Imagine a student sitting in a locked classroom while an emergency unfolds just outside the door. In that critical moment, one of the fastest ways to reach help isn’t a school intercom or a district protocol. It’s the phone in their backpack. It’s 2026, and whether we like it or not, smartphones have become fundamental to how we communicate. They are often our quickest way to reach help when something goes wrong. We save the people closest to us directly in our contacts, and emergency services are a few taps away. Society has evolved around the immediate connection phones provide, including the places where students spend most of their day. Why should students be denied access to a tool that has become vital to everyone else? On Sept. 30, Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) introduced the UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Act of 2026 in the U.S. Senate, following a similar proposal introduced in the House last year. The proposal coincides with lawmakers across the country continuing to restrict students’ cell phone use. The proposal encourages states to adopt bell-to-bell restrictions on personal electronic devices in schools. The bill offers federal funding to help implement policies that could include phone lockers, lockboxes, and pouches. The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association both back the bill, and its supporters are right about one thing: distraction is a real problem. One issue with this proposal is that it could strip students of a tool that may increase their safety. At a time when school shootings have become a disturbing part of American life, many believe schools should do everything possible to ensure a student can always contact emergency services when they need them most. Students cannot be expected to rely solely on the school for communication during an emergency. School personnel may be overwhelmed or facing the same danger themselves. Why remove that communication method when so many students already carry a device that can contact emergency services? In an emergency, having more ways to reach help matters. Multiple points of communication make contacting help faster, rather than relying on just one. Supporters will say pouches can be unlocked in an emergency. That is a fair response; it relies on the procedure working flawlessly in the middle of a panic. It is no surprise that smartphones are one of the leading sources of distraction for students. With social media playing such a prominent role in everyday life, the temptation to check a notification, doomscroll a feed, or chat with friends can easily interfere with learning. As time goes on, smartphones get “smarter,” and these distractions only become increasingly difficult to ignore. Teachers who want relief from that daily battle deserve to be taken seriously. However, as with most things, there is a middle ground between unrestricted smartphone use and taking students’ cell phone access away during the entire school day. Monitoring phone use in the classroom is a wiser approach than eliminating access throughout the school. It is one thing to require students to silence their phones and keep them away during class; it’s another to compromise their access to help simply because monitoring is more tedious than collecting phones at the door. That extra work is a real cost for teachers, and it should not be dismissed. But convenience should not outweigh safety. Taking the extra step to ensure students have their phones nearby, whether in their pockets or backpacks, could make a difference in an emergency. Schools can no longer be viewed as places where students’ safety is always guaranteed. That is the unfortunate reality. Students’ access to phones gives parents some peace of mind, knowing their children can still reach them immediately during an emergency. Indeed, school shootings existed long before smartphones became part of everyday life. The largest difference is that students today have advantages previous generations lacked. It would be unfair to parents and students to acknowledge the dangers of shootings that have always existed in schools, while removing a modern resource that could help them respond to those dangers faster than ever before. The reasoning behind this bill fails to justify its approach. If the goal is truly to support the growth and development of America’s youth, lawmakers must also weigh the potential consequences of removing smartphones from students’ reach for the entire school day. Eliminating access may solve one problem while creating another, one that could prove far more detrimental. Schools should absolutely address the distractions that come with easy access to smartphones. After all, ensuring students use class time well is their responsibility. But they should also accept the realities of the modern era and understand that the answer does not have to be unrestricted phone use, nor does it have to be complete elimination. Smartphones are not going anywhere, and neither are schools’ responsibilities to keep students both focused and safe. Instead of a blanket restriction, lawmakers should create policies that reflect the world students actually live in today, one where focus and safety are both treated as priorities. A modern problem calls for a solution that accounts for modern tools and for the safety they provide.
