ILNews

Dean's Desk: Dean excited to teach, interact more with students this semester

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dean-newton-notre-dameI am sitting at my desk, back from vacation, swamped under the combination of the paperwork that accrued while I was gone and what seems like an unusual amount of pre-term work. I am realizing that I am also just four weeks away from teaching a four-credit contracts course for the first time in 10 years and wondering “What was I thinking?” Although some professors can glance at their notes, stroll into class and conduct a brilliant session, I’ve always been the kind that has to review everything, rewrite my notes and build up a certain level of anxiety before teaching, like the actor who falls flat if she doesn’t experience stage fright. In other words, I’ve signed up for what could be a world of pain in the fall semester of 2013.

A rational person might wonder why a dean would add another 15-20 hours to her already burdened schedule. The answer is simple: Having just been offered (and happily accepted) the opportunity to continue as the dean for another five years, I know that teaching again will enable me to be a better dean. First, being back in the classroom will be energizing, reminding me why we are all engaged in legal education, and especially why it is such a joy to teach first-year, first-semester courses and help 1Ls move from stumbling over the unfamiliar procedural terms and language (who remembers wondering what the heck “assumpsit” is) to a growing confidence in their analytical ability and early efforts to flex their rhetorical muscles.

And the cases tell such great stories! The cotton farmers who feel “sick as an old hound dog who ate a rotten skunk” when the price at the time of delivery of their forward contracts skyrockets; the good ship Peerless; the unfortunately formed nose … . I could go on and on.

But apart from the pleasure teaching brings me (and hopefully my students), teaching will put me in much closer touch with some 60 1L students. Strengthening communications with the students has always been an important goal, but for a teacher used to lines of students outside her office, lines of communication between me as the dean with law students have been much harder to open.

I’ve tried them all: So-called “town hall” meetings don’t really work, unless there is a controversy that draws a crowd. Scheduling around classes is an issue, and after-hours attendance by busy law students is often disappointing and not representative of the class body. Emailing information is ineffective (unless the email offers a job or states a bar deadline). I’ve also scheduled “coffee and bagels with the dean,” inviting students to come to a breakfast to discuss whatever is on their mind before heading off to classes. But here too, attendance is generally sparse. An afternoon session featuring cookies was also lightly attended. On the other hand, those students who attended seemed quite happy with the conversation as well as the food.

I’ve taken small groups of students to lunch, and it is great fun to get to know the group in a relaxed setting, away from the law school, but it’s not really possible to take all our students to lunch. I have also had interesting conversations with those students who visit me in my office, whether to share a concern, ask for advice in their job searches, or just visit.

But a student who might be eager to seek me out to ask why the buyers were able to get specific performance of the cotton contracts is reluctant to take the time of the dean to ask about other matters. In other words, none of these outreach efforts have provided the kind of daily contact with a fair cross-section of the student body that teaching a class can provide. And none include the joy of teaching students how to read the Uniform Commercial Code (Yes, Virginia, you do have to read every word!).

How could a code provision requiring assurances to be given in writing be enforceable without one? How can a field built on the notion that promises must be kept tolerate the notion of efficient breach? These and other puzzles require far more than the ability to memorize. They require an appreciation of history, of the theories of statutory interpretation, of business practices, and economic theories, and the great moral principles underlying the reasons we enforce promises. And in the wide-ranging discussions we have in class and office hours, I will learn so much more about students and they will, in turn, feel much more comfortable raising issues with me that go beyond contract law.

I can hardly wait!•

__________

Nell Jessup Newton is the Joseph A. Matson Dean and Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. She has served as dean since 2009. The opinions expressed are those of the author.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT