n0mesorah,
“Some people in chinuch dropped their own nuanced hands off approach when it came to yeshiva bachurim and their phones.”
Hands off is not the same thing as nuanced. And in your previous post you wrote essentially the same thing, but attributing it to brainwashing from an overarching anti-technology movement. Maybe the menahel or yeshiva staff decided to give smartphones the boot after witnessing firsthand how disruptive they were, or after parents pulled their kids out because other kids were showing them inappropriate images.
“The fall out -even today- is tremendous. The yeshiva staff did not see anything from the angle of the student body. They were continually at war with some talmidim.”
You can’t really have it both ways – arguing on the one hand that the specter of smartphone addiction is overblown, but then catastrophizing the impact of their removal from the Yeshiva.
“2) The boys that were not committing to permanently giving up their phone, had no one to talk to. Half the yeshiva was put on a pedestal for not having a phone”
Were they banned, or were they not? This makes it seem like they were not banned, but rather those who opted to keep their phones were treated differently?
“and overlooked them for everything.”
What does this mean?
“3) Bachurim had to get rid of their phones within a week. They had to figure out if they should cancel or not. They had to put all their info somewhere else. Some had to figure out new travel arrangements. It disrupted a lot of the routine.”
These are reasonable points. It sounds like the Yeshiva should have been more judicious with the timing of the ban; maybe instituting it bein hazmanim to give students more time to adjust or decide what to do, and providing more resources and support for the logistical impacts of the policy. But these impacts are different than the vague and ominous “fallout” you’re referring to above.
“And it encouraged face to face encounters that were not desirable.”
Please explain.