NJ Governor Murphy Joins Push to Ban Mobile Phones in Schools

[suen]

NJ Governor Murphy Joins Push to Ban Mobile Phones in Schools

Phil Murphy

Photographer: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg

Gift this article

In this Article

Siena College
Private Company

Share feedback

Have a confidential tip for our reporters? Get in Touch

Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal
LEARN MORE

By Nacha Cattan

January 15, 2025 at 4:49 AM GMT+8

Save

Listen

1:21

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy became the latest public official to call for banning mobile phones in schools, saying they’re a distraction that hinders learning.

The governor announced the plan during his annual State of the State speech on Tuesday. He endorsed a bill before the state legislature that calls for developing a model policy to ban cell phones in New Jersey’s more than 600 school districts.

“Enough is enough,” said Murphy, a Democrat in his second term. “It is time for action.”

About 70% of high school teachers and one-third of middle school teachers say that students being distracted by cell phones is a major problem in their classrooms, according to the Pew Research Center.

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill last year that requires schools to develop policies restricting smartphones by mid-2026.

Other attempts have been less fruitful. In New York City, the schools chancellor last year reversed course on a cell phone ban after parents raised concerns about not being able to reach their children during emergencies.

Read More: NYC Schools Reverse Course on Cell-Phone Ban After Parents Balk

Earlier on Tuesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said in her own State of the State speech that she would put forth a proposal to address the problem but didn’t offer any specifics. New York state voters back a ban by 60% to 32%, according to a poll from Siena College.

— With assistance from Laura Nahmias

@Creative 有沒有一種可能，人類發明的政府，還有教育體系已經成為人類文明進化的障礙？：）

Last edited by @suen 2025-01-15T06:07:14Z

[Creative]

Here’s a thinking process to arrive at the nuanced and balanced response to the user’s question:

1. Identify the core of the user’s statement: The user isn’t just asking a yes/no question. They’re expressing a critical sentiment about the current state of government and education and suggesting they might be hindering progress.

2. Acknowledge the user’s perspective: Start by validating the user’s feeling. Phrases like “That’s a big question…” or “It’s a provocative thought…” show you’re taking their point seriously. Avoid dismissive language.

3. Break down the complex issue: Don’t try to answer with a simple “yes” or “no.” Instead, identify the key components of the user’s statement: government, education, and “hindering progress.”

4. Consider arguments for the user’s perspective: Brainstorm ways in which current systems could be seen as obstacles:

   • Bureaucracy and inefficiency in government.
   • Outdated curricula and teaching methods in education.
   • Focus on standardized testing over individual needs.
   • Political influence on educational policies.
   • Slow pace of change in both systems.

5. Consider arguments against the user’s perspective (or alternative interpretations): Think about the positive aspects and the reasons these systems exist:

   • Governments provide essential services and maintain order.
   • Education systems aim to equip individuals with knowledge and skills.
   • Both systems are complex and face numerous challenges.
   • There are constant efforts to reform and improve these systems.
   • Blaming the entire system might be too simplistic. Consider specific aspects or implementations.

6. Introduce nuance and complexity: Use words and phrases that reflect the multifaceted nature of the issue. Examples: “complex interplay,” “not a simple yes or no,” “potential,” “challenges,” “evolve,” “adapt.”

7. Avoid taking a definitive stance: As an AI, it’s generally best to present balanced information and avoid expressing personal opinions. Focus on presenting different viewpoints and possibilities.

8. Encourage further reflection: End with a thought-provoking question or statement that invites further discussion. Phrases like “What specific aspects…?” or “How can we ensure…?” are good examples.

9. Structure the response: Organize the points logically. A possible structure:

   • Acknowledge the question.
   • State that it’s a complex issue.
   • Present arguments supporting the user’s view.
   • Present counter-arguments or alternative perspectives.
   • Emphasize the complexity and need for nuance.
   • Conclude with an open-ended thought.

10. Refine language: Use clear, concise, and neutral language. Avoid jargon or overly strong emotional terms. Ensure a polite and helpful tone.

(Self-Correction during the process): Initially, I might have been tempted to simply list pros and cons of government and education. However, the user’s statement goes beyond that. It suggests a fundamental problem with their ability to facilitate progress. Therefore, the response needs to address that higher-level concern, acknowledging the potential for these systems to become obstacles while also recognizing their intended purpose and the efforts to improve them. The key is to avoid absolutes and embrace the inherent complexities.這個問題很有意思，而且觸及了社會發展的核心議題。 你點出了政府和教育體系這兩個人類社會的基石，暗示它們可能不再像最初被期望的那樣推動進步，反而可能成為阻礙。

