Pushed forward with disregard for student rights and educational autonomy

The 'Ban on the Use and Possession of Student Smart Devices Bill', passed by the National Assembly's Education Committee on July 8, continues to face strong opposition from youth and civil society. Around 20 organizations, including the Youth Human Rights Action Asulro, the National Youth-Citizen Action, and youth organizations, held a press conference at the National Assembly's Communication Hall on the 20th, urging for an immediate halt to the bill and for further discussion.

The controversial bill fundamentally prohibits the use of smartphones during class time and grants school principals the authority to restrict possession and use through school regulations. While the National Assembly justifies this under the premise of 'protecting students' right to learn' and 'ensuring teachers' educational activities', the organizations criticized it as a concept that views students not as rights holders but as subjects of control.

Jin, an activist from Asulro, stated during the press conference, "Schools have already dominated youths as spaces where they have no choice, from clothing and lifestyle habits to preferences," and pointed out that "blanket restrictions on smartphones are not for the classroom atmosphere but rather suppress the freedom and dialogue of youth." He emphasized that "youth are dignified individuals and the agents of choice," highlighting that the use of smart devices cannot be enforced by law.

The organizations issuing a joint statement argued that the necessary level of restriction on usage could already be achieved through existing regulations and school rules, and explicitly stating 'prohibition' in the law is considered excessive legislation. The statement warned of the potential infringement on constitutional rights such as freedom of communication, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness, stating that including clauses that restrict rights in the law when the system is insufficient to guarantee student rights is risky.

In particular, they raised concerns about the coercive nature of the law, stating, "Even without penalty clauses, mentioning 'prohibition' in the law would be considered illegal, leading to further rigidity in school settings," and asserted that the regulation of smart devices should be achieved through autonomous agreements and democratic processes within the educational community.

Furthermore, they criticized the mentioning of foreign cases in the National Assembly's review report, pointing out that many of these were regulations at the policy or guideline level, not laws, and rebuked the legislation that restricts basic rights by simply citing a few cases from advanced countries as rushed.

Finally, the organizations urged for a comprehensive reevaluation by the National Assembly, stating, "Schools should be spaces where students grow as trusted citizens, not spaces without smartphones."

This controversy not only revolves around the issue of smartphone regulation but also underscores the question of whether youth are recognized as equal citizens in educational philosophy. Education policies that do not respect students' autonomy and rights ultimately turn both teachers and students into subjects of control, standing in stark contrast to the path of creating democratic schools.