By Robert Merrick,
Business Editor.
Sensationalism. Defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “(especially in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement.” In layman’s terms, sensationalism is a type of manipulation in which issues are overblown to cause panic, hoping to get sales or change the court of public opinion.
While sometimes effective in bringing light to a topic, there is still fundamental trickery at play; thus we must question to what extent this technique is valuable and moral. For example, should a school intentionally use bombastic, questionable statistics to justify their radical new policy?
A matter of hot debate at the end of last year, our new phone policy has been accepted blindly by staff, and begrudgingly by students. Most people seem to agree that the policy has been a plus: “I think it’s probably working a little bit; I’m just not seeing it as much myself since I’m not in those classes,” said senior Ruby May. Yet there should still be room to question the ethicality of fear-mongering to brainwash students into accepting this policy.
English teacher William Lyon has been recognizing problems within the school for a while. “I have noticed a huge spike from pre-COVID to now… the number of kids who are anxious, who won’t speak in class, who will take a zero on the performances,” said Lyon. What finally moved him towards action, however, was Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxious Generation. “It was pretty compelling. I’m not faking it,” said Lyon.
Lyon may have been moved by this book, but his emotions clouded his judgment. Emboldened by his emotions, he failed to investigate the flaws in Haidt’s argument and the data referenced.
Several reputable sources readily criticize The Anxious Generation. In Tracy Dennis-Tiwary’s book review in The New York Times, he attacks Haidt for absolutism: “Perhaps smartphones alone haven’t destroyed an entire generation. And maybe context matters. But this rarely comes through in the book.”
Blake Montgomery of The Guardian continues criticism in his article: “The Anxious Generation wants to save teens. But the bestseller’s anti-tech logic is skewed.” Montgomery simply points out that “Haidt [is] making an appeal to ignorance, a logical fallacy [basically]: an alternative is absent, ergo my hypothesis is correct.” Lyon has purported evidence which is at best contentious to a student body exceeding 1500 students.
Let us first examine the information that Haidt himself draws upon, which Lyon then used in his presentation. There are two major flaws: most of the data is self-reported, undermining its credibility, and there is too much conflicting information. The advent of the technology, which Haidt claims causes so many negative effects, also allows for more widespread discussions and more incessant polling metrics, hence greater participation which is never referenced in his book. The other issue is with the differing, conflicting claims. Throughout, Haidt attempts to create a narrative that young women suffer disproportionately, but the suicide rates for young men are higher. Teenagers are becoming more depressed, but suicide rates were the same or higher during the 80s.
Now, to what degree is this Lyon’s fault? Simply, he’s an educator. He should be providing researched facts, as close to the truth as he can. He should not be letting his own feelings dominate his reason. Yet the blame is not solely his.
The English Department and at least a handful of administrators saw it. But none of them saw any problems? Not a single complaint? Not one objection to his hyper specific graphs? Not one effort to identify the bias within the book? Did anyone else even read it? Why wasn’t there any quibbling with some of the details of the graphs?
It is obvious to everyone involved in education that phones are having adverse effects in the classroom. However, nobody honestly knows to what extent; pretending that we do is misleading and harmful. I ask not that we do nothing; instead I beg that we are truthful when dealing with the unknown. I ask that we acknowledge an issue, but don’t attempt to rush towards a solution. I ask that students not be plainly lied to. If educators can justify the falsification of statistics, then what does a school become but a construct of lies, pushing whatever agenda is favored by its teachers?
