In 2025, College Board found that 84% of high school students admitted to using AI tools to some extent in their schoolwork. The same year, Education Week found that 61% of teachers admitted they did the same. 

And at universities such as Oregon State, institutions are faced with trying to address the academic concerns that come with AI, all while staying on the cutting edge of modern technology. 

At the end of the day, does AI benefit our education? 

YES 

By Orion Glover and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program

Imagine a student sitting in a math class, right on the edge of understanding a concept. They ask a question, but the explanation doesn’t quite click. Embarrassed to ask again, they stay silent and fall behind.

What that student needs is a tutor that is free from social pressures. Yes, students do use AI to cheat, but this casts a shadow on its real potential. While it should never be used to bypass coursework, AI is an incredible tool during the initial stages of learning.

I, Orion, am a first-year engineering student at Linn-Benton Community College, and I spend a lot of time just trying to understand difficult concepts from dense textbooks and lectures. Using AI, I can ask the same question in different ways. I can ask for diagrams, overviews, and step-by-step explanations, immediately testing my understanding with practice problems.

This one-on-one experience can help students learn with less stress. According to a 2026 study from Frontiers in Psychology, this low-pressure dynamic has been found especially helpful for students who are struggling the most to learn certain topics. Instead of checking out when it feels like there is no way forward, AI offers a path for students to stay engaged and find more meaning in their education.

AI also promises to enhance one of the most important parts of the college experience: large projects and research. Students with good  ideas are often held up by technical skills they might not have, such as coding, or by impossible roadblocks such as analyzing millions of data points. 

Facing this exact data issue, a student at the University of Southampton built an AI tool to scan millions of aerial images for ancient ruins, discovering 120 new historic sites across Scotland. Not only did she learn more herself, but AI unlocked a vision that had a positive impact on society.

When integrated well, AI can also help students achieve more in the classroom. Recently in Engineering 102 at LBCC, my teacher said AI could be used to elevate our Excel projects, on the condition that we could explain any part of the project during a graded presentation to the class.

The result? Students used their creativity to the fullest, taking their ideas and using AI to help learn how to achieve them. AI is uniquely helpful for this. Instead of searching 20 minutes for an outdated Excel video on a different operating system, you can upload a screenshot and get advice on how to move forward that is specific to your goals and situation. 

With guidance on advanced functions, students were able to create Excel workbooks that looked more like a website than a spreadsheet, all while learning the advanced methods they were using because of how the teacher set up the project. 

AI is a tool that can make it easier for anyone to learn in their own way and at their own speed. There have never been enough teachers to go around – until now.

NO

By Lili Daniel and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program 

As a full-time student with multiple part-time jobs, I, Lili, often wish that there was some easy system or magic tool that I could use to make learning easier. AI tools are sold as that magic bullet. They make things easier on the surface level. But what are they doing to us long term?

AI models mathematically determine what words are most likely to be found together in order to generate human-like output. Because of this guesswork, they can produce inaccurate or misleading information. They can be biased, too, based on the data they are trained on – in one study, ChatGPT analogized “terrorist” with “Muslim” 23% of the time and “money” with “Jewish” 5% of the time. Why would we use these tools that we know can produce such problematic, inaccurate work?

Using tools can get work done faster with poorer learning outcomes. This is known as cognitive offloading – essentially, making something else do the tough thinking for you. This can be harmless, but if you become reliant on tools, you’ll be unable to perform the same tasks without them. 

For example, I have used citation generators for years to avoid the tedious task of manually writing works cited pages. Now, despite having turned in countless “correct” works cited pages, I still wouldn’t be able to write a good one on my own.

The same thing appears to be happening with AI, but when it comes to even more tasks: writing emails, reading articles, making art. Though the output may appear acceptable, what’s going on in the brain is different.

AI is cognitive offloading to the max: a cheap and easy way to complete big tasks that should require skill building and learning.

