Multicommenting on Multitasking

This is not the most substantive post I have ever written, but for readers who did not read the comments on my last post, Multitasking in the Classroom, please check them out. That post was yet another one on the use and misuse of computers in the classroom. I recommend the comments for your reading pleasure.

I particularly liked these reader comments because they are opinionated, well-presented and argued, and civil. In another recent post, I lamented the prevalence of incivility in the blogosphere. I hold these comments out as excellent examples of civil debate--namely, how being professional and polite does not mean being nonsubstantive.

Multitasking in the Classroom

There's an interesting article by law professor Catherine Ross Dunham in the Spring 2007 issue of The Law Teacher regarding the use of computers in law school classrooms. (Sadly, the article is not yet available on TLT's website, but check back later at the above link; it will be posted at some point.) I have blogged several times about the use (or banning) of computers in the classroom. Those previous posts can be linked to here, here, and here. I encourage you to glance at those posts for a little background on the subject if you are interested--and be sure to read the comments. It's a topic of no small discussion and debate within the legal academy.

In any event, Professor Dunham's article can be summarized as follows:

ONE: She confesses to having surfed the web in law school classes.

TWO: She went back to law school for an LLM last year (she received her JD a few years prior to that), and in her LLM classes she observed most students multitasking with computers in class--instant messaging, surfing the web, paying bills, gambling online--while also paying attention in class. In her opinion, it did not hurt their concentration, grades, or learning. She also claims it did not hurt the quality of class discussion.

THREE: She concludes that there is a generation gap between most professors, including relatively young ones, and their students.

FOUR: She thinks that "much of a law faculty's apprehension about laptops in the classroom relates to us, not [the students]."

Let me respond to these points in reverse order. As to point #4, I fully agree--much of it is about faculty perceptions, and in some cases it is also about faculty insecurities. And yet, that does not mean it is all about faculty perceptions or insecurities. A previous commenter suggested that I run an experiment in class, in which on some days I ban computer use and see what happens. That's something I am likely to do at some point--especially if a class seems filled with zombies, not law students.

Regarding point #3, ouch. She is right. I graduated from law school in 1994, and only one student in my 1L section (100 students) used a computer in class. I didn't have a computer with Windows until after I graduated from law school. And I neither own an iPod nor have plans to get one, which officially qualifies me as a neo-fogey. But again, her point goes to striving to understand our students. That may mean allowing computers in class. But then again, it may not. Which is a good segue into . . .

Point #2: I am sure modern students are better multitaskers than many professors, including those of a certain age like me (30s and 40s). Having said that, I multitasked quite well in law practice--you have to--but on the weekends I could get a "full day" of work done (what would take me a full weekday, including interruptions) in about 5 hours (that is, without interruptions). Not much multitasking efficiency in that.

And while I am at it, I do have to observe that just because students can do something does not mean they should be encouraged or permitted to do so. Little kids want to eat dessert for each meal, yet should we let them? They are better off, we generally think, being made to eat broccoli sometimes, even though they may want chicken nuggets and fries for any and all meals. In like fashion, would law students be better off in the long run (that is, be better lawyers) if we were to force them sometimes to "uni-task" in class on just a single matter--just as they are supposed to in client interviews, in court, and in depositions? They already know how to multitask, but I wonder if some of them know how not to.

And finally, as for point #1, I know the temptation is strong to surf or do other stuff in class. I sometimes take my computer to faculty meetings, so that I have have access to relevant files on my laptop during the meeting--and believe me, the temptation to work on other matters and check the news online is quite strong sometimes during those meetings. But I don't. It's disrespectful to my colleagues, and ultimately does not further the purpose of the meetings. The same can be said for non-class use of computers in the classroom.

My intuition tells me that my classes would run better--better interaction, better student concentration, fewer distractions to other students--if I were to ban computers. And yet Dunham has very good points. And at the end of the day, is such paternalism worth the effort? I don't have my mind made up on this one. The tension between anti-paternalism and concern over classroom dynamics is quite strong in my mind. But if I do make up my mind, I'll certainly post about it on this blog.

(In)Civility in the Blogosphere

I have been thinking a good deal lately about the frequent lack of civility in the blogosphere. I am always surprised when I read a blog post or comment that is not so much an attempt at meaningful commentary as it is a smackdown, WWF-style. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise me. But it does.

I probably sound like an old fogey saying that, but there it is. I know why it happens, and I know that the Internet is a wonderful means of communication and interaction. And yet I still find myself taken aback by some of the downright nasty things that get said online.

Now, I generally can ignore all of this, and I do not view virtual sniping as some sort of Sign of the Times. I have a higher opinion of human nature than to think that people used to be civil, and then along came the Internet, and now all the youngsters have no taste or class. That kind of inter-generational tension is nothing new.

But when it started happening on this blog, that really gave me pause. It did not happen a lot, but it happened some. And then it happened more. And I have found it harder to ignore or overlook on this blog, because this is a blog about lawyering and law careers. And one of the key characteristics of a good lawyer is . . . civility.

