I would like to respond to Professor Moglen (I assume it is him who responded with the red writing). Looking back I see why my post does not "follow" the way that I conclusively stated. I omitted crucial premises that probably require examination. First, I tend to believe that if I recognize a problem, discussion should follow about how to fix that problem. After the recognition of our fears, I jumped to a conclusion that the crucial problem was law school structure (rather than our behavior in this structure). I obviously have little experience in this arena and my examination of the broader issue probably reflects that. However, I still do think that examination should generally follow recognition. Second, I assumed (perhaps even neglected to address) that the problem I identified (structure of law school) could be addressed without proper analysis of the prerequisites. I see more clearly why Professor Moglen informed us in class that we are not yet ready, but that this is not a problem. I hope that I am making these cursory leaps and errors with misguided optimism rather than fundamental misunderstanding.

I look forward to continue to work with Professor Moglen and the class to cement the basics that are necessary for the higher-order analysis I mentioned earlier. And although I honestly do not feel that foundation just yet, as Professor noted in Anja's explanatory topic, I am glad we still have many more weeks to work on this together.

-- KeithEdelman - 06 Feb 2009