International Law

The University of Chicago Law School has made the decision to remove internet access from most of its classrooms:

The University of Chicago Law School has removed Internet access in most of its classrooms because of a growing problem of students surfing the Web on laptops during lectures.

"Every teacher underestimates the amount of Internet surfing going on" in his or her classroom, U of C law Dean Saul Levmore said in an interview Thursday.

"Whenever faculty would visit other faculty members' classes, they would come to me and say, `You just won't believe it. It's astounding what happened.'

"But they never believe it's going on in their own class," he said.

In a recent e-mail message to students and faculty, Levmore wrote, "Remarkably, [Internet] usage appears to be contagious if not epidemic" during law classes.

"Several observers have reported that one student will visit a gossip site or shop for shoes and within 20 minutes, an entire row is shoe shopping.

"Half the time a student is called on, the question needs to be repeated," Levmore added.

...

In his e-mailed announcement Wednesday, Levmore said that U of C law has removed Internet access in most classrooms "in order to ensure the value of the classroom experience."

On Thursday, he said some students object to his new policy.

"There are some who don't like it, who feel it's quite paternalist and so forth," Levmore said. "They are quite vocal.

"There are many who love it, and many who said they would hate it and were very resentful, and now say they love it.... It's gratifying to hear about people who benefit from tough love."

Some students also thought Levmore should have consulted them more about the move.

But Levmore said the question is, "How do you best learn? That's for the faculty to decide."

Whether to allow computers at all in the classroom is a continuing debate in law schools.

When Levmore proposed to the faculty in early March that the school might cut off Internet access in most classrooms, some faculty responded that computers should be banned, he said.

Some professors believe that students who take notes on laptops during lectures interfere with their own learning.

"Back in the day when we took notes by hand," Levmore recalled, "some people took fewer notes and learned more."

He said some law professors already have "no computer" rules during class.

But he said some students convincingly argued that note taking on laptops is a help to them.

The heart of his decision to prevent Web surfing in class, he said, is that the students "are going to go out to law firms and other settings where they're going to miss these years where they had opportunities for human interaction and contemplating ideas.

"And that's partly what the classroom is for. They don't realize the value of what they're being distracted from. That's really what I believe in most."

Levmore teaches torts to 1st-year students. He said he walks up and down the aisles, which could limit Internet surfing by students.

But he said a common practice was students sending e-mail to each other about what to say in class.

And "for some students, checking e-mail every 15 minutes is like breathing for us," he added.

..

Levmore also said he discovered while researching the subject "how offensive it often is when phone calls are taken in public and when Blackberry and other e-mail devices are consulted during meetings."

So in his e-mail message to the school, he promised himself "that I will no longer check my Blackberry under the table at university meetings."

So far, he said Thursday, he has stuck to his promise.

Read more here (from Chicago Daily Law Bulletin).  This move has understandably attracted quite a bit of attention in the blogosphere.  At The Volokh Conspiracy Ilya Somin was torn:

I am of two minds on this. On one hand, law students are adults. They should be able to decide for themselves whether surfing the net has greater value to them than using class time to listen to what the professor is saying. Indeed, if a high percentage of students are surfing regularly, that may be an indication that the professor isn't doing such a great job of teaching.

On the other hand, there are potential negative externalities from in-class surfing. If a lot of students are doing it, and therefore not contributing to class discussion, that will reduce the value of the class for their classmates, not just themselves. This point suggests that there may be some merit to the University of Chicago policy. For now, however, I'm not going to change my own live and let live approach to net surfing in the classroom.

Read it here.  However, perhaps the most interesting (and honest) critique came from Geoffrey Rapp at PrawfsBlawg:

It's Not You, It's Me

Maroon-colored irony dripped from the coverage over the past few weeks of the University of Chicago's decision to cut off wireless internet access in its law school classrooms.  A school known for its faith in markets and preference for individual rather than collective solutions to legal and policy problems embraced a top-down, market-rejecting approach to classroom management.  A certain amount of paternalism comes out in the school's justifications for the policy:  Dean Levmore explained, "the question is, 'How do you best learn? That's for the faculty to decide.'"

At the same time, some of the other statements made about the wireless internet "ban" (a partial ban at best, since students with iphones or broadband will still be able to e-mail/facebook/above-the-law to their hearts' content) reveal what I think is the true reason the faculty targeted student internet use: Frankly, it ticked them off. 

Professors at U of C (and elsewhere) think what they have to say is important. Professors think (and should think, or they would have trouble doing their jobs) that listening to what professors have to say really is the best use of law student time.   And things have gotten to the point that you don't have to be a "hip young pRAWf" to sense that the student clicking furiously during another student's question isn't taking notes on that question.

As more and more law schools consider and embrace wireless deactivation (or the even more draconian laptop ban), I'd urge them to be honest.  Telling students you know what's best for them -- whether we're talking about attendance policies or wireless -- only gets you so far.  Be honest, and admit that you're banning wireless access because the plugged-in student is usually a disengaged one and has sucked the fun out of the classroom experience.   Students are more likely to accept a top-down policy change if it's justified based on faculty morale than student learning.

Read it here.  I've blogged a few times about whether laptops should be banned from university classrooms (see here, here and here) and my position remains basically the same.  In my view, laptops and internet access are largely a distraction that inevitably has a negative impact upon student learning.  However, students are adults and have the right to take responsibility for their own learning.  Therefore I would never ban laptops or remove internet access from a class I was taking even though I strongly believe that for most students they would be better off without a computer and the internet in front of them while they are trying (or pretending) to learn.  Besides, given that I frequently take my laptop to meetings and read emails, work on documents and even just surf the net, it would be totally hypocritical for me to ban laptops or remove internet access from a class I was taking.  At least the Dean of Chicago Law School is trying to practice what he preaches when he said that he will no longer check his Blackberry under the table at university meetings.