Reading this morning’s discussion about AI and legal education on the DR Listserv brought to mind an old debate that many ADR academics will recall.
In 1984, James J. White published his well-known review of Getting to Yes, titled The Pros and Cons of Getting to YES, in the Journal of Legal Education. My recollection is that White argued, among other things, that the Getting to Yes framework did not fully capture how negotiation often operates in the real world. Roger Fisher’s response, as I recall, was more about advocating for how the world should be.
What has always struck me about that exchange is that both perspectives had merit. White was reminding us to pay attention to the realities that negotiators face. Fisher was reminding us that theory can also serve an important function by helping us negotiate better than we otherwise would.
I was reminded of that conversation while reading this morning’s exchange on the DR Listserv concerning law students’ use of AI. I think it’s fair to say that John Lande and Stacie Strong (as well as others) have been in a longer conversation on the list serv wrestling with questions about AI and teaching. John has argued that students are already using AI and that educators should devote energy to helping them learn to use these tools thoughtfully, ethically, and effectively. Stacie has emphasized concerns that AI may interfere with the development of essential skills and professional judgment if students become overly reliant on it. Both concerns strike me as entirely legitimate.
My reaction is that this is not an either-or-question. Echoing the White-Fisher exchange, the conversation reflects a tension between preparing students for the profession they will enter and ensuring they develop the skills, judgment, and habits of mind that professional competence requires. Students are using AI. That is simply a fact. At the same time, legal education has an obligation to help students develop the analytical abilities, writing skills, and professional judgment that cannot be outsourced. The challenge is figuring out how to do both.
Like many of you, I am still trying to figure out where the right balance lies. That is one reason I have appreciated the ongoing discussion. Thoughtful disagreements and respectful exchanges help all of us think more carefully about our teaching and our students’ futures.
So, my thanks to John, Stacie, and everyone else contributing to the conversation.
