Earlier this year, Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath recommended legally banning phones in all Texas public schools. 

We all know the tale: phones are bad for students because they distract, inhibit learning, and, if misused, serve as powerful tools for cyberbullying or recording sensitive information. Because of this, phones should be banned in school. (Of course, no one mentions that schools also want to blame their low STAAR scores on something specific). 

But really, what do they mean by a phone ban? Isn’t that against your constitutional rights? Why are adults so quick to judge when they also doom-scroll on Facebook? Are these new generations really dealing with mental illness because of phones?

Let’s start from the beginning. 

Ban as in “No More” or as in “Not During Class”?

During last month’s Student Voice meeting with our District Superintendent, Dr. Sean Maika, it was established that one of the main issues is that no one agrees on what “ban” means. Does it mean no phones on campus ever, that you can’t take them out during school hours, or that they must remain in your pocket during instructions? 

Austin legislators are still discussing what this expression means; however, some schools, including our own, have interpreted this alleged “phone ban” as a standard that phones must be out of sight during classes—unless specified by the teacher or if there is a veridic emergency. 

Is this “banning phones,” however? For some, it is just common courtesy. 

“Not being on your phone while a teacher is talking should be common sense,” a current Senior in AP English Lit said. “But a law banning them might be too much.”

Perhaps the use of extreme language contributes to resentment toward phone policies. Regardless, an actual phone ban, where phones are not to be seen on campus grounds, is being discussed—especially in middle and elementary schools. But is this even legal?

Wait—Gov Class Told Me I Have Rights 

According to a law journal article by the McGeorge School of Law, Schools regulating smartphones have encountered various legal challenges. They quote three provisions of the U.S. Constitution:

• Schools attempting to regulate what students say on smartphones encounter First Amendment free speech challenges
• Schools banning smartphones face Fourth Amendment liberty clause 
• Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure challenges

So, legislative efforts to implement a phone ban in schools could significantly impact how we think about student rights and school regulations. Although some other school policies, such as their right to search your belongings on school grounds for illegal substances, fall within the realm of what is allowed regardless of the Fourth Amendment, phone bans’ implications in concern of personal freedom and search practices will make the debate far more heated than we think. If handled well, these discussions can lead to policies that maintain a focused learning environment and uphold students’ constitutional rights; but if not, the violation of constitutional rights is a serious topic. 

Why do Adults Think I’m Stupid? 

So, here’s the deal. Legislators and people voting for a phone ban are quoting this book: The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt.

And yes, although the book is a good book and whatever, it’s missing a key component: understanding the dynamics of teen life in this century. While Haidt highlights important issues regarding teen mental health and technology, it oversimplifies the complexities of adolescent life today. It doesn’t fully account for the broader social landscape, including changing family dynamics, economic uncertainty, and political polarization, contributing to teen stress. Sure, teens today have “worse” mental health than our previous generations, but phones are not the only difference between our adolescence and that of our parents: the political climate and the dynamics of modern families contribute to our anxiety as well. Honestly, parental guidance affects us far more than phones. 

“Phones are definitely a factor to the rising levels of anxiety and depression,” Senior Joshua Ramirez said. “But there is more to it. Our generation tends to focus more on the power that adults have in society, over the rest of us; this forces us to try to mature faster, just to gain some recognition, even though we are still kids.”

Moreover, the book largely portrays technology as the sole antagonist, ignoring its potential to foster community and self-expression among teens. It also tends to generalize, overlooking the diverse experiences shaped by factors like socioeconomic status and race.

Hey—They Might Be Right About a Few Things 

Limiting phone use at school has had positive results, we have to concede. Here at Churchill, we have experienced increased levels of student interaction and even lowered failing grades this first quarter. It also has led to more face-to-face conversations among students and does cut down on distractions during class, allowing students to focus a bit better on lessons and activities. While adjusting may be challenging, and most of us, including our district, believe that a legislative ban is excessive and inhibiting, we sure can recognize that phones present liabilities—they’re a powerful tool.