WP1

Cell Phones in a School Environment: Rhetorical Analysis

The intended audience for this essay is people who have read this article and are interested in learning about the different dynamics the author uses to engage and persuade the readers. 

Introduction

In school environments all across America, cell phones have been extremely controversial about whether they should be considered a useful resource or harmful resource. The opinion article "We’ve done enormous damage to kids with smartphones – we must ban them in school " by Marty Makary published in 2024 by the New York Post presents a rhetorical situation that appeals to the parents of children currently enrolled in school in America and anyone who uses a cell phone in general. For some background, Marty Makary is a surgeon and a public policy researcher at John Hopkins University. He has two New York Times best-selling novels and writes for both The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. While these different credentials boost his argument, the positions can also introduce bias as he is interested in making policy changes like banning cell phones as a solution to mental health issues. Makary effectively uses rhetorical appeals such as credibility, shocking diction, alarming statistics, providing solutions, and past examples of phone bans in school to convince the reader that banning cell phones in schools will have a positive impact on the children who are being educated, their mental health and well-being, and to aid in smartphone addiction.

Ethos

Makary uses ethos to support himself in this article numerous times regarding his credibility. Most importantly, at the end of the article, it mentions “Marty Makary is a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine professor, an advisor to Governor Glenn Youngkin, and author of the forthcoming book Blind Spots: When medicine gets it wrong and what it means for our health.” (Makary, 2024, para. 20) The author's purpose in mentioning these three roles he currently holds is to build credibility and trustworthiness in the audience. Given that he mentioned he is a professor at a prestigious university it tells the reader that he is very educated in his field of medicine. It is also key to note that he is an advisor for a governor because it shows he has some sort of influence on the policy and has lots of insight into the policies that are being pushed into place. All of these different qualifications can help reinforce his initial arguments about the dangers of cell phones in an educational setting.

Pathos

Makary commonly uses shocking diction in this article mostly about children using cell phones in school all throughout the length article. This method of utilizing pathos by using specific words can help promote worry or concern about the impact of cell phones on children. As Makary introduces the topic in the beginning of the article, he makes a comparison between alcohol, drugs, and cell phones in a school setting. Makary states, “As a society, we don’t allow alcohol or drugs in schools. Why should we allow highly addictive phones to be used in the same setting?” (Makary, 2024, para. 3). The author uses this sentence to shock the reader by comparing these two items that are both addictive but are very different in reality. His decision to use this rhetorical move was to make the audience feel that when we allow phones in schools it's just as dangerous as addictive drugs. This overall adds to the urgency for the issue to be solved and the language also influences the reader to agree with the argument to ban phones for students in school.

Logos

Throughout the article, Makary uses numerous statistics which is the most prominent way he made use of the rhetorical device logos. He uses statistics from reliable sources such as the CDC, Pew Research Center, and a Common Sense Media report. Firstly, as Marakry was discussing the suicide and depression rates, he drew up this statistic, “suicide and depression rates are surging, up 167% and 145% respectively for girls over the last decade, according to the CDC.” (Makary, 2024, para. 8). By using these statistics, the author appeals to the reader's logic to help reinforce the seriousness of this issue in children's wellbeing given that it relates to suicide. It can also help the reader view smartphone addiction as a contributor to the mental health crisis. The second statistic he uses from the CDC is the fact that 40% of kids now will have a mental health condition by the time they are 18, and 57% of girls feel sad or hopeless (Makary, 2024, para. 12). Essentially, this furthers the argument by presenting the reader continuously with facts that show the increasing number of mental health issues in children. By using statistics from the CDC, it adds to the credibility of his argument.

Telos

This article does a great job of letting the reader know what the real issue is. The author is solely focused on reshaping the cell phone policies in schools which is an example of Makary using telos. For instance, when the author mentions how face-to-face interactions are being taken away from students he mentions a valid point. “Teenagers use their phones in lieu of face-to-face interaction with peers. But school is exactly where children should be developing those social muscles. In fact, they need human connections for their learning and to be a part of a community.” (Makary, 2024, para. 8) The author had identified our need for human connections and social skills as an outcome of an education; that is the purpose of an education. Therefore, that sets a concrete standard in what schools should be achieving with their students. Additionally, Makary calls out the Silicon Valley companies in charge of this addiction, “Doing nothing is not an option. Do we really trust Silicon Valley companies, who profit from this addiction, to meaningfully help the current mental health crisis of children?” (Makary, 2024, 16). The phrase ‘mental health crisis’ can help push more people to acknowledge this issue overall by stating it is a crisis also, he mentions the fact that corporations should be held accountable for their actions profiting off cell phone addiction. 

Kairos

Makary makes use of the rhetorical device kairos by mentioning a past example of an instance where a person in authority enacted a ban on cell phones in a school in Virginia. The author purposely describes this case thoughtfully,  “Last month, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed an executive order to create phone-free education in the state’s public schools K-12.” (Makary, 2024, 10). The purpose of mentioning this piece of legislation was to show some of the recent events regarding banning cell phones in schools. This also highlights a relevant action that a person of power took to respond to the issue being addressed in this article. The author highlighted this specific action that a person in power took to further emphasize that the solutions to this issue are not theoretical and are already being implemented into place as a response to this cell phone problem. Furthermore, the purpose of mentioning ongoing efforts is to support his argument to help students' well-being.

Bias

When I first came upon this article, it was a familiar topic to me. As a student, I could admit I am biased against banning cell phones in school because I am the one being directly affected by these potential laws about cell phones being banned. In the beginning, I was totally against the idea of banning cell phones in schools because having a phone is a resource that makes me feel safe and well-connected with my loved ones. I have these biases towards this topic because my phone is a tool for communication and a way to access information quickly. I view the idea of banning cell phones in school as a way to control how we engage with the technology we have access to, but after analyzing Makarys arguments and all the data he proposed, I do see the potential benefits of a controlled ban.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Makarys opinion article "We’ve done enormous damage to kids with smartphones – we must ban them in school " presents numerous meaningful and convincing arguments to this ongoing debate of cell phone use in an educational setting. The author successfully makes use of all rhetorical appeals ethos, pathos, logos, teles, and kairos by including credibility, shocking diction, alarming statistics, providing solutions, and past examples of phone bans in school to convince the reader that banning cell phones in schools will have a positive impact on the children who are being educated, their mental health and well-being, and to aid in smartphone addiction.