|
LilyVoFirstPaper 13 - 22 Jul 2013 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
>
> | Revision 13 is unreadable | |
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaperSpring2012 * Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest? " |
|---|
My Dreams and Columbia
“Columbia Law is where dreams die.”
That was what Donna, an NYU Law student, told me when she was attempting to dissuade me from coming here. It was a ridiculous recruiting tactic, but, in retrospect, she was partially right.
When I first started law school at Columbia, I thought that I had almost finished accomplishing several of my life goals. My younger brother Kevin, whom I had spent the previous year taking care of, graduated from high school and came to Columbia with me to study pre-med. Also, I had fallen in love with Jason, an economics graduate student from Kansas, and planned to marry him during the summer after my 1L year. Regarding my career, I thought that a degree from Columbia, one of the nation’s most selective law schools, would almost guarantee me any job that I wanted. For the past several years prior to law school, my career goal was to work for the ACLU’s Security Project. I dreamed of arguing Supreme Court cases that would shut down Guantanamo Bay, the extraordinary rendition and drone strike programs, and many other human rights abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism. To me, Columbia represented a new beginning, an opportunity to gain the education I needed to positively impact the world.
One of my dreams did die at Columbia during my first semester, although for reasons completely unrelated to school. After a verbally abusive argument, I broke up with Jason. I did not take the break-up well, rapidly spiraling into depression. After losing the only man I have ever loved, I no longer felt any inclination to study or socialize with my classmates.
Shortly afterwards, I suffered another disappointment. My academic performance during my first semester was extremely average. My grades were not high enough for me to make law review and secure multiple prestigious clerkships, both of which are essentially requirements for a position at the ACLU. Furthermore, the National Security Project rejected my summer internship application without an interview.
I soon began to reevaluate my dreams. Because reconciliation with Jason and employment at the ACLU no longer seemed to be options, I persuaded myself that I no longer wanted either.
Jason had never appreciated me. Whenever he needed anything, I would always prioritize helping him, neglecting my school work and refusing to sleep until his problems were resolved. While I admittedly was not always the most pleasant girlfriend, I did not deserve to be constantly insulted. I would be happier not loving again than continuing to love someone who did not truly love me back.
As for the ACLU, I felt insulted by their refusal to even consider me, despite my years of human rights activism experience. How can I be unqualified to help litigate on national security merely because I was not as good at guessing on Andrzej Rapaczynski’s true/false Torts exam as my classmates? Such rejection made me reconsider whether it would be worth it to continue with my original plan of specializing in national security law while in school. What if I still would not be good enough for the ACLU? Unlike many of my classmates, I cannot rely on my family for financial support if I fail to find employment after law school, which would be more likely if I do not have diverse training.
Now, I am considering antitrust law instead, mostly because I crave stability. I have been on my own since I was 19. Until I secured a full-time job after college, I was never sure if I would continue to have enough money for food or a roof over my head at night. Forgoing my dream job for a bearable alternative is a small price to pay to avoid living in poverty again.
This summer, I will be interning at the Federal Trade Commission, which hopefully will help me with my decision. I was extremely passionate about economics, my undergraduate major, and would love to be able to use it, as well as my legal knowledge, in my career. I began college during the height of the 2008 Financial Crisis, and decided to major in economics in hopes of researching how to prevent future economic collapse and suffering. I always viewed economics as a form of helping the community by helping create prosperity. Antitrust litigation also could be a form of service due to the importance of maintaining competitive markets.
Despite my desire for stability, I also crave freedom. Throughout my adult life, I have never been free. Money, family, and personal insecurities have always prevented me from doing what I wanted. After my break-up with Jason, I began doubting my self-worth, which may be why I question my ability to do national security law. While money and family are legitimate barriers to freedom, my personal insecurities are not. I don’t want to give up on my dreams. I have always hated weakness and taken pride in my ability to overcome adversity.
So maybe I can still become a national security lawyer without working for the ACLU. Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran litigated Hedges v. Obama, a high-profile Second Circuit case challenging the National Defense Authorization Act, independent of any organization. Maybe I can too. Or maybe I can improve academically enough to be competitive for an ACLU position. We’ll see.
Going forward, I plan to take classes in both fields that I am considering, including corporations, securities, antitrust, human rights, and national security. I also will continue having an active role in Columbia’s ACLU and Amnesty International chapters, which hopefully will connect me with other like-minded students. Finally, I hope to participate in externships in order to gain more practical legal experience. I am determined to eventually have what I want in life. I just need to decide what it is that I want. I hope that law school can help me do that.
