We often see reports complaining that professors are indoctrinating students by conveying only one side of the story. So I asked 31 consumer law professors: when you teach consumer law, how important is it to you that students hear arguments you yourself disagree with? As reported in Who Teaches Consumer Law? forthcoming in the Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law, 17 respondents saw it as very important while 13 said it was somewhat important. In other words, only one professor did not see it as important. Of course, these results are self-reported and it’s a small sample but they reflect my own views too. I find that my course tends to attract students who lean towards the consumer side of the aisle, which means that sometimes I have to pull the industry arguments out of students or simply articulate it myself. Regular readers of the blog will know that that means I’m arguing against the positions I agree with. But I don’t want the first time my students hear the industry side to be when they are in practice. In my view, class should present both sides.
I suspect most law professors feel similarly about presenting both sides, but that’s just speculation on my part. After all, part of good advocacy is anticipating your adversary’s arguments.
UPDATE: Mark Budnitz of Georgia State writes:
I found that the best way for me to represent a consumer was to step into the shoes of the lawyer representing the business, imagining that lawyer’s best arguments on the facts and the law. Consequently, when discussing a problem with my class I would call on one student to represent the consumer, another to represent the business. They were then required to present their arguments to the class. Some students felt uncomfortable representing the business, saying they would never take a case against a consumer. I would explain that they would be much better able to help the consumer if they could force themselves into that role, even though they found it disagreeable.
The first day of class I would tell the students that they would be hearing about my strong opposition to mandatory pre-dispute arbitration and payday loans. But otherwise I would keep my personal views to myself and try to fairly discuss all sides. Of course, the students could read my articles and easily discover how I felt about many issues. But I never referred to my articles, comments to agencies, etc., in the classroom. I believe my job was to teach students the law and underlying policy and provide them with an understanding of the impact of these on consumers and businesses.