By Maya Balmanukyan
Progressive cities like New York are known for implementing rent controls. Wikimedia Commons Rent across the United States has continued to surge, and has become a major issue for the midterms this year along with the general cost of living. In many progressive strongholds such as Oregon, New York City, and California’s coastal metropolises, the response from local governments has been to restrict landlords from increasing rents in a policy known as rent control. These governments, however, apparently fail to listen to the vast majority of economists, ranging from conservatives like Milton Friedman to progressives like Paul Krugman, who agree that rent control is an economically disastrous policy. Although it may protect current tenants in the short-run, it turns any new leases or properties into massive liabilities for the landlords, becoming a supply-side disaster in the long-term. The National Apartment Association asserts that rent control introduces a load of incentives against increasing the supply of housing, in addition to properly maintaining the housing of current tenants. This is especially visible amongst landlords who are not massive owners of properties, also disincentivizing entry of new ones into the market. As a result, instead of building new housing that would be primarily rented by low-income earners, developers and landlords opt for high-end luxury condos or real estate that are out of reach for most tenants. And, regarding current tenants, many of them choose to stay for much longer terms after rent control is introduced, severely reducing mobility in the housing market. These adverse effects of the policy have been seen in cities from all around the world, regardless of the form they take. New York City’s rent control laws have predictably driven low-income tenants out of the city while protecting long-time tenants who pay the artificially lowered rates regardless of their income. In San Francisco, the supply of rental housing fell by 15% as many units were converted into luxury condos, creating one of the country’s worst housing shortages. Looking internationally, Sweden’s rent-controlled apartments have seen decades-long waiting lists, resulting in a thriving black market for rentals. In contrast, after Argentina repealed its rent control laws, a boom in supply ensued, significantly lowering monthly rents. But there are more ways to mend the housing market than the absence of rent control. Strict zoning laws across American cities similarly limit the supply of affordable units and favor luxury property development instead. These take the forms of parking minima, only allowing large single-family homes, and lengthy bureaucratic approval timelines. Not only do these restrictions make construction of affordable units for renters difficult, but they also result in externalities such as increased traffic due to the suburban sprawl and car-dependency in which they have resulted. As economists and cities across the world have shown, the answer to affordable housing is a freer market and less red tape.
By Edward Kim
It was the 1960s in Washington, D.C., and the Vietnam War was running rampant. Susan Sarandon, a college student at the time, had just attended her first anti-war protest, sparking a lifetime of political activism and standing up for her beliefs. Sarandon vehemently hated war and was very outspoken about it, also protesting the 2003 invasion of Iraq after she was well into her career. She made a name for herself not only in film, but also as a prominent figure in social and political activism. She even often intertwines the two. Some of her most iconic roles are, in and of themselves, political. In films like The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Thelma and Louise, and Dead Man Walking, Sarandon has defied the status quo and refused to stay silent in the face of public scrutiny. Many say actors shouldn’t get involved in politics, and to that Sarandon said, watch this. Susan Sarandon has been vocal about presidential elections, urging people to vote and backing certain candidates. However, she also was not afraid to criticize those she supports. All before 2010, she fought against Hollywood’s portrayal of homosexuality, served on the advisory committee for the activist group 2004 Racism Watch, and advocated to end the death penalty and mass incarceration. Sarandon hasn’t been afraid to make waves and stand up for her beliefs. Even today, at age seventy-nine, she continues to get out there and protest for what she believes in. Most recently, she was even detained while protesting Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrival in New York City on September 24, 2026. That, however, is not the first time she’s been arrested for protesting. Police detained her once in 1982 during a civil disobedience protest, in 1999 for protesting the police shooting of unarmed Amadou Diallo, in 2018 during a sit-in protesting the Trump administration’s immigration and border policies, and once again in 2023 while advocating for an increase in the minimum wage. Though Susan Sarandon has had many career-defining roles, no role defines her like her political activism. Some of this has been actively detrimental to her career, causing her to be dropped from her agency and essentially become blacklisted after speaking out in support of Palestine. I think public figures should get involved in politics; they should fight for what they believe in, and urge their audience to do the same. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. It’s imperative to question those in charge and stand up not only for yourself, but for your peers, your friends, your children, and our future.
By Madison Curd
Follow Us