When I look at my classmates’ faces, absorbed in their smartphones, they look eerily expressionless, even hollow. Their eyes look tired and droopy; their faces look drained and sulking. They look like they have no choice. It is almost as if they are compelled by some unseen force to use every second of the time limit their parents have set on their devices. I cannot help but think of them as stuck in quicksand. They are not even trying to get out of it! I think my fellow classmates, and most middle school students and teens, are addicted to smartphones. Smartphones have taken over our society. According to 2019 data, 53% of American children own a smartphone by the time they are 11 years old. 84% of teenagers own a smartphone. I have read many news reports in which researchers claim that smartphones can be fun and educational for children and teens and help them socialize with others. As a middle school student who sees the negative impacts of excessive smartphone usage in school, I strongly disagree with these claims. First, excessive smartphone usage causes students to have a distractive personality. The constant buzzing of new messages turns the student’s attention toward the phone and away from the teacher. Students tend to lose their attention easily and cannot focus on what is being taught in class. Even when their phones are not buzzing, their attention seems to be directed toward the phone. Smartphones and other devices are designed to be addictive. For example, in many video games, players are shown their own and their competitors’ scores. Children want to beat other players’ scores. Children may not know this, but their ambition to beat others in the game causes them to keep on playing the game. Sometimes children lose sleep over games, which can be very harmful to their health. Another example of how smartphones are designed to be addictive is the way the apps notify the users when their post has been liked or commented on. It makes children feel pressured to keep on posting more pictures so that people continue to like their pictures. No wonder the children in my school are hooked. Second, smartphones can really hurt children’s mental health. Children can lose self-esteem because of hurtful things on the internet. They can fall behind in their studies and suffer academically. They are so distracted that they are not able to keep up with the work in school, which affects their grades. This can cause them to be depressed. Children who are lonely in school turn to their smartphones to distract themselves or make friends online, but that does not seem to help. When children are on their phones so much, they don’t socialize with people around them. As a result, they have trouble working in teams. They are unable to ask for help when they need it. They are unable to develop healthy relationships with others. This causes them to plunge into their devices even more; the cycle goes on. Parents must take the responsibility for these consequences because they are the ones who choose to give their children smartphones. Some parents think that by setting time limits and parental controls they can control their child(ren)’s phone use. I think this just makes things worse. Students in my school use all the time they have on their smartphones until their time limit goes off. They seem to be waiting for that time in the day when they can use their smartphones; they are the first thing they reach for at lunchtime. This machine seems to immerse them. Sometimes I imagine them turning into a machine. Why do parents give their children smartphones? This question has been haunting me and I think I finally know the answer now. Parents want to have a good relationship with their children, so they give them everything they want to make them happy. Parents may also think that their child is growing up and they deserve to have a smartphone. It is possible that their child is nagging them to have a smartphone because their friends have it. Some parents want their children to be able to communicate with them or contact them. Some others may think that there are many advantages to using smartphones, including playing games, socializing, having fun, and learning. Yet others may think their children are not susceptible to these kinds of behaviors. Others might think the disadvantages are minor. I do not think any of these are good enough reasons to give your child a smartphone because of all the severely negative impacts it can have on a child. In my experience, most children my age do not know how to control their smartphone usage. I only know of one student in my class who has a smartphone but does not bring it to school. At home, she uses it to listen to music while doing homework. I suspect that she is the exception. It breaks my heart to see children not being children, and students not being students. Children are missing social and academic experiences in school. They are getting into patterns of behavior that are hurting them now and will hurt them in the future. I urge parents not to give their children smartphones at such a young age. Give children their childhood back.