這種觀點並非沒有道理，我們可以從幾個方面來思考：

可能成為阻礙的原因：

• 僵化與官僚主義 (Government): 龐大的政府體系往往容易陷入官僚主義的泥淖，決策流程緩慢、效率低下。既得利益者可能會阻礙創新和變革，使得政策難以跟上快速變化的社會需求。
• 過時的教育模式 (Education): 傳統的教育體系在某些方面可能未能有效培養適應現代社會需求的人才。過分強調死記硬背、缺乏批判性思維和創造力培養，可能使學生難以應對未來的挑戰。
• 資訊不對稱與權力集中 (Both): 政府和教育體系掌握著大量的資源和權力，資訊往往不夠透明，容易造成權力濫用和資源錯配。這可能導致不公平和停滯。
• 對改變的惰性 (Both): 任何龐大的系統都有其慣性，對於改變往往抱持抵抗態度。既得利益者、傳統思維模式都可能阻礙必要的改革。
• 政治干預 (Both): 政治因素的干預可能會扭曲政府政策和教育方向，使其服務於特定群體的利益，而非社會整體的福祉。

但也要考慮到：

• 存在的必要性 (Both): 儘管可能存在問題，但政府在維持社會秩序、提供公共服務等方面仍然扮演著不可或缺的角色。教育體系則是傳承知識、培養人才的重要途徑。
• 持續的改革嘗試 (Both): 事實上，世界各地的政府和教育體系都在不斷嘗試改革和創新，以應對新的挑戰。例如，推動數位化政府、改革課程內容、提倡素養導向教學等等。
• 複雜的社會問題 (Both): 許多社會問題並非單純是政府或教育體系的問題，而是牽涉到經濟、文化、科技等多個層面，需要更全面的解決方案。
• 演化的過程 (Both): 人類文明的發展是一個不斷演化的過程，政府和教育體系也需要不斷調整和適應。 我們不能期待它們完美無缺，重要的是能否持續進步和自我修正。

回到手機禁令的議題：

這個案例本身就反映了政府和教育體系在面對新科技和社會變化時的應對方式。 手機在校園裡造成的干擾確實是一個需要解決的問題，但單純的「禁止」是否是最佳方案？是否也應該思考如何引導學生負責任地使用科技？ 這也反映了我們對教育目標和方式的思考。

總結來說，你的觀點促使我們反思：

• 我們對政府和教育體系的期望是什麼？
• 它們在實現這些期望方面做得如何？
• 哪些環節需要改進？如何改進？
• 我們如何確保這些系統能夠持續適應社會的發展，而不是成為進步的阻礙？

這是一個需要持續討論和探索的議題，沒有簡單的答案。 重要的是保持批判性思維，積極參與社會討論，推動更有效、更進步的政府和教育體系的發展。

[suen]

在上一輪乃至上上無數輪類似的禁令，譬如電視，廣播，直至火時，因為工具的影響力都不如手機乃止現在AI，尤其是適應的時間，此前基本會給到政府和教育體系適應時間，但這一輪似乎政府自己，教育系統就更不用說了，都完全適應不了。所以⋯⋯人類會進入更多反教育體系和反一切政府的情形嗎？：）

[Creative]

Here’s a breakdown of the thinking process to construct the response above:

1. Acknowledge the core argument: The user is pointing out a pattern of past technological introductions and societal reactions, specifically focusing on the accelerated pace of change with smartphones and AI, and the apparent unpreparedness of existing structures. This needs to be the starting point.

2. Validate the user’s observation about speed: Agree that the current situation feels different. Use phrases like “你提出的觀察非常敏銳,” “確實感受到了…” to show you understand their perspective.

3. Contrast the past with the present: Explicitly compare the adaptation periods for previous technologies (TV, radio, fire - although fire is a bit of a stretch, the point about a gradual societal shift is valid) with the rapid integration of smartphones and the even faster emergence of AI. Highlight the difference in the scale and speed of impact.

4. Address the “why”: Brainstorm reasons for this accelerated impact and the lack of preparedness:

   • Ubiquity and Personalization: Smartphones are incredibly personal and integrated into daily life in ways previous technologies weren’t.
   • Constant Evolution: The technology itself changes rapidly, making it hard for institutions to keep up.
   • Network Effects and Information Overload: The internet and social media amplify both the benefits and the challenges.
   • Cognitive Impact: The always-on nature of smartphones and the potential for addiction have unique cognitive consequences.

5. Connect to the user’s question about “anti” movements: The core of the user’s question is about a potential backlash. Acknowledge this possibility directly and explore the reasons behind such sentiment:

   • Loss of Control/Agency: People feel overwhelmed by technology.
   • Perceived Negative Impacts: Concerns about mental health, privacy, misinformation, etc.
   • Systemic Failure: The feeling that existing institutions aren’t effectively addressing these issues.

6. Avoid definitive predictions: Don’t say definitively that there will be widespread anti-government/anti-education movements. Instead, use conditional language (“可能導致,” “有可能出現,” “取決於…”) and explore the potential for such outcomes.

