Law in Contemporary Society

View   r1
ExplainingWhatISaidInClassToday 1 - 06 Feb 2009 - Main.AnjaHavedal
Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
I could put this post under the “WhyIDoNotSpeakInClass” parent topic; I think it became obvious today that I usually keep quiet because my brain-to-mouth filter is very porous and speaking one’s mind is too often a bad idea. I have been told that I called Prof. Moglen a failure. That was certainly not my intention. I merely intended to highlight that it is not always clear that he lives up to the standard he sets for us.

If we were truly lawyers, Prof. Moglen said, we would not have a problem fighting the grading curve. I applied this logic to my impression that Prof. Moglen wants to change the trajectory of Columbia graduates, but that he still thinks 99 percent of them end up unhappily grasped by the claws of almighty law firms. This, in my mind, rendered somewhat hypocritical the recurring statement that “I decide what I want to change, and then I figure out how to change it.” I was happy to hear that my impression was incorrect, and that Prof. Moglen thinks that a moment of change is approaching. I wish I had heard this sooner. Elaborating on Prof. Moglen’s metaphor, I believe that to establish credibility as a leader, a “good general” must show his troops that victory is within reach. In other words: We all need a carrot, lest we grow numb to the stick.

I also feel that I need to clarify my “So what?” response to the Arnold-induced realization that our lives are more affected by non-choices than by choices. I completely agree with Arnold on this point. What I meant by my admittedly vague two-word question was: Now how do we turn this realization into something useful and constructive? Prof. Moglen gave us an excellent answer: Let the awareness of our happenstance privilege nourish our commitment to change and justice, and let it reinforce our ability to resist the temptation of six-figure salaries. That was exactly what I wanted to hear.

The assumption, however, that we are unaware of the non-choices that have given us a life of privilege is offensive. I am sure that many of us have considered this issue prior to reading the Arnold piece. I grew up in Sweden, one of the world’s most egalitarian and prosperous societies, where all university students get equal stipends, health care is free and universal, and cabinet ministers use public transportation. The awareness of my own privilege has motivated every major choice I have made in life. I came to law school after spending two years in a war zone. My daily commute had me traversing open sewers; the cook at my house lost his daughter to fundamentalists who could not stand seeing a woman’s face on TV; and the Taliban killed six people in the changing room at my gym. I could not be more aware of my own privilege, and I know full well that I did nothing to earn it.

I also find offensive the assumption that law school is the first-ever challenge to our commitment to the public good. I am sure that many of us who are committed to pursue a career in public interest law have already tested that commitment. For the first months of my six years of non-profit work, my husband and I slept on an air mattress because our combined paychecks did not cover both rent and a bed. Unless law firms possess some magic of which I am unaware, I consider myself capable of sustaining my commitment even in the face of hardship.

Finally, the assumption that women care about what they eat because society wants them to be bulimic is offensive. After inviting discussion on the issue, Prof. Moglen ignored his own professed principle – whereby one should never merely seek to prove an idea wrong – by vehemently declaring that he was right. As is the case with much of what we discuss, there is more nuance in this issue. I, for one, care about what I eat because my mother is so obese she can no longer walk.

I may be wrong, but I think that Prof. Moglen is to some degree preaching to the choir, which makes his abrasiveness somewhat unnecessary. We are all in this class for a reason: We do not want to be “canned meat.” I am in this class because I had tears in my eyes when Prof. Moglen finished speaking at the 1L electives panel. I want to be a happy lawyer, I want to effect change. I did not expect that the process would involve being told that, no matter what I think about my own commitment to serving justice and the public good, I will end up as canned meat.

All of this said, let it be known that I really enjoy this class – because it makes me feel something (even if that feeling is mostly frustration with a sprinkling of confusion).

-- AnjaHavedal? - 06 Feb 2009

 
<--/commentPlugin-->

Revision 1r1 - 06 Feb 2009 - 01:04:24 - AnjaHavedal?
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM