The New Phone Policy is Killing Dorm Culture and Healthy Habits

Imagine this: you’re a sophmore dorm resident, and you’ve just spent half of study hall baking an amazing batch of cookies for the feed after study hall. Excitedly, you bring out the steaming tray of cookies and set it on the common room table. As the clock strikes 9:45 pm and study hall ends, the sophomores on your floor filter into the common room…with their eyes locked on their phones. With the minimal exchange of formalities, they grab a cookie and return to their rooms, where they scroll away until their phones get collected at 10:30 pm.

Unfortunately, this is a real picture of a typical night described by a dorm resident. Deerfield’s new phone policy this year collects all underclassmen's phones at night from 10:30 pm to 5:30 am. I believe the expansion of the phone policy is directly responsible for this sobering scene.

However, I first want to acknowledge the spirit of goodwill the administration had in mind when they crafted this policy. Their commitment to community and face-to-face interactions is part of what makes the Deerfield experience great. Nevertheless, policies must be judged by their effects rather than their crafter’s intentions.

I also want to make a distinction between the new daytime and nighttime policies. I believe that the daytime policy, which prohibits phone usage from 8 am to 6:30 pm, is a mostly reasonable extension of an existing, successful policy. I believe that almost all students already appreciate and buy into the notion of being present during the school day and keeping their phones away. Many coaches I spoke to also appreciate the new policy because it increases engagement during practices, which their teams previously struggled with.

The main complaint I have centers around the rigidity of the policy. There are many scenarios where having a phone would be quite reasonable: a cross-country runner listening to music on a long run down Mill Village Road, a student on a two-hour bus ride to St. Paul’s using a hotspot to finish a project due the next day, or an athlete checking their training plans while moving about in the Athletic Complex. I believe that explicitly giving coaches and faculty the right to discretion would ultimately accommodate for the practical day-to-day. Respecting the spirit of the policy will also show that the administration cares more for the principle of face-to-face interactions than rigid rules.

On the other hand, I firmly believe the nighttime policy has been a substantial overreach. The administration intended the nighttime policy to promote better phone usage habits, but in reality, the policy has made screen time on phones rare and precious. Freshmen and sophomores, who now have very limited time with their phones, use them in a binge-like fashion during the small windows of time they have. As a result, I also believe that feed culture has disappeared. The spontaneous, spirited conversations I had over grilled cheese and dino nuggets last year have instead been replaced by underclassmen silently scrolling away. The policy didn’t eliminate distractions—it eliminated genuine social interactions.

In addition, this new policy makes it even more difficult for underclassmen to stay in touch with their families. For both new students struggling to form deep connections and students thousands of miles from home, phones can give access to parental support at a convenient time each night. As an institution that takes mental health seriously, Deerfield should consider the impact the policy has on this essential connection.

Fundamentally, I believe that the nighttime policy is flawed be cause it does not build the effective phone habits that the administration claims it will. Good habits cannot be imposed upon high school students as one would with young children; students must actively choose to build them. Strong habits are the product of a struggle to make the right decision when wrong ones are so easily available; this is the same principle that the administration applies to academic integrity. Thus, it is ironic when the administration takes this agency away from students at night. Students are no longer the ones making the choice to get sleep instead of scrolling through social media. When students think of the policy, they see an inconvenience rather than a chance for self-improvement; this fosters resentment rather than the buy-in mentality needed to build strong habits.

Additionally, the new policy does not make social media less addictive. It kicks the proverbial can down a progressively rockier road. Instagram’s and TikTok’s algorithms are only going to get better at giving you exactly the reels you want to see. By stopping underclassmen from developing the agency and will to choose their health over the negatives of social media, the current policy creates a steep cliff that we should be fearful of. Junior year comes with a myriad of challenges, including a tougher course load, a lack of study hall, and unprecedented freedom with phones. It is not the year for students to be trial-and-erroring their way to habits that work for them. If the administration encourages students to grapple with unfamiliar concepts and arrive at their own understandings in classrooms, why are underclassmen denied the opportunity to grapple with their phone habits during years with lighter courseloads?

I believe we should return to the old study hall phone system, which worked great because it transferred responsibility and trust to students gradually. Freshmen’s phones were collected and held in the common room, inaccessible for the duration of study hall; sophomores were required to leave their phones just outside their rooms—usable, if necessary; eventually, juniors were given full authority over their devices. When considering the cell phone policy, the administration should aim to create a similar, gradual program that aims to encourage the thoughtful development of strong, personalized habits for life, not just uniform, temporary compliance at Deerfield.