Introduction
This indicates that the current wave of students using smartphones has posed quite a severe threat lately. It becomes a menace to almost everybody when it bites the modernity bug, including parents, stakeholders in the education sector, and psychologists. Discussion on its likely effects has emerged in three aspects: academic performance, social development, and mental health. On this score, social psychologist Steven Haidt waded into the list with his incensed article for The Atlantic, “Get Phones Out of Schools Now.” In it, he claims that in an article filed in June 2023, evidence of harm from schools was clear and that phones should be kept out of schools urgently. But Haidt has laid the ground for these most vital concepts. This most critical essay critically evaluates rhetorical strategies and persuasive techniques Haidt uses across his arguments. This paper will, therefore, critically look into the use of logos, ethos, and pathos by Haidt in the argument to ban smartphones in schools, his inclusion of sources, his handling of counterarguments, and the application of other forms of persuasive evidence.
Brief Summary
It is perhaps best epitomized in his essay “Get Phones Out of Schools Now,” which Haidt strongly calls, in his clearly and logically balanced approach, for outlawing smartphones from schools. It’s a genuine mental health crisis due mainly to the increase in social media and smartphone overuse among the youth. He supports that schools can contribute to such a trend amid a rising crisis by providing phone-free teaching arenas. Haidt bolsters this point by referencing several studies that have related heavy use of smartphones and social media to increases in depression, self-injury, and suicide among adolescents—especially young girls. In his view, today’s teens are ‘hyper-social,’ and how smart, status-seeking, the comparisons they engage in, and cyberbullying often find their way to keep hurting them. Finally, Haidt further argues that schools are purposeful institutions for learning and nothing else; hence, a phone is just an idle distraction. Ideas: Amid his admission of the parallel prevailing concern for student safety and a way to get in touch with parents, Haidt adds that schools have been managing the jobs of schools just fine without cell phones for decades. Indeed, they are more than capable. Ultimately, Haidt argues that schools are called upon to be phone-free in the case of welfare and betterment.
Analysis
Haidt employs a multi-pronged rhetorical strategy to persuade readers that schools should ban smartphones. His argument relies on building a logical case, establishing credibility, and evoking an emotional response. Firstly, Haidt appeals to logos by grounding his claims in scientific research and data. He cites multiple studies from reputable institutions, such as the CDC and American Psychological Association, demonstrating the links between heavy smartphone/social media use and worsening youth mental health. For instance, he highlights a study showing a “sudden, cataclysmic jump in depressive symptoms, self-harm, and suicide among American teens, especially girls,” starting around 2012-2013, when smartphone ownership reached 50% (Haidt). By referencing such empirical evidence throughout the article, Haidt lends his argument credibility and taps into the persuasive power of numbers to convey the extent of the crisis.
However, while the data Haidt presents is alarming, there are limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from correlational studies. A rise in mental health issues coinciding with increasing smartphone ubiquity does not necessarily prove causation. There could be other societal factors contributing to this trend that should be further examined. Additionally, Haidt’s claim that we are in a “crisis unlike anything we have seen before” (Haidt) could be seen as overstating the uniqueness of the current situation. Throughout history, older generations have often viewed new technologies – from radio to television to video games – as threats to youth. A more nuanced discussion of how smartphones compare to past moral panics and whether the doom-and-gloom framing is fully justified would strengthen his argument.
Alongside data, Haidt also strategically utilizes ethos to boost his credibility and authority on the topic. As a prominent social psychologist and bestselling author of books like “The Righteous Mind,” Haidt is well-positioned to speak on human behavior and development issues. He doubles down by saying he heads up both organizations dedicated to ethics. Dropping these bona fides, Haidt puts himself at the table with the standing to consider the results of smartphones. But it is as if Haidt comes to the subject of technology, or for that matter, adolescent mental health, with no relevant research resume. He does not entirely write from the arena of primary research on youth and smartphones but only draws on it a little, which may dent the picture of authority he is drawing.
But the most powerful is derived from the implementation of ethos by Haidt, very closely bound to his power as a father. He starts the article by describing experiences that are owned about “bans on phones in schools” later on in the district. It certainly helps create a relationship with the readers that he is someone who can understand what the concern of a parent is and has an outside motivation related to the good of the student, not just academics. His measured tone in acknowledging the difficulty of parenting in a digital age and the high stakes of keeping your kids safe and connected are thus furthered.