Let’s use writing essays as an example. A recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that using AI while writing essays resulted in lower recall of essay contents, lower sense of ownership, and, scariest of all, lower brain connectivity. The study found that “AI tools, while valuable for supporting performance, may unintentionally hinder deep cognitive processing.” 

Though the output might look the same, what’s going on in the brain is different. It worries me to imagine the long-term effects of chronic AI usage on the brain.

I understand that, from an academic perspective, many of us are focused on grades – and for good reason. But while an AI model can output something that looks like an essay, and may be graded as an essay, the student prompting AI misses out on the cognitive work and the learning.

If you want to really learn something, you need to struggle a little bit. 

When I first got into art, I was really bad at it and I gave up many times. But I kept going back to it, practicing, and learning from experts. Now, I love most of the paintings that I make. But if I had asked someone else to make the art for me, I would have the paintings but would have lost out on what made them meaningful. 

Learning is an art and an invaluable lifelong skill. I encourage students to embrace the hard parts of struggling, thinking for themselves, and creating their own work.

The post LBCC Civil Discourse: Does AI Benefit Our Education?  appeared first on The Commuter.

Sometimes two environmental goals can clash with each other. 

Hydroelectric dams are by far the state’s most successful and important source of renewable energy. But a recent ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon ordered that dams along the Columbia and Snake Rivers generate less power in order to improve conditions for Oregon’s waning salmon populations. 

Is Simon’s ruling the right move to help one of the state’s most important – and endangered – species? 

YES
By Carter McAleer, Emi Dano, and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program

A keystone species is an organism that has exceptional and disproportionate influence on its ecosystem. Salmon aren’t just a keystone species in Oregon’s rivers and streams, but also to the state’s industry and culture. So when it comes down to saving this foundational animal in its time of need, let the rivers flow. 

Whether you’re a commercial fisherman, a new resident to Oregon, or one of the 137 wildlife species that depend on salmon, you’re probably familiar with these fish that beat at the heart of our state and the Pacific Northwest as a whole. 

Because of their unique migration patterns, salmon are an important source of marine nutrients deep into freshwater streams, supporting bears, birds, vegetation, and just about everything under the sun. Unfortunately, as salmon numbers decline, whole food webs are threatened at multiple trophic levels. 

But hope for our ecosystem isn’t lost: By allowing more water to pass through dams and maintaining smaller reservoirs, migratory paths for salmon can be restored, allowing them to once again enrich our rivers and homes. 

Culturally, salmon are part of Oregon’s identity. They play an essential role among Oregon tribes now, just as they have historically. They dictate calendars for fishermen in and out of state alike, and they even have their own license plate exclusive to Oregon. Their survival isn’t just a matter of environmental concern but of cultural dependence. 

In 2024, former U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland warned of the “devastating impact of federal hydropower dams on Tribal communities,” which sums it up perfectly. In the Treaty of 1855, the right to fish at all “usual and accustomed places” was guaranteed to the Nez Perce, Yakama, Umatilla, and Warm Springs tribes. However, as dams have shrunk our vital rivers and the salmon population with them, we continue to disrespect and disregard this promise without outright breaking it. 

With all that said, we recognize the economic importance of hydropower in Oregon’s infrastructure. Historically, energy produced from dams has made up a large portion of our state’s energy output, and it continues to do so to this day. 

However, hydropower’s dependence on natural resources has left the industry just as volatile as salmon’s survival, costing Oregon $1.5 billion in revenue over the last 18 years, whereas Oregon’s commercial fishing industry has never been better. In 2025, economic activity was at an all-time high, reaching $1.1 billion and supporting over 10,000 jobs statewide despite our low salmon stock abundance. And all of this economic success is despite the barriers Oregon’s beloved salmon have faced; if anything, this is an industry that should be fueled, not stunted. Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon agrees. 

For years, dams have blocked salmon’s passage across the Pacific Northwest, permanently cutting out as much as 40% of available spawning grounds within the Columbia River Basin alone. The large reservoirs that dams create slow down water, causing temperature rises that can be outright lethal to salmon. 

