“This is not a democracy.” Dean of Students Stacy Tepp’s clear message, shared at the Nov. 1 assembly launching the phone-free month, illuminated the fraught relationship between students and administrators.
As this trial run comes to a close, the reception has not been as negative to the policy as it has been to the administration’s false display of valuing student input. Despite an overwhelming 76% of students sharing their opposition to the policy in an October survey, the administration continued with its plans, causing many to question if the survey was merely performative. If the purpose of the survey was only to gauge students’ feelings and was never intended to be used to influence policy-making, that needed to be clearly stated in the directions. It is also notable that the administration’s presentation of data at the assembly was misleading, as data from students and adults who responded neutral was categorized as supportive to the policy. The mid-month survey didn’t even include a space for students to share their narrative nor did it include context about whether responses should be in reaction to a month of going phone-free or to the viability of a permanent shift to a phone-free campus.

“No-Phone-Vember” is just the latest in a series of policies enforced by the administration limiting small freedoms valued by the student body. Others include mandatory all-day exam attendance, strict lunch times and frequently structured X-periods.
Students’ loss of trust and discontent with the administration following these policies isn’t blameless on either side; the administration has made choices to create this dynamic, and the student body often over-dramatizes the effects of changes.
Still, the initial student responses to the phone-free policy reflected students’ tendency to see every new policy as an attack on the student-centered decision-making the school is rooted in, rather than recognizing the end value of some of these top-down decisions.
It is important to understand that these reactions to new policies are a result of feeling unheard by the administration. This, in turn, prevents future dialogue and sets up an “us versus them” mentality.