Friday, January 11, 2008
Rules
While as Dean I believe it is crucial to foster a sense of stakeholding, with students at the center of the community, I also recognize that the role includes the responsibility to make decisions that may be unpopular both about policy and as to specific cases. Every semester, I must sign letters informing a small number of persons that they are no longer academically eligible to continue their education here, their scholarship will not continue, they cannot graduate, they face discipline for misconduct, and so on. The best I can do is ensure that we support people as much as we can while they are enrolled to give them every chance to succeed; that our decision-making is principled and fair; and that we explain our actions in a reasoned manner. Accordingly, I would be remiss if I did not occasionally note the importance of learning the rules that govern an institution.
The study of law offers insights into the management of a law school, and vice versa. Indeed, students who are being trained in advocacy -- specifically legal advocacy that abides by precedent and a set of formal procedures -- may be expected to be more attentive to the rules that govern an institution. Students are already part of the profession, even though they have yet to graduate and pass the bar exam. They are expected to conduct themselves as lawyers would, and it is not easy to adjust to such norms. There are positive aspects to the law; there are negative aspects. It is a cliche, but one we might sometimes prefer to ignore, that every choice produces consequences.
Just as lawyers recognize they must abide by statutes and cases, so too students must recognize there are university regulations. Lawyers are able to challenge the status quo, but even then what distinguishes legal advocacy for the better is its established structure for doing so.
From time to time, students who are unhappy about an outcome seek to appeal it. And sometimes, after they have appealed through the normal process and exhausted their options, they hope to continue their appeal by requesting that the Dean or the faculty make an exception because of their personal circumstances, which may be genuinely compelling. They are surprised, then, to find that the Dean lacks authority to grant extraordinary relief or that the faculty have agreed, as a matter of policy, that they will not take a particular type of action, such as changing a grade. In these situations, students may be disappointed -- understandably.
Yet there are parallels in the practice of law. The rules governing appeals, for example, are so strict as to shock most laypeople and even lawyers unfamiliar with that specialized area. Failure to file an appeal on a timely basis is virtually certain to be fatal to a case, no matter what the facts show about the merits. Statutes of limitations are similar. Once they have run, if the recognized exceptions do not apply, well-founded claims may nonetheless be lost.
There are various reasons for such seemingly harsh results, which are amply covered in the relevant courses. Suffice it to say that the rules have typically been adopted because they produce optimal results in the aggregate even if they fail to do so in specific instances. There may be countervailing considerations. Time limits and limits on appeals tend to be severe, because society as a whole values resolution and repose. Such limits also tend to be enforced uniformly, out of our commitment to equal justice: a waiver in this case either means that one individual receives special treatment by virtue of nothing more than having been aggressive or that numerous others must then in turn also be considered.
A lawyer who wishes to counsel clients in these intricacies must abide by them, too.
