| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
|
| | -- LizzieOShea - 03 Oct 2015 |
|
<
< | Lizzie, I greatly admire your repeated attempts to assuage two competing approaches to social action, but I fear that you have missed the point. Here you simply restate the perceived benefits of the incumbent approach without fully engaging with the central criticism brought by the insurgent. This makes sense to you because a recurring theme underlying your argument is that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive, and that so long as the incumbent appears even slightly productive, it is undeniably worth our time. That belief is erroneous and must be corrected before we continue this discussion any further. |
>
> | Lizzie, I admire your attempts to assuage two competing approaches to social action, but I fear that in attempting to moderate you have missed the takeaway. Here you simply restate the perceived benefits of the incumbent approach without fully engaging with the central criticism brought on by the insurgent. This makes sense to you because a recurring theme underlying your argument is that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. According to you, there is no conflict - there are benefits to each approach. Thus, as long as the incumbent appears even slightly productive, it is undeniably worth preserving. That belief is erroneous and must be corrected before we continue this discussion any further. |
| | |
|
<
< | By approaching this subject the way you have, you are de-politicizing an essentially political decision that is shaping our common life together. To teach a subject one way involves a conscious choice not to teach it another way. Students are at liberty to question that choice, which is undeniably political. Teachers are obliged to explain it. |
>
> | By approaching this subject the way you have, you are de-politicizing a fundamentally political decision - one that is actively shaping our common life together. To teach a subject one way necessarily involves a conscious choice not to teach it another way. Students are at liberty to question that choice. Teachers are obliged to defend the merits of that choice or change it. |
| | |
|
<
< | As far as I can tell, the purpose of this class is - or ought to be - to teach law students how to drive social impact using the Internet. The question hidden beneath our entire discussion (until the end of this sentence) is simple: Is the curriculum that we have purchased the optimal way to fulfill that goal? |
>
> | As far as I can tell, the purpose of this class is - or ought to be - to teach law students how to drive social impact using the Internet. The question underlying our entire discussion has until the end of this paragraph gone unstated, but to law students it should have already been obvious. The question, put simply: Does this curriculum represent the optimal value of our purchase? |
| | |
|
<
< | As I have stated, based on my personal experience and understanding of social theory (both of which are admittedly less expansive than Eben’s), it is not clear to me that mass distribution of knowledge resources constitutes the most productive form of social action (or even close to it). There are ways to teach law that at once center on the Internet and also are more overtly materialist, striking directly at social injustice/poverty rather than relying on the additional assumption that knowledge will be used productively by others. For whatever reason, we have chosen one way to teach and not the others. |
>
> | As I have stated, based on my personal experience and understanding of social theory (both of which are admittedly less expansive than Eben’s), it is not clear to me that mass distribution of knowledge resources constitutes the most productive form of social action (or even close to it). There are ways to teach law that both center on the Internet and also are more overtly materialist, focusing directly on social injustice/poverty rather than on distributing knowledge to others in the hope that they will use it productively. For whatever reason, we have chosen one way to teach and not the others. |
| | |
|
<
< | Here we are socially conscious and talented individuals sitting in one of the most privileged institutions in the world. Why are we not learning how to use the Internet to fight economic inequality, reduce the cost of living, and restructure governmental institutions? Why are those being written off as secondary goals to take a back seat to discussions about IP laws, free education, and data privacy? The answers to those questions involve some sort of judgment about what it means to be a lawyer in the Internet society (and also a judgment about the definition of human freedom). I do not think I am out of line demanding an adequate explanation about where that judgment came from. |
>
> | We are socially conscious and talented individuals sitting in one of the most privileged institutions in the world. Why are we not learning how to use the Internet to fight economic inequality, reduce the cost of living, and restructure governmental institutions? Why are those being written off as secondary goals, taking a back seat to discussions about IP laws, free education, and data privacy? The answers to those questions involve a political judgment about what it means to be a lawyer in the Internet society. I am not out of line demanding an adequate explanation for where that judgment came from. |
| | -- ShayBanerjee - 04 Oct 2015
|