Natural Selection, the South Carolina Phone Ban’s Effects on the School Environment, and the Lack of Children’s Representation

In nature, the ever-turning wheel of evolution is spun by the flow of natural selection. The idea that those who are fit survive, and the ones who are not, do not. This process allows for species to improve slowly via genetic mutations that creep into the gene pool and stay, as the fittest creatures reproduce.

As humanity advances, we stray farther from the natural sacredness that we have been blessed with. Because of this, the natural part of natural selection has disappeared. The artificial lifestyle of the average human has caused aid for individuals that may not need it. Now, I am not proposing that we let anybody die, but I am proposing that foolish decisions should not be compensated for, nor should others have to deal with any artificial consequences that may come along.

For a relevant example, let us take the phone ban of South Carolina. On one hand, people who are for the ban argue that phones are a massive distraction within the learning environment, which is a completely valid standpoint to make. However, I believe that it is unfair for people who have self-control to be punished for the lack of control some have over themselves. The people who stay on their phones at school are aware of the risk they are taking, understanding that distracting themselves may hinder their education. Because of this, it is my opinion that as long as the students are not distracting others, then using their phone is the business of the student and the student only. Instead, the school decides to try and force the students to focus in class, whether they want to or not. Even students who care not for their education. The natural selection of students and their academic capabilities should be measured by their level of self control, discipline, and willingness to learn. Let nature take its course and weed out those who are unwilling to learn.

It is understood by me and the majority of my fellow students that “Rock Hill High School has no control and is just enforcing the law.” However, it has become a noticeable and recurring issue that some teachers will often disrupt peaceful and orderly procedure for the chance of finding a phone. For example, I once observed a teacher (who will remain unnamed) chase a student down the hallway, shouting allegations that the student had a phone in their pocket during a transitional period. However, the student turned around and presented an item to the teacher that was not a phone. I want to once again reiterate that the students of Rock Hill High fully understand that the teacher must enforce the phone policy as a part of their job. However, as I watched this spectacle unfold, I realized that some of the teachers of Rock Hill High School have acquired a seemingly sadistic taste for catching children with phones that seems to not only disturb the students, but disturb the professional and educational atmosphere of the school.

To me, and many other students whom I have asked, school has become less of a fun, safe, learning environment, and more of a daily imprisonment where adults attempt to squeeze out as much disciplinary power over students as possible. Problems like constant drama, bullying, mental decline, dysfunctional sinks, and overall safety seem to be neglected in favor of allowing, telling, and enforcing the idea that teachers should confiscate the phones of students. This constant enforcement, and confiscation hinders nature’s ability to select those who are excited and willing to learn, by prohibiting that which points out those who are not. (Author’s note: as of writing this on 9/9/2026, an adult walked into the class and disrupted the educational environment to “pop in and check on us.”)

While the phone ban disrupts, disturbs, and ultimately assists in the rapid undermining of the main purpose of education, it also affects mostly students. The phone ban (Proviso 1.103.) was implemented specifically to prohibit students from using electronic devices throughout the school day. This legislation was implemented in January 2025 by the South Carolina Department of Education. The vote was unanimously voted for by a team of voters consisting entirely of adults. These adults were appointed via votes from different adults. The demographic that this legislation affects had absolutely zero representation in the creation and passage of this law which I and many other students find to be entirely unfair. According to the United Nations “Convention on the Rights of the Child” Article 12 “…the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body…”. However, in all of the research I have conducted in the creation of this essay, I have found that no child was provided the opportunity to be heard in the administrative agency proceedings that is the South Carolina Department of Education’s creation of Proviso 1.103. (Authors note: After doing extensive research, I found that the United States of America is the one and only country out of the entire United Nations to sign but not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.)

To conclude this piece, I ask the reader to please consider the feelings of the students, whose natural selection has been disregarded in favor of punishing those who are unwilling to learn and apply themselves to the educational atmosphere. The environment of school has been sacrificed, the relationship between teachers and students is corroding, and the priorities of administration have been diverted to simple and unimportant things in favor of giving the students who lack self control an “equal” chance. It is my opinion that we should allow nature to take its course, allow natural selection to pick its victims, and allow the phone policy to work itself out. (Authors note: I also encourage the reader, who may or may not be a child themself, to consider the idea of children getting at least some representation in judicial and administrative proceedings that directly affect them in the future. I imagine that the reader would want their voice, and possibly their future children’s voices to be heard.)