But there is more to Haidt’s argument than merely the recollection of facts and figures. An emotional appeal with emotive language and colorful descriptive details is also visible. Words and phrases like “cataclysmic jump” and “unlike anything we have seen before” become a hyperbolic rhetorical tool of panic. He creates a haunting image of the adolescents who, by all definitions, manage to keep an eye on the updates of posts from “the bathroom to the hallways, to the edges of playgrounds” so that they do not stay clueless and miss them (Haidt). Any decision at the time was misconstrued by the self-righteously indignant with grand melodramatic rashness: “…the solemn motivations to salvage the romantic utopian dreams of childhood or merely the perfect favorite blazer from the hallway hooks.
Although it sometimes strips into oversimplification and sensationalism, not all screen time is precisely the same overall. There is quite a difference between passive social scrolling and technology utilized in children’s learning or connecting with family or friends. Haidt makes sweeping generalizations, such as claiming that “whatever small gains they might bring in student engagement are swamped by the distractions and temptations contained on the phone” (Haidt). He risks coming across as out-of-touch with the positive ways technology can be harnessed. A more nuanced discussion distinguishing between harmful and beneficial phone usage would add credibility.
Throughout the essay, Haidt anticipates and attempts to counter potential objections to his argument. He dedicates a section to addressing the possible benefits of phones in the classroom, such as facilitating research and technology skills. However, he quickly dismisses these as “unlikely” to outweigh the negatives. This cursory treatment may only satisfy some readers, especially those who have seen smartphones used effectively as educational tools. Similarly, while he raises concerns about student safety and parent communication, his contention that schools operated just fine in the pre-cellphone era needs to be more convincing. The world has changed, and many parents and students today expect and rely on the ability to get in touch instantly. Haidt could bolster his argument by providing more concrete examples of how schools with phone bans handle emergencies and minimize disruption to essential contact.
Haidt avoids accusations of unfairly singling out smartphones instead of other potentially harmful technologies or social influences. He argues that “smartphones are one of the main drivers of teen depression” and that we don’t have to choose between addressing phones and other mental health risk factors – we can walk and chew gum at the same time. He cites evidence that smartphones are uniquely detrimental to students’ attention and learning compared to laptops. While this is a valid point, it still leaves the question of why phones are a particularly problematic distraction compared to passing notes or daydreaming, which students will likely still engage in even sans phones. A deeper dive into the psychology of why smartphones are so hard to resist and how their specific affordances (e.g., social media, texting) might impact mental health differently than general screen time could further substantiate his stance.
Conclusion
In “Get Phones Out of Schools Now,” Haidt marshals empirical evidence, credibility-building, and emotional appeal to make a passionate case for banning smartphones in schools. He highlights the alarming trends in adolescent mental health. He draws on various scientific research to argue that smartphones, especially their role in facilitating social media use and status-seeking, are a key culprit that schools must address. While Haidt’s argument is powerful on many fronts, it has weaknesses. In places, he overgeneralizes and does not fully engage with counterarguments that the phones might prove helpful or otherwise distinct from the usual distractions students can generate in class. The correlational data cited by Haidt is certainly horrifying, but it most definitely does not prove that phones cause mental issues.
Nonetheless, Haidt’s article is a powerful wake-up call that the impacts of smartphones on students deserve urgent attention and action. Even if a complete ban is not the answer, he is right that schools are essential in promoting healthy technology habits and protecting students’ well-being. His credibility as an expert in psychology and a concerned father, along with his vivid depictions of the problematic phone behaviors and social dynamics at play, lend weight to his argument.
The Haidt piece is best read more like a call to arms over a problem of such crucial importance—though it doesn’t make a wholly watertight case over a school-wide phone ban. He certainly succeeds in bringing forward the conversation on smartphones in schools and mental health, to get readers in and grapple with the evidence and consideration of what solutions are necessary. Although prone to generalizing, Haidt does an invaluable service with his opinion piece in sounding the trumpet on a crisis besetting modern youth. Whether you agree with it or not, “Get Phones Out of Schools Now” really pokes one to think deeper about the role technology should play in young lives. It’s a conversation we can’t afford to put on silent.
Works Cited
Haidt, Jonathan. “Get Phones Out of Schools Now.” The Atlantic, 16 June 2023, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/ban-smartphones-phone-free-schools-social-media/674304/.
write