Now, under Judge Simon’s new mandates, salmon may have a fighting chance to recover their prominence as a cornerstone of Oregon’s cultural and economic identity. 

NO
By Orion Glover and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program

Many Oregonians don’t realize that nearly 40% of the electricity we generate in the state comes from burning fossil fuels. As energy demand rises and hydropower falls, Oregon must look to other sources of power. Under our current energy system, fossil fuels are the only near term alternative, meaning Judge Simon’s decision threatens to raise this number even higher. 

The power that replaces hydro should come from renewables, and yet, it is exceedingly difficult to connect green projects to the grid at this time. A 2025 ProPublica and Oregon Public Broadcasting investigation found that the state’s uniquely flawed management system of our transmission lines has led to hundreds of denied wind and solar projects. Billions of dollars and years of bureaucracy in the way of a timely resolution. But the judge’s decision means we need that energy now. 

Limiting hydropower also creates another urgent need. Unlike the more inconsistent energy of wind and solar, hydropower reservoirs can control how much water is released, adjusting the power flowing into the grid. During heat waves, when millions of air conditioners run, dams provide electricity that stabilizes the grid and prevents blackouts. Right now, the only stand-in for this reliability are gas burning power plants. 

Burning fossil fuels undermines the very reason advocates are pushing for hydropower restrictions. Oceans warmed by climate change are causing serious damage to salmon populations. A crucial contributor to Oregon’s reputation as a green state, hydropower makes up around 41% of our electricity generation. Any loss of hydropower not only moves Oregon away from climate targets, but it further worsens the conditions that are affecting worldwide salmon populations. 

Higher emissions come with higher costs. Oregonians are already feeling the pressure of high energy prices with recent statewide energy hikes continuing a punishing climb of around 50% in the last five years. Hydropower has long helped to combat rising prices at a lower cost than other power sources. In fact, estimates from The Bonneville Power Administration show the court ruling could increase the cost of power by as much as 17%. 

Our electricity costs are not an optional expense. Some families already struggle through hotter summers and are forced to cut back on cooling to keep power bills manageable. A recent U.S. Energy Information Administration survey showed that around one in every three U.S. households struggles to pay electricity bills. 

Dam removal may also fail to turn around the salmon decline. Alaskan rivers, untouched by manmade barriers, are experiencing nearly identical drops in salmon as dammed rivers. At the same time, modern fish recovery systems on the lower Snake River dams have survival rates similar to undammed rivers. 

We already have access to technologies that allow safe fish passage, and require a fraction of the cost Oregonians will pay for higher energy prices. Modern turbine designs, surface collectors, and advanced spillways have seen survival rates between 97% and 99% at different dams across Oregon. 

Paring down hydropower means swapping a working climate solution for unknown benefits to salmon. Instead of paying the high price of fossil fuel use, Oregon should invest in modern fish passage technologies that protect both salmon and the communities that depend on affordable energy.

The post LBCC Civil Discourse Weighs Energy vs. Salmon appeared first on The Commuter.

The post Civil Discourse Event appeared first on The Commuter.

The post Civil Discourse Event appeared first on The Commuter.

Sanctuary states prevent local police and government agencies from helping federal authorities with immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant. 

This can take on many forms, from police not assisting with ICE operations, to state agencies not asking about immigration status in many cases. Oregon law also prevents law enforcement from honoring immigration detainers, which are requests from the Department of Homeland Security to keep someone who immigrated illegally in jail or prison past their initial sentence so federal immigration enforcement can place them in custody.  

Sanctuary states and cities have been thrust further into the spotlight as an increased presence from Immigration Customs and Enforcement has become a key aspect of President Donald Trump’s second term. Even with its sanctuary status, Oregon saw a dramatic increase in immigration arrests from 2024 to 2025. 

Some argue sanctuary states are more necessary now than ever, while others point to the required lack of collaboration between state and federal authorities only serving to worsen tensions. Would it be best for Oregon to keep its status? 