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1364328556" from="LawContempSoc.TWikiGuestFirstPaper" to="LawContempSoc.LilyVoFirstPaper" |
|---|
|
|
|
LilyVoFirstPaper 11 - 31 Mar 2013 - Main.LilyVo
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaperSpring2012" |
|---|
My Dreams and Columbia | |
<
< | "Columbia Law is where dreams die." | >
> | “Columbia Law is where dreams die.” | | | | |
<
< | That was what Donna, a NYU Law student, told me when she was attempting to dissuade me from coming to here. It was a ridiculous recruiting tactic, but, in retrospect, she was partially right. | >
> | That was what Donna, an NYU Law student, told me when she was attempting to dissuade me from coming here. It was a ridiculous recruiting tactic, but, in retrospect, she was partially right. | | | | |
<
< | When I first started law school at Columbia, I thought that I had almost finished accomplishing several of my life goals. My younger brother Kevin, whom I had spent the last year of my life taking care of, graduated from high school and came to Columbia with me to study pre-med. Also, I had fallen in love with Jason, an economics graduate student from Kansas, and planned to marry him during the summer of my 1L year. Regarding my career, I thought that a degree from Columbia, one of the nation’s most selective law schools, would almost guarantee me any job I wanted. For the past several years prior to law school, my career goal was to work for the ACLU’s National Security Project. I dreamed of arguing Supreme Court cases that would shut down Guantanamo Bay, the extraordinary rendition and drone strike programs, and end many other human rights abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism. To me, Columbia represented a new beginning, an opportunity to gain the education I needed to positively impact the world. | >
> | When I first started law school at Columbia, I thought that I had almost finished accomplishing several of my life goals. My younger brother Kevin, whom I had spent the previous year taking care of, graduated from high school and came to Columbia with me to study pre-med. Also, I had fallen in love with Jason, an economics graduate student from Kansas, and planned to marry him during the summer after my 1L year. Regarding my career, I thought that a degree from Columbia, one of the nation’s most selective law schools, would almost guarantee me any job that I wanted. For the past several years prior to law school, my career goal was to work for the ACLU’s Security Project. I dreamed of arguing Supreme Court cases that would shut down Guantanamo Bay, the extraordinary rendition and drone strike programs, and many other human rights abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism. To me, Columbia represented a new beginning, an opportunity to gain the education I needed to positively impact the world. | | | | |
<
< | One of my dreams did die at Columbia during my first semester (although for reasons completely unrelated to school. After a verbally abusive argument, I broke up with Jason less than a week before we were to make our engagement official. | >
> | One of my dreams did die at Columbia during my first semester, although for reasons completely unrelated to school. After a verbally abusive argument, I broke up with Jason. I did not take the break-up well, rapidly spiraling into depression. After losing the only man I have ever loved, I no longer felt any inclination to study or socialize with my classmates. | | | | |
<
< | I am not sure what to do with my career dream, however. I did not find out until after I came here that, not only does the ACLU National Security Project want candidates with Ivy League degrees, they want candidates who made law review and completed multiple clerkships. My performance during my first semester was extremely average, definitely not enough to make law review and secure prestigious clerkships. Furthermore, despite several years of human rights activism experience, the National Security Project rejected my internship application without an interview. As a “risk-averse control freak,” I am extremely worried about focusing on national security law, graduating, and not finding any work to do with my highly-specialized background. | >
> | Shortly afterwards, I suffered another disappointment. My academic performance during my first semester was extremely average. My grades were not high enough for me to make law review and secure multiple prestigious clerkships, both of which are essentially requirements for a position at the ACLU. Furthermore, the National Security Project rejected my summer internship application without an interview. | | | | |
<
< | So, given that information about my background, it’s time for me to address the essay theme: what kind of lawyer I want to become and how law school will help me achieve that. | >
> | I soon began to reevaluate my dreams. Because reconciliation with Jason and employment at the ACLU no longer seemed to be options, I persuaded myself that I no longer wanted either. | | | | |
<
< | If I have learned one lesson in this life, it is that life never goes according to plan, so the plans will have to change. That will probably apply to my career plans, as well as my wedding plans. | >
> | Jason had never appreciated me. Whenever he needed anything, I would always prioritize helping him, neglecting my school work and refusing to sleep until his problems were resolved. While I admittedly was not always the most pleasant girlfriend, I did not deserve to be constantly insulted. I would be happier not loving again than continuing to love someone who did not truly love me back. | | | | |
<
