Devin, the comparison you draw between technology and our reading load is very interesting. Regarding their respective “firehose effects,” you mention the major cognitive consequences—poor reading skills/ non-creative legal thinking. I would emphasize the psychological consequences—apathy, dependence. Having all this information coming at us at all times makes us care about each additional piece of information less. At the same time, we have come to depend upon the constant stream of info such that its sudden disappearance would traumatize us. We are becoming weaker, feebler animals, in my opinion.

Regarding the reading load, I think it engenders the same feelings of apathy and dependence. The assignment of heavy reading is one tool by which CLS controls what we think, but this occurs on multiple levels. Consider, for example, the way in which the casebook authors select and excerpt cases. First, a few hundred cases are chosen out of the universe of cases because they best fit into the authors’ tidy paradigms. These authors then sculpt the cases down in various degrees to fit their agenda perfectly. By “their” I refer, not merely to the agenda of the casebook authors, but also that of those who control the casebook authors—Foundation Press and the like. Now, we have so much reading that few—if any—of us actually go look up the full opinion after reading the casebook version to see what the case is really about. Here, then, is where I locate apathy.

This holds true, I believe, whether or not I refer to students who actually do all the reading, some of the reading, or none of the reading at all. We simply accept the excerpted version, condense it further for note-taking purposes, and never think of it again (until finals, perhaps?).

-- KalliopeKefallinos - 10 Mar 2010