YES 

By Emilia Dano and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program 

Sanctuary jurisdictions do not have higher crime rates; in fact, they often see lower rates of violent crime and property crime compared to non-sanctuary jurisdictions. This does not mean being a sanctuary state causes less crime, but when a state is designated as a sanctuary state, like Oregon, it does not create more public safety issues for all the communities found there. 

In sanctuary states all communities, especially communities of immigrants, feel more comfortable reporting crimes and activities. Since immigrant communities are often in lower income areas where more crime is likely to occur, this is a huge benefit to have people that will be able to report crime without fear of their own safety, and even potentially feel comfortable acting as a witness during an investigation. This also allows for local law enforcement agencies to focus on local crime and safety rather than immigration, which is handled by the federal government. 

In the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, the principle of state sovereignty is outlined, allowing Oregon and other states to determine the best use of their own resources (such as the police) rather than the federal government determining it for us. This protects the states from federal overreach, and also protects residents of the state from unjustified detention and ensuring due process, especially when federal immigration enforcement operates without a judicial warrant.

In Oregon, a significant amount of our work force, particularly in agriculture, construction, and healthcare, is made up by immigrants. Both in the state and in other cities across the country, having more ICE activity and more immigration crackdown greatly affects the economy, and not in a good way. In other states where immigration was suppressed we have seen labor exoduses, such as Florida’s 2023 immigration law (Senate Bill 1718), which made it harder to hire undocumented immigrants, which resulted in increased labor shortages in specifically agriculture and construction. 

Immigrating to the United States of America from a country in the Caribbean, Central, or South America is considered to be very difficult. This process is often expensive, time consuming, and can take up to years or even decades. It is not a fair argument to say that undocumented immigrants should have come here “the right way” when the legal process of coming here is excessively difficult. 

The process is daunting. Just the paperwork for legal immigration for a standard U.S. citizenship by naturalization is $760, and then you still have to wait years – or decades – until citizenship is actually granted. 

A majority of the immigrants seeking citizenship in America come here for good reasons; if the process for immigration is made more fair, then it is easier to weed out the people who enter the country seeking to get away from criminal records or drug trafficking, or other worries people have about the minority of immigrants. 

Until then, we have sanctuary states in place to allow for public safety for all, protection of constitutional principles, and supporting the economics of immigration.

NO 

By Travis Overvig, Mark Nusom, and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program 

Supporters of sanctuary states argue such laws build trust and protect vulnerable communities. Those goals deserve respect. But public policy must be judged by outcomes. 

Start with scale. Pew Research Center estimates the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States reached a record 14 million in 2023. Today, Oregon has more than 100,000 unauthorized immigrants, roughly the combined populations of Albany and Corvallis. Entering the country illegally or overstaying a visa violates federal law. Reform can be debated, but selectively declining to enforce existing law weakens the rule of law itself.

The safest moment for immigration enforcement is when someone is already in custody after committing a crime. Research from the Migration Policy Institute shows that historically, most immigration arrests within the U.S. stem from individuals first encountered in the criminal justice system, meaning enforcement has long relied on secure custody transfers rather than later at-large arrests in neighborhoods or workplaces. 

When coordination is blocked and detainers are declined, enforcement does not disappear — it shifts into public settings, increasing complexity and operational risk. National polling shows federal immigration agencies face substantial public skepticism. Blocking coordinated jail transfers can unintentionally increase reliance on the very at-large federal operations critics seek to limit.

When detainers are declined and individuals are released, federal authorities must initiate removal proceedings through immigration court rather than coordinating a custody transfer during jail time. Each declined detainer becomes a new case in an already overwhelmed system. According to TRAC at Syracuse University, the immigration court backlog has surpassed 3 million pending cases, with each judge handling roughly 4,500 cases. That isn’t precision; it’s institutional delay layered on top of release.