Young Bloggers
Freedom of Speech Series: Public Schools
In 1966, in a packed hearing in Delano, California, then New York Senator, Robert F Kennedy, was arguing with the county sheriff, LeRoy Gaylen. LeRoy had arrested union organizers who had committed no crime, claiming the organizers “looked ready to violate the law.” Bobby Kennedy retorted, “May I suggest that during the luncheon period of time that the sheriff and the district attorney read the Constitution of the United States?” (PBS). Freedom of expression is probably the the most well-known, most agreed upon, and most treasured right in the United States of America; a country in which people disagree on almost everything else, including how the constitution should be interpreted, and the degree to which civil liberties, such as the right to bear arms, should be enforced. Despite these disagreements, almost all Americans—including liberals, conservatives, libertarians, democratic socialists, or folks of almost any other ideology—support and respect the First Amendment and believe there should be little to no restrictions on the free exchange of facts, opinions, ideas, values, and beliefs. But what does freedom of expression exactly mean, and how much practical protection is there for it? When is it or is it not okay to express yourself? Freedom of expression is not as solid, straightforward, nor black-and-white as many people think. The level of protection this right has been offered has changed over time, gone through many reforms and rethinking, and ultimately depends on a variety of factors (LegalInformationInstitute). I seek to explain the evolution of freedom of expression in the United States, and the laws, past and present, regarding one of the most important and basic human rights. In this blog, I’ll focus on public schools. The primary component of freedom of expression is freedom of speech, which can take place in a direct (verbal), or indirect (actions) way (LegalInformationInstitute). Freedom of speech, like all other civil liberties, is protection of our rights by the United States constitution from the government. This means that the level of protection free speech is offered ultimately boils down to the forum on which it takes place. If you are expressing yourself on a certain forum, the regulators of that forum are allowed to curtail your free speech as they see fit, and are not violating your constitutional rights, as it is their forum, and therefore their rules. A prominent example of this is the authority of schools to curtail the free speech of students in order to create a stable environment in which all the students feel safe, and nobody is disturbed by other students’ free expression. This can be seen in the case of Morse V. Frederick in 2007. In a school-supervised demonstration, a student named Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Debora Morse, the principal of his school, confiscated his banner and suspended him for 10 days (Oyez). She justified her action by arguing that Frederick had advocated illegal drug use, which was a breach of the school’s policy, kind of like how when I went to elementary school, the students, such as myself, were not allowed to create any violent material (whether it was pretend play, a gesture, a drawing) within the school campus. Frederick sued under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, the federal civil rights statute, which stated that “Any citizen or resident of any US state, territory, or the District of Columbia subjected by another citizen or resident of any US state, territory, or the district of Columbia, of any constitutionally guaranteed rights, privileges, or immunities, will be liable to the injured party in legal action or other forms of proceeding for redress” (LegalInformationInstitute). The district court, however, found no constitutional violation in the school’s curtailing of Frederick’s free speech, and ruled in favor of Morse. And the court ruled that even if it was decided that Morse’s action was unconstitutional, Morse would have “qualified immunity” against a lawsuit. However, the US court of appeals for the ninth circuit rebuked the ruling of the District Court, and decided that Morse’s censoring of Frederick’s message was a violation of his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, Morse would have no qualified immunity because “any reasonable principal would have known that Morse’s actions were unlawful” (Oyez). So, this leaves us with two questions: does the first amendment allow public schools to curtail the free speech of students if they advocate illegal drug use? And does a school official have qualified immunity against a lawsuit under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, when they curtailed Frederick’s first amendment right to freedom of speech? The answer to these questions is “yes and not reached” (Oyez). This case ultimately made itself all the way to the Supreme Court, and they made a 5-4 decision to reverse the decisions of the ninth circuit. Justice John Roberts Jr voiced the majority opinion that school officials do have the right to curtail the free speech of their students if they advocate illegal drug use. Though Frederick’s message was cryptic, it was clearly advocating illegal drug use; therefore, the school had the right to discipline Frederick for his message. However, the four dissenters argued that while they agreed that Principle Morse should have immunity from lawsuit, “the majority opinion was “[…] deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students […]” (Oyez). This is only one example which shows that freedom of speech depends on the forum in which it takes place. Public school students do not have as strong a right to freedom of speech as adults do because the schools can regulate the behavior of its students in order to make sure that the school is a safe, comfortable environment for all. On the other hand, this does not mean that students have no freedom of speech in public schools, and this can be seen in the case Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the Supreme Court ruled that Iowa Public School officials had violated the
The Great Beast (The Great Wave off Kanagawa): A Series in Ekphrasis by Ella Yamamura, 14
The great beast tipped with an army of acid claws it sported a color blue so deep you could fall in and no one would see you sink. It’s favorite kind of prey were the ones with the sanded wooden sides— the ones that bobbed up and down and were filled with goods. The beast lurked just beside that snow capped mountain the only home it ever knew. The beast never stayed still. It liked to roar and attack and spray its poison mist and drag a soul or two d o w n but deep d o w n it hurt a growing pain that radiated like the rays of the sun that The beast hated so much. Maybe The beast ate too much. Everyone has bellyaches.