< | I think I would really like antitrust law. I have not yet taken any classes in the subject, but I will be interning at the Federal Trade Commission this summer, which hopefully will give me some practical experience in the field. I was extremely passionate about economics, my undergraduate major, and would love to be able to use it, as well as my legal knowledge, in my career. I began college during the height of the 2008 Financial Crisis, and decided to major in economics in hopes of researching how to prevent future economic collapse and suffering. I always viewed economics as a form of helping the community by helping create prosperity. Antitrust litigation also could be a form of service. Through my economics classes and research, I have learned the importance of maintaining competitive markets and would love to help do that. Several classes at the law school could potentially prepare me for a career in antitrust. I have especially heard that Corporations with Robert Jackson, Securities with Merritt Fox, and Antitrust with Scott Hemphill were amazing. Law school could also help me by connecting me with other students following the same career path, who could advise and mentor me. I have met so many talented people at Columbia and hope to be able to work with them in the future. | >
> | As for the ACLU, I felt insulted by their refusal to even consider me, despite my years of human rights activism experience. How can I be unqualified to help litigate on national security merely because I was not as good at guessing on Andrzej Rapaczynski’s true/false Torts exam as my classmates? Such rejection made me reconsider whether it would be worth it to continue with my original plan of specializing in national security law while in school. What if I still would not be good enough for the ACLU? Unlike many of my classmates, I cannot rely on my family for financial support if I fail to find employment after law school, which would be more likely if I do not have diverse training. | | | | |
<
< | Maybe national security law could still work out for me though. Opening my own national security practice seems slightly impractical, so I am hoping to try to do well this semester in order to be able to work for the ACLU. I currently serve as board representatives in Columbia’s ACLU and Amnesty International chapters, and hope to continue meeting like-minded activists. I also could participate in Columbia’s Human Rights Clinic and take the Human Rights class with Sarah Cleveland, which I heard was amazing. I also am interested in taking National Security Law with Matthew Waxman. Although I strongly disagree with his views and past actions, I definitely would like to learn the other side so I can one day win against it. | >
> | Now, I am considering antitrust law instead, mostly because I crave stability. I have been on my own since I was 19. Until I secured a full-time job after college, I was never sure if I would continue to have enough money for food or a roof over my head at night. Forgoing my dream job for a bearable alternative is a small price to pay to avoid living in poverty again. | | | | |
<
< | Or maybe Columbia can help me find a new career dream that I haven’t thought of yet. Last semester, I surprisingly developed a strong interest in contracts, which I originally expected to be an incredibly boring class. I plan to take a wide variety of classes over the next two years to explore potential fields of practice. | >
> | This summer, I will be interning at the Federal Trade Commission, which hopefully will help me with my decision. I was extremely passionate about economics, my undergraduate major, and would love to be able to use it, as well as my legal knowledge, in my career. I began college during the height of the 2008 Financial Crisis, and decided to major in economics in hopes of researching how to prevent future economic collapse and suffering. I always viewed economics as a form of helping the community by helping create prosperity. Antitrust litigation also could be a form of service due to the importance of maintaining competitive markets. | | | | |
<
< | Even if one of my dreams has died at Columbia, some of them may begin here. Despite my problems last semester, I love Columbia. I love attending school with so many motivated students and learning from brilliant professors. Even if my plans have changed, life tends to work out for the better. I really look forward to seeing where my Columbia Law experience takes me over the next two years. | >
> | Despite my desire for stability, I also crave freedom. Throughout my adult life, I have never been free. Money, family, and personal insecurities have always prevented me from doing what I wanted. After my break-up with Jason, I began doubting my self-worth, which may be why I question my ability to do national security law. While money and family are legitimate barriers to freedom, my personal insecurities are not. I don’t want to give up on my dreams. I have always hated weakness and taken pride in my ability to overcome adversity. | | | | |
>
> | So maybe I can still become a national security lawyer without working for the ACLU. Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran litigated Hedges v. Obama, a high-profile Second Circuit case challenging the National Defense Authorization Act, independent of any organization. Maybe I can too. Or maybe I can improve academically enough to be competitive for an ACLU position. We’ll see. | | | | |
<
< |
Let's talk about this essay draft when you have a chance. It seems to me that the most useful path in revision is to let the other side out the trunk you've locked it in, so that the relentless optimism of this present draft can at least allow the existence of a tiny, pitiful and undangerous opposition.
