Monday, October 01, 2007
Emails and the Internet
I enjoy using email, perhaps too much so. I probably receive upwards of 200 emails per day, not including spam; I send about half that many. The people with whom I work most closely remind me from time to time how important it is to have face to face discussions, because of the limitations of email as a medium: it is tone-deaf and doesn’t allow interactive exchange; as a consequence it creates and exacerbates conflict; and it is too easy to make careless mistakes that are then distributed rather more widely than intended. By now, everyone has had the experience of a message that was meant in jest being read as if one is yelling or of having hit the send button only to regret it a moment later.
I also appreciate the internet. This blog is a form of mass communication that would have been impossible only a few years ago, and the ability to engage in it without almost no effort is a salutary development. The web gives us new powers of creative expression, allows the formation of social networks, and has the potential for changing political structures. Yet the internet also is vulnerable to abuse. Not everything that is thought should be said and the anonymity of the websites seems to encourage a level of discourse that is anything but ideal.
Taken together, email and the internet have a wonderful effect of promoting democracy and equality. I welcome that. Yet they also have consequences that are not as positive. They create a false sense of intimacy and a detrimental informality. I encourage alumni and students, for example, to feel free to send me messages. They should not hesitate to do that. But an invitation to direct access doesn’t also mean that I can or should respond to every concern raised by an alumnus or student immediately, however important it may appear to the individual or in fact turns out to be objectively. In most instances, we have an established set of procedures that has proven effective for addressing issues, and contacting me is typically not the best means of resolving problems. An analogy might be made to the very legal system in which we train advocates and counselors. It is possible to contact lawyers and judges by email. But numerous cases have emerged of the difficult situations of professional responsibility that are created by potential clients contacting lawyers and disclosing too much, and it would be wrong to expect casual interaction through electronic media with judges simply because it is technologically feasible. We have developed systems such as for civil procedure, criminal procedure, and evidence that, through experience, have proven to be better than ad hoc approaches.
I have been reflecting on these issues, because, as some of you no doubt are aware, a Wayne State University law student who was displeased with an interview experience recently saw his email message to the hiring attorney posted to a popular website for practicing lawyers. His original anger then attracted mockery from the world over. I have heard from numerous sources about this dispute. I need not say more about this, other than to observe that this individual has embarrassed not only himself but also the institution with which he will always be associated. This episode is regrettable. It need not be repeated.
State Bar
Last week I had the pleasure of attending the State Bar Annual Meeting in Grand Rapids. Our Law School always hosts a reception, and we had wonderful turnout for this important event. State Bar President Ronald D. Keefe, class of 1972, was our special guest. He delivered a few remarks on the Keith Center plans, joking that the building he had known as new was now regarded as antiquated. Everyone enjoyed themselves, reminiscing about the first year, their favorite teachers, and Circa. Professor Vincent Wellman and Development Officer Frank Castronova represented the Law School as well; Adjunct Professor Michael Shpiece also came.
