In a move that has ignited a firestorm of criticism from parents and civil liberties groups, a powerful state commissioner has quietly begun a campaign to equate student cellphones with weapons of mass destruction, laying the groundwork for what critics call a “draconian” and “unprecedented” seizure of personal property within New Jersey’s public schools.
Charles “CJ” Gelinas, a Westfield school board member and chairman of the New Jersey Commission on the Effects of Social Media Usage on Adolescents, is the architect of a controversial report recommending a “bell-to-bell” ban on cell phones, effectively creating a total communication blackout for students during the entire school day.
Gelinas considers cellphones as ‘wireless media devices,’ or WMD, suggesting that distractions influencing children in schools are as dangerous as weapons of mass destruction.
The report, published this week, has exposed a deep rift between state officials and families who fear being cut off from their children.
Students should be permitted to use their devices in some circumstances under guidance issued by the Murphy administration that ignored the heart of Gelinas’ inflammatory rhetoric.
In closed-door commission meetings and speaking engagements, Gelinas has repeatedly referred to smartphones as “wireless media devices,” or “WMDs”—a deliberate and alarming acronym that frames the devices as existential threats on par with weapons of mass destruction.
“This isn’t about education; it’s about control,” said a spokesperson for the parent advocacy group Families for Freedom, which is not affiliated with the New York-based multi-ethnic human rights organization established to aid families facing deportation.
Instead, it is linked with the New Jersey Family Policy Center, one of several “parents’ rights” groups listed in a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center describing anti-government organizations in New Jersey, including local chapters of Moms for Liberty and the New Jersey Project.
“To label a device that parents use for the safety and well-being of their children a ‘WMD’ is not just irresponsible—it’s dangerous propaganda designed to scare the public into accepting a massive overreach,” said the Families for Freedom spokesperson.
The commission’s report, titled “Growing Up Online,” cites issues like cyberbullying and mental health concerns as justification for the extreme measure.
However, opponents argue the proposed “cure” is far worse than the disease, stripping away vital lifelines for students.
Parents Voice Safety Fears, Gelinas Dismisses Concerns
The most significant backlash has centered on emergency preparedness.
In an age of school lockdowns and safety threats, parents across the state have expressed terror at the thought of their children being unable to call for help; however, critics primarily appear linked to arch-conservative groups such as Moms for Liberty or antivaxxers.
“As a parent, of course, you want to know if your child’s okay and what’s going on and hear from them directly,” said Allendale mom Stefanie Morton, 42. “So, it’s a hard situation.”
Another parent, Katelyn Van Schaik, suggested a compromise: “I would feel better if they had the [smart] watch on, put it in ‘school mode,’ but in case of emergency, they can access it readily.”
Gelinas has publicly dismissed these concerns.
According to the commission’s research, personal phone access during an emergency “would likely overwhelm emergency services and distract students,” said Gelinas.
He insists that during a crisis, “The students should be listening to their school resource officers… and otherwise, they should be taking care of their friends” —a position that has left many parents furious and anxious.
A National Movement, A Local Battle
New Jersey is not alone in this debate; states like New York have recently implemented similar bans, providing a model for Gelinas’ proposal.
However, the fight in New Jersey is complicated by its tradition of “home rule,” where individual school districts typically set their own policies. Governor Phil Murphy’s push for a statewide mandate represents a significant centralization of power.
Several New Jersey districts, including Ramsey, Montclair, and Jersey City, have already enacted their own bans.
The state’s new guidance encourages methods like locking phones in special pouches or storing them in lockers, but the Gelinas commission advocates for the most stringent approach: phones not even allowed “over the threshold of the school door.”
What’s Next?
With the commission’s report now public, the battle lines are drawn. Parent groups are mobilizing to lobby local school boards to reject the state’s guidance, while Gelinas and his allies are expected to continue their aggressive campaign, framing smartphones as the defining threat to a generation.
The question remains: will New Jersey families accept having their children deemed “High Trust, Low Consequence actors” in a war against “WMDs,” or will they revolt against a policy they see as isolating their children in a time of need?