Singularity Law

When I meet people and tell them I specialize in technology law, they often assume that I must be an earlier adopter of every new geewhiz tech gadget that comes out. But I’m not. I believe in what I refer to as “appropriate technology,” that is, getting the technology you need and what is appropriate for the job at hand, and not getting the newest gizmo just because it is the newest gizmo.

I was an earlier adopter of cell phones, getting my first one in 1985 when I had a small law firm and needed to be in regular communication with my office. However, I quickly found that it was as much of a nuisance as an assistance to my practice and in the early 1990s I got rid of it. I didn’t like the idea of being “always on” — always accessible by employees, other attorneys, and worst yet, my clients. I often needed time to decompress and couldn’t do so if I was expected to always be accessible by phone. I needed time to think uninterrupted. I found that when I ridded myself of the cell phone I was able to provide just as good service to my clients, just as good supervision to my employees and at the same time could allocate my time the way that I wanted to do so, not how others wanted to allocate my time for me. I didn’t lose any clients nor were there any “emergencies” that couldn’t wait for me to get back to the office.

I didn’t get another cell phone until 2005 when my youngest son wanted one and we could get 2 for the price of one. I now find that people are more courteous about calling me and I don’t have this constant barrage of calls every time some little crisis arises. I probably use my cell phone significantly less than others, and yet find it a useful and “appropriate” technology for my lifestyle today.

The same is true of my computers. I have a good, relatively fast Apple computer on which I am running an older version of Microsoft Office. While many of my students have newer, faster machines, and the most current version of Office, I really see no reason to update my technology. It does what I need at an acceptable speed. I don’t consider myself a Luddite, just someone that believes that new technologies should serve me, not the other way around.

Why am I writing about this at all? Because there is currently a raging debate going on at our law school as well as law schools nationwide (and perhaps worldwide) about Internet access in the classrooms. Students have always found ways to entertain themselves in class (other than actually listening to the professor and learning the subject matter). In the early days it was passing notes and whispering to one another. Others doodled or did crossword puzzles. However, with the advent of personal computers and wireless Internet access, the diversions have expanded to include email, watching YouTube videos, shopping online, etc. No matter the ranking of the law school or the quality of the teaching, students more and more are being diverted by the cornucopia of options available online, and are less engaged than ever.

A recent article from the University of Chicago Law School has created quite a stir on campuses nationwide. The administration recently announced that it was cutting off Internet access in the classrooms due to the fact that students are distracted by the Internet and are not participating in classes. Chicago, one of the best law schools in the country, has decided that allowing students access to the Internet in the classrooms is an unacceptable distraction. The article indicates that administrators were amazed at how pervasive surfing was during classes, and how students were not listening, professors would have to repeat questions a second time because students did not hear them the first time, and how the Internet was destroying the classroom experience for too many students.

When several professors suggested that our law school do the same last fall, I was cool to the idea. I saw the value of allowing students the freedom to use the Internet to supplement what I was talking about in the classroom, and generally felt that our students were old enough to understand the importance of being active participants in class. However, this year I have seen the classroom dialogue disappear. It is now a soliliquy — I talk, they surf. I have come to the conclusion, as more and more professors and administrators have, that the siren call of the Internet is too strong for all but the most dedicated students. The MTV generation, with its need to multitask, finds that it does not have the discipline to focus attention on one thing at a time. And the only way to try to get students to reengage in the dialogue that is such a critical part of the legal learning process is to remove the temptation of the Internet from the classroom.

I believe that laptop computers are an appropriate technology in the classroom (although they can also be abused by being used to play games or turn students into stenographers), but the Internet is not. Whether, and if so when, my law school will join the growing ranks of educational institutions nationwide that are blocking Internet access from the classroom I do not know. But in my opinion, the sooner the better.