| >
> | Going forward, I plan to take classes in both fields that I am considering, including corporations, securities, antitrust, human rights, and national security. I also will continue having an active role in Columbia’s ACLU and Amnesty International chapters, which hopefully will connect me with other like-minded students. Finally, I hope to participate in externships in order to gain more practical legal experience. I am determined to eventually have what I want in life. I just need to decide what it is that I want. I hope that law school can help me do that. | | |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1364328556" from="LawContempSoc.TWikiGuestFirstPaper" to="LawContempSoc.LilyVoFirstPaper" |
|---|
|
|
|
LilyVoFirstPaper 10 - 26 Mar 2013 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaperSpring2012" |
|---|
| |
<
< | My Dreams and Columbia version 3: | >
> | My Dreams and Columbia | | | | |
<
< | “Columbia Law is where dreams die.” | >
> | "Columbia Law is where dreams die." | | | That was what Donna, a NYU Law student, told me when she was attempting to dissuade me from coming to here. It was a ridiculous recruiting tactic, but, in retrospect, she was partially right.
| | | Or maybe Columbia can help me find a new career dream that I haven’t thought of yet. Last semester, I surprisingly developed a strong interest in contracts, which I originally expected to be an incredibly boring class. I plan to take a wide variety of classes over the next two years to explore potential fields of practice.
Even if one of my dreams has died at Columbia, some of them may begin here. Despite my problems last semester, I love Columbia. I love attending school with so many motivated students and learning from brilliant professors. Even if my plans have changed, life tends to work out for the better. I really look forward to seeing where my Columbia Law experience takes me over the next two years. | |
>
> |
Let's talk about this essay draft when you have a chance. It seems to me that the most useful path in revision is to let the other side out the trunk you've locked it in, so that the relentless optimism of this present draft can at least allow the existence of a tiny, pitiful and undangerous opposition.
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1364328556" from="LawContempSoc.TWikiGuestFirstPaper" to="LawContempSoc.LilyVoFirstPaper" |
|---|
|
|
|
LilyVoFirstPaper 9 - 23 Feb 2013 - Main.LilyVo
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaperSpring2012" |
|---|
| |
<
< | CONFLICT version 3:
Then and Now: Two Perspectives on our Legal System | >
> | My Dreams and Columbia version 3: | | | | |
<
< | I grew increasingly unsettled while reading Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach. Upon reflection, I think the piece elicited discomfort because Cohen made me realize that I have been growing gradually more cynical in my outlook on the law. As a child, I regarded the law as synonymous with justice and morality. Yet starting law school and studying the system that I had thought functioned to protect the innocent and promote fairness made me increasingly skeptical about whether it actually does so. Ultimately, Transcendental Nonsense made me conscious of the fact that I currently hold two disparate views of the law – and this realization left me uneasy. | >
> | “Columbia Law is where dreams die.” | | | | |
<
< | My first perspective on the law – that it is a vehicle to effect meaningful change and to advocate on behalf of those who need it most – may seem naïve, but this was the perspective that was informed by my only actual experience with a lawyer. My sisters and I were raised by a mother who was neglectful at best, abusive at worst. The promise of escape came when I was ten years old and my father filed for divorce. I recall how scared I was of being taken from my dad, how helpless I felt at my fate being decided by strangers in this world of courtrooms, filled with lawyers and judges who spoke a language I couldn’t understand. | >
> | That was what Donna, a NYU Law student, told me when she was attempting to dissuade me from coming to here. It was a ridiculous recruiting tactic, but, in retrospect, she was partially right. | | | | |
<
< | I distinctly remember the day when my fears were quelled. Someone stepped in to help, someone who promised that my voice would be heard in that world of courtrooms, who promised that she would represent my sisters and me and protect our interests. When the proceedings had ended, I remember thinking that my lawyer kept her promise. My dad had full custody of my sisters and me, and we were finally safe. | >
> | When I first started law school at Columbia, I thought that I had almost finished accomplishing several of my life goals. My younger brother Kevin, whom I had spent the last year of my life taking care of, graduated from high school and came to Columbia with me to study pre-med. Also, I had fallen in love with Jason, an economics graduate student from Kansas, and planned to marry him during the summer of my 1L year. Regarding my career, I thought that a degree from Columbia, one of the nation’s most selective law schools, would almost guarantee me any job I wanted. For the past several years prior to law school, my career goal was to work for the ACLU’s National Security Project. I dreamed of arguing Supreme Court cases that would shut down Guantanamo Bay, the extraordinary rendition and drone strike programs, and end many other human rights abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism. To me, Columbia represented a new beginning, an opportunity to gain the education I needed to positively impact the world. | | | | |
<
< | I knew my lawyer only briefly, and never saw her again following the settlement of my parents' divorce, but the difference she made in my life is virtually indescribable. This advocate – who made sure that my voice was heard when I couldn’t use it myself – freed me from the circumstances of my childhood and changed the course of my life entirely. And so it was this experience that informed my initial understanding of our legal system as synonymous with advocacy and justice. | >
