I’ve been going nuts because my son has only called me once during the four days he’s been on the East Coast.

It was a good time to hear about a New York judge’s decision not to overturn a 2005 ban on cell phones.

Jacqui Chen wrote about it on Ars Technica yesterday:

Thousands of parents petitioned to have the ban overturned, asking that cell phone use be prohibited but possession of the devices to be allowed in case of emergency. Many argued that their kids had to commute on public transportation and through various parts of the city in order to get to and from school, and that a cell phone was essential to their safety during those times. Some parents even complained that if their kids had access to a cell phone, they could have called for help when being bullied by other children at school.

(New York Supreme Court Judge Angela ) Mazzarelli wrote in her opinion that she sympathizes with these parents, but pointed out several other rulings that shot down their arguments. One court noted that cell phones had only begun to be widely adopted (what ever did they do before?), and that parents and children had adapted their behavior to be dependent upon them, for example. Mazzarelli also noted that the ban does not infringe on parents’ constitutional right to care for their children, because “the right is not absolute and is only afforded constitutional protection in ‘appropriate cases.’”

She noted that cell phones have been used for cheating, sexual harassment, prank calls, and intimidation, and that all of these things threaten order during school hours. She also rejected the suggestion that kids be able to carry cell phones but not use them, pointing out that even adults cannot be trusted to turn their phones off (or on silent) during movies and cultural events. “While the vast majority of public school children are respectful and well-behaved, it was not unreasonable for the Chancellor to recognize that if adults cannot be fully trusted to practice proper cell phone etiquette, then neither can children,” she wrote.

I’m one of those parents who feels more comfortable knowing that my son can call me in an emergency. I don’t want his phone to interfere with his education, but I don’t see what’s wrong with him having his phone – turned off – in his backpack.

Maybe I’m wrong, though. Since I haven’t been able to reach my son on his cell while he’s been gone, I’ve been trying to figure out whether to risk embarrassing him by calling him in the hotel room he’s sharing with three classmates or going even further and asking people who live in Washington, D.C., to track him down and tell him to phone home.

That’s all silliness. I can’t mortify my son just because I miss him.

Still, in my discomfort over his refusal to call or return messages, it’s occurred to me that I have numerous ways to track him down – even all the way across the country – regardless of whether or not he picks up his cell.

We’ve never had a problem when he’s forgotten to take his phone to school with him, a pretty frequent occurrence, so maybe he doesn’t “need” it. I just want him to have it.

I have to admit the arguments for banning cell phones are legitimate. Most of today’s parents survived school without them and there’s no reason to think that things have changed that much.

Kids can still use the phone in the school’s office in an emergency and there’s nothing to stop parents from giving their kids some extra quarters for the pay phone.

Does it make me a “helicopter parent” to want my son to have a phone for extra insurance anyway?