Laptop ban? Why weren’t students consulted?
Before the laptopban was introduced in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, students should at least have been given a say, argues student Emma Shi. “By subjecting students to a paternalistic ban. the programme shows that it has little confidence in students ability to manage their screen use responsibly during lectures.”
While the digitalization of the classroom has always had pros and cons, the complete ban of digital devices during all UvA lectures in ISW raises concerns. The key problem is whether students should have autonomy in deciding their own ways of learning, and who decides the university policy. While the democratization of university has caused a long-term debate between student activists and the management board, the decision of banning digital devices becomes a reflection of this structural issue.
Lack of transparency
The ban itself didn't come out of nowhere. Many lecturers, including the ones outside ISW, have already forbidden the use of digital devices during the class time to advocate for better concentration. The response, according to teacher Bram Mellink, has been more "overwhelmingly positive" than negative. However, he acknowledges that there are some students who find it annoying. The NOS coverage has also included the student's opinion that student should have the freedom of choice since they also have the responsibility to prepare for exams.
The problem here, I would argue, is not exactly how many students have found the method helpful, but how this decision came into place. In a matter that concerns all students, nevertheless, there is no transparency regarding how the department has come to the decision. Generally speaking, as many other policies in UvA, Students' interest is represented without active involvement from the students. Merely saying the method has received certain positive outcome is not enough.
“In a word, if the student's response at the end of the year showed that the majority disliked the policy, would the department change its decision?”, asked one former graduate from ISW. The answer seems to be negative, because the policy didn't start with a democratic procedure. The same fear has also spread across other programmes, since the form of the ban shows that crucial change to student's freedom in class can be decided without any main student bodies involved. It also sparkles questions regarding how the ban can be physically enforced if students on site refuse to cooperate.
Learning habits vary
Another key debating point from the students is whether such ban harms inclusion and equality for students with different backgrounds. Even though UvA policy has exempted students with special needs from a general class ban like this, the additional paper work plus the isolation in class may further single out disadvantaged students.
When the university bans the digital devices on the ground of reducing distraction and forcing concentration, however, not every student performs better with pen and paper. Some students, such as those with dyslexia, may prefer digital tools because they can make up for the speed. In general, the university should not define the best form of learning for students, when students come in different conditions.
When there are students who learn better with their screens off, there are also students who learn better with a screen. With this prerequisite, instead of asking students who need such method to voluntarily join the supervision, an unitary ban of digital devices possibly does more harm than good to ensuring inclusion and equality in the programme.
Infantilization
Behind the decision of subjecting students to a paternalistic-style of ban, the department has shown distrust in how students can manage screen use responsibly in class. It it noteworthy that UvA is not the only university that has done this; some French universities such as Sciences Po Rennes have implemented similar restrictions. Nevertheless, even if the reason of concentration in class is justified, the method infantilizes students in their choice of learning. The students who are responsible in using digital tools are actually punished for the ones who are irresponsible.
It is stated that the university hopes to encourage concentration in class with this ban. If teachers also understand that concentration can only be encouraged instead of being forced, why does a strict ban of all digital devices become the solution? The university has not sufficiently prepared all students enrolled in the programme for such change, neither is there a clear pathway for students to opt out if they feel uncomfortable with the new rule.
To demonstrate this point, despite the ban being reported in the news, this part of programme policy is not listed as key information when students check the website to apply. If the basic right to know is not even ensured, it is questionable whether students have a voice in representing their interest. As someone who has shared electives with ISW students and could not have graduated without using my screens in class, I personally believe that the university cannot expect the students to be responsible while not treating students as equal subjects with agency.