This is not theoretical. Consider the case of Ramon Aguirre Ochoa, deported in 2009 and arrested again in 2015 on domestic assault charges before being released despite an ICE detainer. Less than a year later, he was arrested and charged with multiple violent sexual offenses against a minor. The case shows what can happen when detainers are declined — a preventable second victim following a failure of coordination. A secure custody transfer would have meant no delay, no public arrest, and no second victim.

There is also a question of fairness. The United States is home to more legal immigrants than any nation in the world. Millions wait years, pay fees, pass background checks, and comply with every requirement because they believe the rules matter. When policies shield unlawful presence even after repeated violations of federal law, it sends a harmful message: the line only matters for those willing to stand in it. That double standard undermines the integrity of the system and disrespects immigrants who followed the law.

Ending sanctuary status would not mean mass deportations or hostility toward immigrant communities. It would mean allowing controlled coordination when someone has already broken the law and is in custody. It would mean safer enforcement, clearer accountability, and equal application of the law. Nearly four decades after becoming the nation’s first sanctuary state, Oregon should restore controlled cooperation and reconsider whether its sanctuary policy still serves Oregon’s public interest.

The post LBCC Civil Discourse: Should Oregon Continue as a Sanctuary State? appeared first on The Commuter.

The post Civil Discourse Event appeared first on The Commuter.

College. The faraway land we used to casually dismiss in middle school. Portrayed as something insanely vigorous, intimidating, intense, and purely for adults. Movies didn’t help either; one minute they showed the friend-filled college community and endless parties, the next they showed sleepless nights of studying and messy piles of books.

Growing up, college always felt larger than life. Teachers made it sound like the boogeyman heading our way. Movies either romanticized it into a nonstop party or dramatized it into a soul-crushing grind. In reality? It’s challenging, sure, but not untouchable, even for high schoolers.

I remember thinking whenever I heard people talk about college or saw it in movies, “Oh, I have time!”

I did not have time.

Okay, maybe that’s a bit dramatic, but still. At the fresh age of fourteen, I enrolled at Linn-Benton Community College through my charter school. My thought process? Why not? I had nothing to lose, right? It was an amazing opportunity. I could knock out two birds with one stone by earning my high school diploma and my associate’s degree at the same time. I figured I’d just get a move on in life.

I kept that exact attitude until, quite precisely, the day before classes started. Suddenly, reality hit. I wasn’t excited anymore; I was terrified. I’m not usually an anxious person, but all I could think about was (1) how queasy I felt, and (2) how unprepared I was.

Honestly, it felt like the end of my fun. I thought I couldn’t goof around anymore or be a kid, that I had to suddenly be serious and disciplined, which I was not ready for. My perception of college was completely skewed. Watching my older siblings slog through studying and lectures made it look miserable.

“I’m going to turn around right now, unenroll, and no one will ever know,” I told myself as I walked to my first class. Spoiler: I did not turn around. I walked in fifteen minutes early (really the last time I was ever that early) and sat in the front row (also the last time that happened).

And just like that, I experienced my first college class at fifteen, and the world, in fact, did not end.

I stayed the whole class, signed up for another term, then another. Rinse and repeat until now.

Looking back, college did feel incredibly daunting at first – and during plenty of moments after that too -but it taught me something unexpected. It’s not nearly as scary as it seems. Once I got over that first wave of nerves, I realized that professors are people that actually care about students succeeding, and most classmates are just trying to figure things out like I am. The workload can be tough, but it’s manageable, and the independence is actually freeing.

Dual enrolling has turned out to be one of the best decisions I’ve ever made. It’s helped me grow in confidence, get ahead academically, and learn how to balance responsibilities early on. I’ve met people of all ages, learned how to ask questions, and figured out that it’s okay not to know everything right away.

Looking back, college definitely felt like the monster under the bed. Huge, shadowy, and way too close for comfort. But after that first class, I realized it wasn’t a monster at all. It was just… college. The same place I used to think was larger than life turned out to be perfectly human-sized, and honestly? Pretty fun once you stop running from it.

The post College Isn’t The Boogeyman appeared first on The Commuter.