> | One of my dreams did die at Columbia during my first semester (although for reasons completely unrelated to school. After a verbally abusive argument, I broke up with Jason less than a week before we were to make our engagement official. | | | | |
<
< | My second perspective on the law is different and more cynical. Interestingly, this is the perspective that has been molded by my experiences thus far in law school, learning the intricacies of the very system I previously regarded as infallible. I struggled with reading and speaking in the legal jargon that fills the pages of every judicial opinion that we read, mostly comprised of words and rules that meant nothing to me just a few months ago. I began to wonder where and how these words and rules originated. Moreover, I wondered why the words are regarded as meaningful, why the rules are regarded as self-evident truisms. Cohen’s piece gave form and coherence to my nebulous thoughts: the magic ‘solving words’ of legal problems are hollow transcendental nonsense; the ‘rules’ are self-referential creations by the law. Thus there is inherent circularity in couching legal arguments in these meaningless terms. Cohen made me acutely aware of the disheartening implication of my other, more jaded musings about our legal system: courts hide behind a barrage of transcendental nonsense while arbitrary factors and undisclosed agendas potentially drive much of their decision-making. | >
> | I am not sure what to do with my career dream, however. I did not find out until after I came here that, not only does the ACLU National Security Project want candidates with Ivy League degrees, they want candidates who made law review and completed multiple clerkships. My performance during my first semester was extremely average, definitely not enough to make law review and secure prestigious clerkships. Furthermore, despite several years of human rights activism experience, the National Security Project rejected my internship application without an interview. As a “risk-averse control freak,” I am extremely worried about focusing on national security law, graduating, and not finding any work to do with my highly-specialized background. | | | | |
<
< | After realizing that I do in fact have two perspectives on the law that are seemingly at odds with each other, I began wondering how studying a system I revered as a child could have diminished my reverence for it so rapidly. I think that an explanation lies in the fact that when I was a child, my view of the law was not colored by the transcendental nonsense that pervades my law school studies and informs my more recently formed perspective on our legal system. As a child, the contours of my understanding were shaped by functionalism. | >
> | So, given that information about my background, it’s time for me to address the essay theme: what kind of lawyer I want to become and how law school will help me achieve that. | | | | |
<
< | More specifically, my first understanding of our legal system was created by the answers that my lawyer gave me when I asked her questions. While I don’t have memories of specific conversations with her, I know that she was able to convey clearly to me how the judge would decide which of my parents my sisters and I would live with. She was straightforward; she allayed my fears by telling me exactly what was going to transpire in the courtroom. I see now that my attorney was using Cohen’s functional approach to law. Her language was stripped of nonsensical legal terms that mean nothing to a child. My attorney made the world of courtrooms and judges understandable to a ten year old by distilling this foreign universe down to how it would actually, tangibly impact my sisters and me. In so doing she eased my fear at having my fate decided by a process I could not control. | >
> | If I have learned one lesson in this life, it is that life never goes according to plan, so the plans will have to change. That will probably apply to my career plans, as well as my wedding plans. | | | | |
<
< | And so perhaps the key to improving our legal system so that it is synonymous with justice, so that it truly does reflect my childhood conception of it, is for more lawyers and more judges to speak and write as if informing a child, as my attorney did for me so many years ago. After all, children do not care about or revere meaningless legal principles and concepts – children seek functional answers. Their inquiries are outcome-based. A shift to this outcome-oriented functionalism in conjunction with a disregard for hollow, amoral legal principles is the only way I can see to bring my childhood perception of the law into accord with reality. A transformation of this type will make room for ethical appraisal of our legal system, and in turn, perhaps someday it will be guided by human values and conceptions of morality. Only then will our legal system actually be worthy of my childhood reverence for it. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | I think I would really like antitrust law. I have not yet taken any classes in the subject, but I will be interning at the Federal Trade Commission this summer, which hopefully will give me some practical experience in the field. I was extremely passionate about economics, my undergraduate major, and would love to be able to use it, as well as my legal knowledge, in my career. I began college during the height of the 2008 Financial Crisis, and decided to major in economics in hopes of researching how to prevent future economic collapse and suffering. I always viewed economics as a form of helping the community by helping create prosperity. Antitrust litigation also could be a form of service. Through my economics classes and research, I have learned the importance of maintaining competitive markets and would love to help do that. Several classes at the law school could potentially prepare me for a career in antitrust. I have especially heard that Corporations with Robert Jackson, Securities with Merritt Fox, and Antitrust with Scott Hemphill were amazing. Law school could also help me by connecting me with other students following the same career path, who could advise and mentor me. I have met so many talented people at Columbia and hope to be able to work with them in the future.