So that's the great irony here: people behaving in an incivil manner on a blog devoted to a profession that should espouse civility. (Yes, I know the profession falls short--but that's all the more reason to champion the ideal, isn't it?) I could act as a traffic cop, of course, stepping in as necessary to remind people to tone it down, and deleting the occasional comment that goes too far. I guess that is what I am doing now. But my real point is that even if and when there is discussion on this blog, anonymous potshots do damage. They threaten to dilute the discussion. And perhaps even worse, they change the tenor of the discussion, and the blog as a whole.

For me, the greatest corrosive effect of negativity and sniping is that any comment that is edgy may be assumed to be a negative one. That's of course not true, but I myself have already fallen into that trap. Recently I read a very intelligent and well-done comment to a recent post on this blog--a comment that added a lot to the discussion in a very substantive way. But I incorrectly concluded that the reader also was taking a jab at me. Not true; read the comments. But at the time that's how I took it. I have to believe that I did so partly because I was primed to think that way.

That little event is a good example of what is happening on a much larger scale in the American legal profession. Lawyers often do not expect civility, so they do not give it. They assume that statements (by clients, by opposing counsel, by colleagues) are meant to be negative, when they might not be. And these assumptions are made because too many lawyers have been conditioned to play smackdown, instead of play nice.

I am of course not suggesting that lawyers should not be advocates or play hard ball when necessary. Of course they should. But there is a distinction between advocacy and civility, and it sometimes gets lost. If a lawyer (or lawyer-to-be) is going to go after opposing counsel, or someone in the legal blogosphere, I suggest that it be done with professionalism.

Fun Summer Reading Online

Summer is (or at least it should be) a time to play outdoors, travel, and catch up on reading. So with that latter point in mind, today's post is about one of my new favorite law-related blogs, as well as another one I previously recommended that continues to provide insight and entertainment.

Law and Letters. This blog by aspiring law prof "Belle Lettre" is simply great fun to read, and insightful too. Not to mention the graphic design, which is another strong element. This aspiring law prof seems destined for a tenure-track position (I am in your corner, Belle); if so, I will be interested to see what happens with your blog.

For a fun post, check out her June 7, 2007 post entitled "Things I Won't Ever Blog About." She compares law school to the TV show Gilligan's Island, which is both a hoot and a shrewd observation.

Baby Barista. Very, very funny, and very, very British. It's the ongoing diary of a fictional pupil barrister. It features recurring characters and plotlines, so it's hard for me to recommend a single post. Just check it out and start scrolling down.

Scholarship Update

I'm back from a brief blogging hiatus after finishing my grades, and summer is in full swing. Here's a quick update on what I have been doing in terms of research.

I have had a law review article and book review published this month. Both articles can be accessed via my faculty home page or my author page on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). You have to register to use SSRN, but the site is free.

The law review article is entitled Thinking Outside the Border: Homeland Security and the Forward Deployment of the U.S. Border, 44 Houston Law Review 189 (2007). In it, I discuss U.S. cargo security programs and their extraterritorial application. The book review is entitled Seeing the Forest and the Trees: Reconceptualizing State and Government Succession, 51 New York Law School Law Review 403 (2007). It is a review of Professor Tai-Heng Cheng’s new book, State Succession and Commercial Obligations, which addresses the disconnect between state practice and international law doctrine concerning state and government succession. Both pieces explore issues concerning global interdependency and interconnectedness that are central to my research.

In addition, I am currently hard at work on a new law review article on U.S. export controls, entitled Winning the Battle but Losing the War? Reflections on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in U.S. Export Control Laws. The thesis of this article is that the United States' application of its export control laws to foreign reexports of U.S. origin goods and technology (something that is quite controversial legally and politically) is legally justified but strategically imperfect, and that changes therefore need to be made. While the extraterritoriality of U.S. export controls was debated at length by scholars in the 1980s and early 1990s (with most commentators opining that such jurisdiction was impermissible), there has been less focus on the subject in recent years. In light of the rapid and continued growth in international trade and the birth of e-commerce, as well as changes to the post-Cold War and post-9/11 national security landscape, this is a subject worth revisiting. (Note: for background information concerning U.S. export controls, see my 2004 law review article entitled E-Mails, Servers and Software: U.S. Export Controls for the Modern Era, 35 Georgetown Journal of International Law 320 (2004)).

Later this month, I will be presenting this article as a work-in-progress at the American Association of Law Schools’ Midyear Conference on International Law in Vancouver, Canada. The theme of the conference is "What is Wrong with the Way We Teach and Write International Law?" As Professor Mark Drumbl points out on Prawfsblawg, "[t]he conference is for folks teaching and writing in international law to rethink what we're doing, and equally for folks teaching and writing outside of international law (whether as legal academics or as academics outside law entirely) to engage with the subject and discuss what could be done better." The conference promises to be very interesting, and I am pleased to be one of its presenters.