The post Boys To Men: Why America’s Sons Are Struggling appeared first on The Commuter.

After influential conservative activist and Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk was murdered on Sept. 10, a wave of reactions followed – many of which sparked controversy online.

One of those instances was in Philomath. 

On Sept. 11, then-Philomath School Board Chair Erin Gudge posted on her personal Facebook account that she “will not mourn” Kirk following his death. 

Gudge has since deleted the post, but as reported by outlets such as The Philomath News and The Albany Democrat-Herald, its full text read as follows: 

“I will not mourn someone who spewed hatred in the face of grieving mothers the day their children were murdered. I will not mourn someone who would have preferred my own child not exist. I will not mourn someone who was teaching young people that empathy is weak and that civil rights should not be afforded to all. I feel deeply sad for his children. I do not mourn him.” 

Gudge’s post was reportedly in response to a post from another account which included an image that quoted, “Some men improve the world only by leaving it,” and a caption that read, “I can choose to not celebrate but also not be sad.” 

Following news coverage and community complaints, Gudge stepped down as board chair in an Oct. 8 school board hearing. The board then voted to censure – essentially, publicly disapprove – her comments. 

Although no longer chair, Gudge remains on the board, continuing the four-year term she began in July. 

Was it correct for Gudge to step down and be censured following her post? 

YES

By April Jang and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program

While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, elected officials carry a duty to uphold public trust, political neutrality, and the policies of the school district. For these reasons, Philomath’s school board chair, Erin Gudge, needed to be removed from her position in response to her recent statements regarding the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. 

Elected officials, particularly those involved in education, are held to a high standard of professionalism. Publicly expressing a lack of empathy about an individual’s death – regardless of their political stance – is inappropriate. 

This is especially concerning as a leader responsible for shaping the youth. Such behavior causes distrust among the students and their families, and they become wary of the board’s ability to lead with compassion and fairness. 

Additionally, it leads the public to believe that their policy decisions are ideologically motivated. Despite the board’s censure of Gudge’s Facebook post, this still negatively impacts the image of the school board as a whole and undermines their legitimacy in subsequent actions even when their decisions may be fair and evidence-based. 

While board members are entitled to personal opinions, they must always put their responsibility to serve the entire community first. Making polarizing statements publicly – even on a personal Facebook page – raises doubts about one’s ability to represent diverse viewpoints in their official role. 

People may struggle to distinguish between an official’s personal opinion and their public stance. This ambiguity confuses the stance of the school board, and creates unnecessary controversy. Even though the post was made on a personal account, the simple fact that Gudge was the board chair made it so that her words hold extra weight in any context. 

Statements are easily misunderstood. Thus, it is in the interest of officials to remain entirely neutral on matters as tragic and polarizing as the Kirk assassination. This goes with the common saying “if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say it at all.” 

As much as I understand the need for free speech and political freedom, Gudge’s statement was negative and hurtful to those who were mourning Charlie Kirk’s death. 

Regardless of how her Facebook post was perceived by the public and the community, the bottom line is that there was a clear violation of the school district policy. 

The Philomath board ruled that the post violated the district’s standards of conduct. This decision was based on the two policies of using social media and other electronic communication judiciously and respectfully, and respecting the public when using these platforms.  Institutions adopt such structural rules and policies for the benefit of the community, and for the purpose of maintaining a healthy, welcoming learning environment for students. 

When these rules are not enforced, it sets a precedent for political activism over public service. 

Gudge’s resignation isn’t about suppressing free speech – it’s about the concerns of professionalism, inclusivity of the entire community, and setting the right precedent in order to uphold the credibility of public institutions such as a school district. When personal expressions undermine the public role, stepping down is the most responsible course.

NO

By Norah Steed and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program

When Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September, I was personally shocked and appalled, both by the initial act of violence and the flood of discourse that would quickly follow. 

Charlie Kirk was a complicated figure. He was not received simply in life. There is no simple way to feel about his death. Any attempt to present a simple interpretation ignores what he represented to a large group of people, either those who agreed or disagreed with him and his messaging. 

