Leadership and the Virtues of Print

For as long as I can remember, the New York Times has been a part of my life.

Even when our family's subscription may have lapsed, few days went by during my childhood when my father didn't have a copy within arms' reach. My parents, now divorced, still receive the New York Times, in print, delivered to their doorsteps.

"When I advocate that young people should be less connected than they are now... I'm... told that would mean putting them at a disadvantage... I don't buy it."

During my college and younger-adult years, I was less loyal of a customer than my parents, mainly reading articles online. More recently, I became a digital subscriber, first on the Kindle and then on the Nook.

Then about six months ago I decided to purchase a full subscription to the print edition of the Times. I haven't looked back since.

I thought of my decision to go all-in on print while reading this New York Times piece on Harper's magazine publisher John MacArthur's courageous line-in-the-sand over print.

Ironically, it's been my experience as a founder of a technology-focused high school that has firmly cemented my support for reading things on paper.

For the past 6 six years, I've been the Executive Director of a start-up, technology-focused high school in Chicago called Chicago Tech Academy. Two aspects of my experience as the chief executive of a school have brought me back to print.

First, I've found that the abundance of digital stimuli, and the immediacy of internet content, has not helped me deal with the demands of leadership--especially the need to quietly reflect on problems, options and strategy. In fact, reading online, I have often come away exhausted--my eyes, and fingers, darting from article-to-article, constantly searching on Google as new concepts come across the page.

Second, our always-connected students have me concerned about their ability to lead in the future. Leadership requires perspective, the ability to step out of the action and reflect, to explore different alternatives and make deliberate decisions. When we are connected, the opposite happens. Advertisements, tweets, posts, alerts all compete for our attention. And we know that the neuroscience of surfing the net is similar to the neuroscience of addiction.

When I advocate that young people should be less connected than they are now (especially when it regards school and school work), I'm frequently told that would mean putting them at a disadvantage in a world that is ever more digital.

I don't buy it.

First, the digital world that matters, in terms of the success of future generations, is the digital world of making things. With few exceptions, when our students are connected on their devices (and they are connected from the time they wake up to the time they go to bed) they are consumers. They are not building apps, making websites, or developing algorithms to analyze the human genome.

Second, can you recall the last time you found learning how to use a new technology difficult? Did you struggle when Google first came online? Were you challenged when the first tablets came out? How long did it take you to figure out how to buy music on your iPhone?

My point is, internet-enabled technology is ubiquitous. And rather than worry about potentially depriving our young people of the latest and greatest, I am far more concerned that we are depriving our students of something more precious and rare: the ability to reflect, to be alone with their thoughts, to engage in thoughtful discussion with others, to problem solve collaboratively, to plan for the future and build, online and off.