The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the impact of cell phone restrictions in classrooms on student learning and behavior, referencing a study to support the claim. The tone is somewhat dismissive of opposing views ('naysayers'), but it acknowledges the value of empirical evidence.
- The statement does not directly harm others but could be seen as dismissive of opposing views, which may not fully align with striving to do no harm. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes understanding by referencing a study that supports the claim about cell phone restrictions, contributing to informed discourse. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement could engage more constructively with those who disagreed in the past, as it refers to them as 'naysayers' rather than fostering dialogue. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.