In all honesty, I’m still figuring out how to feel about Kirk and his murder.

Although I’ve gone back and forth on a lot of other things, I’m sure that Kirk’s death was a loss for freedom of speech. The thought that people should fear losing their lives or livelihoods to voice their opinions is awful. 

That is why I must defend Philomath School Board Chair Erin Gudge, who posted on Facebook that she would “not mourn” Kirk. Since making that post (which has since been deleted), Gudge has faced calls for her resignation, a hearing, and, ultimately, censure by the school board. 

On Oct. 7, Gudge elected to leave her position, saying, “Because there isn’t a policy in place that allows my fellow board members to remove me as chair of the board, in a good faith effort to restore public trust, I will be voluntarily stepping down as chair of this board effective immediately.” 

I respect Gudge for making this decision, but I believe she should not have been pushed to it the way she was.

Just as Charlie Kirk had the right to use his platform to spread his beliefs, Erin Gudge (and everyone else sharing similar thoughts at this time) has the right to share her honest reactions to current events.

When Erin Gudge became a Philomath school board member, she agreed to maintain the Board Member Standard of Conduct. She and her fellow board members agreed to “(u)se social media, websites, or other electronic communication judiciously, respectfully, and in a manner that does not violate Oregon’s Public Meetings Laws” and to “treat and refer to other Board members, staff, students and the public with respect.”

As I see it, Gudge’s Facebook post was not in violation of those clauses. It was not a public statement. She was not speaking on behalf of the school district or in her capacity as school board chair. She didn’t disclose anything sensitive or restricted. It didn’t harm or disparage any Philomath students or staff. Her post was fully a personal matter, having nothing to do with her position or her ability to fulfill it.

If anything, I believe the other members of the school board are in violation of a third clause, to “(r)espect the right of other Board members to have opinions and ideas which differ.” 

Whether or not Gudge’s fellow board members personally agree with Gudge’s post should be irrelevant. Gudge, an elected public official, was exercising her right as an off-hours private citizen to share her honest perspective on Kirk’s death. Her fellow board members have the right to disagree with her, but they shouldn’t be threatening her position over a difference of opinion.

Charlie Kirk had the protections to say things many people found distasteful (and many others found true and important). We must afford the same protections to Gudge and those who agree with her. Erin Gudge should not be losing her position over a Facebook post.

The post Civil Discourse: School Board Controversy Spurs Free Speech Debate appeared first on The Commuter.

Civil Discourse Op-Ed

Let’s stop pretending we don’t see the problem. Students are losing focus, falling behind, and checking out, and a big part of the reason is sitting in their pockets. 

Gov. Tina Kotek’s executive order banning cell phone use during school hours isn’t overreach. It’s common sense. Phones have slowly turned classrooms into a fight for attention, and our kids are the ones losing. If we’re serious about education, we need to be serious about removing the distractions that are eroding it.

In 2022, the Program for International Student Assessment found that two-thirds of students say they’re distracted by devices in class. The result is clear: lower scores, less focus, and a system stretched thin. A 2025 National Center for Education Statistics survey shows over 70% of school leaders believe phones hurt mental health and attention spans. More than half say they directly hurt academic performance. 

While the ban may have initially surprised students, it’s far from a radical idea. Oregon is now the 27th state to implement restrictions on cell phone use in schools, joining a growing nationwide movement. With more than half the country on board, it’s clear this approach is gaining traction, and for a good reason.

Some say this goes too far. But the Netherlands just banned phones in schools, and per Reuters, 75% of high schools reported better student focus. 

When districts enforce a cell phone ban, they send the message that education is the priority. That’s a message the state of Oregon could benefit from reinforcing. Despite being ranked 41st in the nation for overall school performance, Oregon has some of the highest per-student spending. Clearly, money alone isn’t the solution. Kotek’s policy recognizes that real academic support means helping students focus, engage, and succeed. This isn’t about banning technology altogether; it’s about using it with purpose, not at the expense of learning.

