Legal Commentary

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.