I thought Dean Morrison's response was nicely balanced. No student or group of students should be targeted for hateful comments, but it was right that he focused first on the students who were targeted first, and did not fall into the trap of "equal time for all strategic cross-accusations." I hope that the Dean's appeal to civility is fruitful, but I am not sure what it is realistic to expect. It feels as though civility is in short supply in higher education environments generally, and even shorter supply in law schools. But perhaps it is just that we tend to hear the loudest voices and that volume correlates with incivility.
My larger reason for writing is to voice a point that differs a little from the standard curmudgeonly line about how law students "need to learn to disagree without getting so emotional" or they'll never be successful lawyers, although it does run along a similar path. There's definitely truth to the importance of dispassionate analysis and advocacy as a legal skill. At the same time, there's also plenty of room and need for passion in the profession. Given today's polarized political environment, political discussions probably are not the best place to practice one's dispassionate analysis skills.
A different learning opportunity that these campus political controversies provide for students (and on which it seems many students could better capitalize) is the development of deliberation and collaboration skills. Successful legal practice—successful advocacy of any kind—requires deliberate and deliberative thinking about the issues that are the subject of your advocacy. And, while perhaps less than a requirement, advocacy almost always becomes better with collaboration, when lawyers or lawyers-to-be share ideas and thinking about the subject matter and make an active effort to construct a shared line of argument rather than simply expressing the argument that one particular individual finds most appropriate or compelling.
Both deliberation and collaboration help us grapple with the reality that the audience for our advocacy is external to ourselves as individuals or a group. We are more persuasive when we take the time to understand our opponents' arguments deeply. We are more persuasive when we we test others' reactions to our own arguments and incorporate those reactions in improving our arguments. When we are focused on a subject area of deep personal concern, these skills of deliberation and collaboration may prove much easier to practice than dispassionate analysis is.
Unfortunately, listserv argumentation lends itself neither to deliberation nor to collaboration. It takes place at a much more rapid pace than most discussions about issues of great concern. And the public nature of the forum encourages participants largely to weigh in in support or opposition to the first views expressed, rather than to help develop those views in the way one might on a strategy team. In this respect, I'd suggest the logic is more complicated than listserv = more communication, more communication = good. There are different forms of communication, and as the Dean's email hints, the listserv probably is not the best one for this sort of political exchange. (There is a reason why so many listservs make a point to exclude or ringfence political discussion.)
Excellent thoughts, and I think we agree. On the listserv issue, I certainly wasn't saying that more communication is better, but that law school administrators and students need "to think more carefully about HOW to communicate with each other."
I'm not so sure I need any help understanding here. But if your comment was meant to imply that, in your view, there's something I'm not understanding, maybe you should just say what you think instead of insinuating and asking rhetorically ineffective questions.
The email was indisputably atrocious, but one thing that I think is definitely not helpful is taking internecine squabbles from a private law school listserv and turning them into grist for the bad-faith online outrage mill (i.e. the Free Beacon). Performs no valuable function
I thought Dean Morrison's response was nicely balanced. No student or group of students should be targeted for hateful comments, but it was right that he focused first on the students who were targeted first, and did not fall into the trap of "equal time for all strategic cross-accusations." I hope that the Dean's appeal to civility is fruitful, but I am not sure what it is realistic to expect. It feels as though civility is in short supply in higher education environments generally, and even shorter supply in law schools. But perhaps it is just that we tend to hear the loudest voices and that volume correlates with incivility.
My larger reason for writing is to voice a point that differs a little from the standard curmudgeonly line about how law students "need to learn to disagree without getting so emotional" or they'll never be successful lawyers, although it does run along a similar path. There's definitely truth to the importance of dispassionate analysis and advocacy as a legal skill. At the same time, there's also plenty of room and need for passion in the profession. Given today's polarized political environment, political discussions probably are not the best place to practice one's dispassionate analysis skills.
A different learning opportunity that these campus political controversies provide for students (and on which it seems many students could better capitalize) is the development of deliberation and collaboration skills. Successful legal practice—successful advocacy of any kind—requires deliberate and deliberative thinking about the issues that are the subject of your advocacy. And, while perhaps less than a requirement, advocacy almost always becomes better with collaboration, when lawyers or lawyers-to-be share ideas and thinking about the subject matter and make an active effort to construct a shared line of argument rather than simply expressing the argument that one particular individual finds most appropriate or compelling.
Both deliberation and collaboration help us grapple with the reality that the audience for our advocacy is external to ourselves as individuals or a group. We are more persuasive when we take the time to understand our opponents' arguments deeply. We are more persuasive when we we test others' reactions to our own arguments and incorporate those reactions in improving our arguments. When we are focused on a subject area of deep personal concern, these skills of deliberation and collaboration may prove much easier to practice than dispassionate analysis is.
Unfortunately, listserv argumentation lends itself neither to deliberation nor to collaboration. It takes place at a much more rapid pace than most discussions about issues of great concern. And the public nature of the forum encourages participants largely to weigh in in support or opposition to the first views expressed, rather than to help develop those views in the way one might on a strategy team. In this respect, I'd suggest the logic is more complicated than listserv = more communication, more communication = good. There are different forms of communication, and as the Dean's email hints, the listserv probably is not the best one for this sort of political exchange. (There is a reason why so many listservs make a point to exclude or ringfence political discussion.)
Excellent thoughts, and I think we agree. On the listserv issue, I certainly wasn't saying that more communication is better, but that law school administrators and students need "to think more carefully about HOW to communicate with each other."
But what are “hateful comments”? Who gets to decide? I suspect answering those questions might help you understand the problem.
I'm not so sure I need any help understanding here. But if your comment was meant to imply that, in your view, there's something I'm not understanding, maybe you should just say what you think instead of insinuating and asking rhetorically ineffective questions.
The email was indisputably atrocious, but one thing that I think is definitely not helpful is taking internecine squabbles from a private law school listserv and turning them into grist for the bad-faith online outrage mill (i.e. the Free Beacon). Performs no valuable function