonder if some of those critics are by an odd coincidence funded by phone related entities.
I suspect it would be more likely social media companies.
BTW a bit unrelated (unless it is social media companies behind it), in the comments I saw somebody against the ban mentioning school shootings and worrying about not having contact with their child. I think banning smart phones and allowing “dumb” ones would be a good compromise for that specific issue.
In our case, the phones are allowed to be on their person just not allowed to be brought out of the pocket or whatever except in case of emergency. Even between classes and lunch.
Some classes institute a “phone cabinet” where students are expected to put their phones in the classroom during class.
So the phones are always at hand, but not actively messing with their lives.
It’s the same here as well. I don’t have an issue with it. If stuff starts popping off, I at least want my students to be able to tell their loved ones some last words before being gunned down.
What I don’t want is them being on a screen in my class. They struggle to think without being told something by AI or whatever.
“Mister, can I search up what a dog looks like?” Bro you live in the city, you’ve seen dogs.
There’s ample evidence that social media and smartphone addiction affects developing brains significantly worse than it affects fully-developed brains.
Banning cell phone use in school is a good thing.
On the “different rules for adults and students” thing… if the adults model responsible cell phone use, i.e. never in the classrooms or hallways during school hours, never “ducking out” to their car or the teachers’ lounge just for B.S. doom scrolling or un-necessary calls, IMO that would be much stronger than just banning phones on-prem for kids and adults alike.
The real key: you should control your cell phone, it should not control you - same thing as so many other addiction problems. And, there will be addicts who genuinely are incapable of controlling it, and cold turkey tee-total zero usage has been shown to be the most effective answer for them - just like alcoholism, not drinking is nothing to be ashamed of, having a problem and drinking anyway is much much worse.
Maybe that’s an issue with social media and the other apps on children’s phones, and not the phones themselves. So maybe it requires a combination of regulation on social media, plus better awareness from parents, instead of a blanket ban on a technology tangentially related to the problem.
There’s ample evidence that drugs addiction affects developing brains significantly worse than it affects fully-developed brains.
Banning drugs use in school is a good thing.
Banning drugs use in school is a good thing.
You’re right. Nothing that isn’t perfect is worth doing.
I guess we should just wait to act until every student can’t focus on something for more than 30 seconds instead of 60. Definitely a better idea because, after all, just ignoring the problem always works.
Oh right cause the war on drugs totally worked. My point is that addressing the consequences won’t solve the problem, like those children’s won’t go home and be glued to their phones.
We took away all their other options, then complain they’re always on their phones. It’s cruel
It’s not about enforcing behavior. Not primarily. It’s about setting a precedent of what is important.
There’s a huge difference between “They didn’t let me drink underage but I did it anyway and became an alcoholic.” and “They explicitly let me drink and I became an alcoholic.”
The former AUTOMATICALLY comes with increased caution from even the people who break the rules. And more importantly, it completely removes the “I didn’t know” from the equation. Personal acceptance of the consequences of one’s actions is the first step to fixing it later, but with no rules, it’s easy to get bogged down in “Nobody stopped me. It’s THEIR fault.”
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing but it’s like keeping an eye on your alcoholic friend for 6 hours then just leaving and letting him help himself on the drinks cabinet. It shifts the blame from the problem to the victim. Yeah it’s a good start but these children are already addicted at very young ages. Also it’s not like this problem is only affecting kids, adults are affected as well.
I understand your point.
And it’s absurd, as I illustrated.
Critics don’t want to hear that young people whose brains aren’t fully developed yet have poorer impulse control than adults…
But young people whose brains aren’t fully developed yet have poorer impulse control than adults.
We don’t want to lose our rights because of shoddy neuroscience being misinterpreted for political gain
