> But they're not saying "bad thing is worse for some people than others" Yes they are. > they're saying "thing is bad because it treats people differently an

> But they're not saying "bad thing is worse for some people than others" Yes they are. > they're saying "thing is bad because it treats people differently and sometimes malfunctions". But they're not saying that. Out of 20 total paragraphs (not counting charts and "Some potential strategies for increasing oversight and accountability include:"), at least 14 (including the entire concluding section, containing suggestions) are not about race or equity, and the article mentions students' and parents' reluctance to accept surveillance without regard for whether the technology "malfunctions". For example: > However, many students don’t feel like they have an adult at school that they can turn to when they’re upset, and the increased use of surveillance may worsen this problem. Students report that in-school surveillance makes them less likely to trust the adults around them and less willing to open up about mental health struggles, problems at home, or signs that a peer might be in crisis. This reluctance matters because research consistently shows that social trust and access to supportive adults are among the most meaningful factors in promoting positive mental health and preventing school violence. If surveillance tools undermine that trust, it becomes difficult to determine whether the tradeoff for increased surveillance actually makes students safer. (I said "at least" because the remaining paragraphs mention race or equity, contain links mentioning race or equity among other things, or could be interpreted to follow from those paragraphs).