It’s understandable that many students have valid reasons for using phones during school hours, whether it’s to communicate with an employer, as a tool for a class, or even for safety in certain situations. However, with Kotek’s order, districts have the flexibility to allow access for urgent situations. 

Just because constant phone use has become the norm in schools doesn’t mean it’s the best path forward. We should be willing to question whether what’s common is actually what’s helpful.

Travis has four children in school and sees firsthand how this generation is expected to succeed in an environment full of noise and digital temptation. Everything is competing for their attention, and too often, education and real human connection lose. This constant pull from screens has chipped away at their learning and social skills. Now throw a smartphone into the mix, with TikTok, texts, and notifications buzzing nonstop. It’s not a fair fight.

That’s why it makes sense to ban phones throughout the entire school day, including breaks and lunch. Kotek’s order has the potential to foster more meaningful, face-to-face connections among students. Without the constant pressure of notifications and social media, students are more likely to be present, both physically and emotionally. 

In a world where digital noise is constant, school can become one of the few places where students actually get a break. In fact, nearly three-quarters of students nationwide report feeling more peaceful when they’re away from their phones, according to Pew Research. 

Phones have a place, but that place isn’t in the middle of a math lesson, a science lab, or a student’s chance at a better future. We owe them better. And it starts with putting the phones away.

Gov. Kotek’s executive order to ban cell phones in classrooms is certainly well-intentioned, but its K-12 scope and “bell-to-bell” timeframe is an overreaction to the problem at hand. 

For one, there are obvious safety concerns. Per CNN, school shootings have steadily increased since 2008, with a tragic 83 occurring in 2024. The CDC found in 2019 that 9% of high school students had missed school in the last 30 days because they felt unsafe on their way there or on the premises. With the ban, students and parents won’t be able to immediately contact each other in times of emergency.

It’s one thing to request phones be put away while class is in session – but taking them away for an entire school day is cutting a valuable line of communication between students and those they feel comfortable contacting. Under the current wording of the executive order, students can’t even access their phones during reasonable times, such as lunch or in between periods. 

The ban doesn’t just take away cell phones for younger age groups that are the most susceptible to the negative effects of screen time, but instead stretches all the way through 12th grade. This is problematic for high schoolers, who deserve the autonomy to keep their personal devices with them. 

Many high schoolers have jobs or important responsibilities outside of school they may need to monitor during the day. Like it or not, the instant connectivity phones provide has become a major aspect of modern life, especially in the workforce. Impacted students shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to get a personal exemption to the ban. 

Breaks from the internet are a good thing, of course, but whether or not an older student should be kept from their phone for multi-hour blocks several days a week is a choice that should be left to the individual and their parents, not the state. And many seniors are 18 years old – a legal adult. 

Another worrying part of the ban is how it places more responsibility on teachers. The executive order puts the onus on each individual school district to implement its own version of the ban, requiring them to come up with ways to safely store student cell phones and enforce the rules. 

One option allows students to keep their devices on their person, but in a school-provided lockable pouch. The problem? It’s not cheap, and the executive order doesn’t come with any funding. The Oregonian reported such pouches cost Oregon’s North Clackamas School District $300,000 for a school of nearly 17,000 students in 2024. 

But if not the pouches, schools would be responsible for safely managing student devices and redistributing them to the right person each day. 

Additionally, many modern education techniques are intertwined with technology. When Ryland was in high school, some of his classes used “Kahoot” games for test preparation, where each student logged into an online quiz on their phone or device. These games were always popular; they fostered healthy competition and were an engaging way to retain information. 

While Kotek’s order still allows for devices such as Chromebooks to be used in the classroom, not every district has the means to supply each student with an approved device. As education moves more online, phones remain the most accessible way for every student to stay involved. 

Managing students’ in-class screen time is a worthy goal. However, blanket bans such as Kotek’s recent executive order are too much, too late for Oregon students. 

The post Classroom Phone Ban appeared first on The Commuter.