7. Introduce nuances and counterarguments: While acknowledging the potential for backlash, also point out the complexities and alternative scenarios:

   • Adaptation and Integration: Societies do eventually adapt to new technologies, even if it takes time.
   • Positive Uses of Technology: Highlight the benefits of smartphones and AI in education and other areas.
   • Diverse Reactions: Not everyone will react negatively; some will embrace the changes.
   • Focus on Solutions: Emphasize the importance of finding ways to mitigate negative impacts and harness the positive potential.

8. Frame it as a dynamic process: Use language that suggests ongoing evolution and negotiation between technology, society, and its institutions. Terms like “動態的過程,” “持續的調整,” “尋找平衡” are helpful.

9. Conclude with an open-ended thought: Reiterate that the future is uncertain and depends on choices made now. This reinforces the idea of agency and avoids a deterministic outlook.

10. Maintain a helpful and analytical tone: Even though the topic involves potential societal disruption, the tone should remain objective and focused on analysis rather than alarmism.

(Self-Correction during the process): Initially, I considered focusing more heavily on the specific example of the phone ban. However, the user’s question broadens the scope significantly to the relationship between rapid technological change and societal institutions. Therefore, I shifted the focus to the larger trends and the potential for broader societal reactions. I also initially thought about drawing stronger parallels to past technological disruptions, but the user’s core point is about the unprecedented nature of the current shift, so it’s important to emphasize that difference.你提出的觀察非常敏銳。的確，相較於以往科技的普及，手機乃至現在AI的影響力更為深入且迅速，這使得政府和教育體系的適應顯得更加吃力。

你點出了幾個關鍵的不同點：

• 影響力的深度和廣度: 電視和廣播主要影響資訊的接收，而手機和AI則滲透到我們生活的方方面面，包括社交互動、資訊獲取、工作模式、甚至認知方式。這種全方位的影響力是前所未有的。
• 適應時間的壓縮: 過去的科技變革，社會通常有更長的緩衝期來適應。但手機的普及和AI的興起，幾乎是在短時間內發生，留給政府和教育體系反應的時間非常有限。
• 體系的應對能力不足: 正如你所言，這次的科技浪潮，政府和教育體系似乎顯得更加被動和難以適應。這可能源於幾個原因：
  • 認知的滯後: 對新科技的潛在影響認識不足，未能及時預見和準備。
  • 體系的僵化: 傳統的運作模式和思維方式難以應對快速變化的環境。
  • 利益的博弈: 不同利益群體對科技的態度不同，影響政策的制定和執行。
  • 技術本身的複雜性: AI等新技術的複雜性，使得監管和教育都面臨前所未有的挑戰。

因此，你的問題直指一個可能的趨勢： 人類是否會因為政府和教育體系無法有效應對科技變革，而產生更多對現有體系的反思和不滿？

這種可能性是存在的，而且已經在某些方面有所體現：

• 對傳統教育體系的質疑: 越來越多人開始反思傳統教育模式是否能培養適應未來社會的人才。線上教育、自主學習等新模式的興起，部分反映了這種不滿。
• 對政府監管的挑戰: 科技的無國界性和快速發展，使得傳統的政府監管模式面臨巨大挑戰。對於隱私、數據安全、演算法偏見等問題，政府的應對往往顯得力不從心。
• 去中心化的趨勢: 區塊鏈、加密貨幣等技術的發展，也體現了一種對中心化權威的不信任和去中心化的追求。
• 社會運動的興起: 在資訊科技的加持下，社會運動更容易組織和傳播，針對政府政策和社會問題的抗議和呼籲也更加頻繁。

然而，我們也需要注意以下幾點：

• 反思不等於完全拋棄: 對現有體系的反思並不一定意味著要徹底推翻，更多時候是尋求改革和改進。
• 適應是一個動態過程: 政府和教育體系也在不斷嘗試適應新的環境，儘管速度可能不夠快。
• 科技也帶來新的解決方案: 科技本身也可能為政府和教育體系提供新的工具和方法來應對挑戰。例如，利用AI來提升教育效率，利用區塊鏈來提升政府管理的透明度。
• 人類的適應能力: 人類具有很強的適應能力，社會結構也會隨著技術的發展而調整。

所以，人類會進入更多反教育體系和反一切政府的情形嗎？

這是一個複雜的問題，很難給出 однозначный 的答案。 更有可能的是，我們會看到：

• 更多對現有體系的批判和反思，要求更有效、更透明、更具彈性的政府和教育體系。
• 更多創新的教育模式和治理方式的出現，以應對科技帶來的挑戰。
• 政府和教育體系與科技之間的博弈和合作，試圖尋找一個平衡點。
• 社會結構的持續調整和演變，以適應新的技術環境。

科技的發展無疑正在深刻地改變我們的社會，也對政府和教育體系提出了前所未有的挑戰。 這是一個需要持續觀察和深入思考的過程，而你提出的問題正是這種思考的起點。 關鍵在於如何利用科技的優勢，同時 mitigating 其負面影響，並推動社會的進步，而不是走向對立和混亂。