Maybe national security law could still work out for me though. Opening my own national security practice seems slightly impractical, so I am hoping to try to do well this semester in order to be able to work for the ACLU. I currently serve as board representatives in Columbia’s ACLU and Amnesty International chapters, and hope to continue meeting like-minded activists. I also could participate in Columbia’s Human Rights Clinic and take the Human Rights class with Sarah Cleveland, which I heard was amazing. I also am interested in taking National Security Law with Matthew Waxman. Although I strongly disagree with his views and past actions, I definitely would like to learn the other side so I can one day win against it.
Or maybe Columbia can help me find a new career dream that I haven’t thought of yet. Last semester, I surprisingly developed a strong interest in contracts, which I originally expected to be an incredibly boring class. I plan to take a wide variety of classes over the next two years to explore potential fields of practice.
Even if one of my dreams has died at Columbia, some of them may begin here. Despite my problems last semester, I love Columbia. I love attending school with so many motivated students and learning from brilliant professors. Even if my plans have changed, life tends to work out for the better. I really look forward to seeing where my Columbia Law experience takes me over the next two years. |
|
|
LilyVoFirstPaper 7 - 16 Feb 2012 - Main.CourtneyDoak
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
CONFLICT version 3: | |
<
< | Swimming in transcendental nonsense | >
> | Then and Now: Two Perspectives on our Legal System | | | | |
>
> | I grew increasingly unsettled while reading Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach. Upon reflection, I think the piece elicited discomfort because Cohen made me realize that I have been growing gradually more cynical in my outlook on the law. As a child, I regarded the law as synonymous with justice and morality. Yet starting law school and studying the system that I had thought functioned to protect the innocent and promote fairness made me increasingly skeptical about whether it actually does so. Ultimately, Transcendental Nonsense made me conscious of the fact that I currently hold two disparate views of the law – and this realization left me uneasy. | | | | |
<
< | Felix Cohen’s assertion that “legal concepts are supernatural entities which do not have a verifiable existence except to the eyes of faith,” makes more sense than anything else I’ve read thus far in law school. That may be because much of what I have read makes no sense at all. Most legal doctrine doesn’t square with common sense, with my innate hunches, because, like Cohen says, the law is neither based in morality nor logic. | >
> | My first perspective on the law – that it is a vehicle to effect meaningful change and to advocate on behalf of those who need it most – may seem naïve, but this was the perspective that was informed by my only actual experience with a lawyer. My sisters and I were raised by a mother who was neglectful at best, abusive at worst. The promise of escape came when I was ten years old and my father filed for divorce. I recall how scared I was of being taken from my dad, how helpless I felt at my fate being decided by strangers in this world of courtrooms, filled with lawyers and judges who spoke a language I couldn’t understand. | | | | |
<
< | I’m not a saint, but I consider myself a ethically principled person. I don’t steal, I don’t cheat, I don’t hurt other people. I also think I am logical-a left-brained, sudoku-addicted finance major who actually liked studying for the LSAT logic games. I applied to law school to learn and ultimately enter a field grounded in logical decision-making and the pursuit of righteousness. Yet, so many classes have made me uneasy, in the sense that the doctrines being taught are grounded in neither. | >
> | I distinctly remember the day when my fears were quelled. Someone stepped in to help, someone who promised that my voice would be heard in that world of courtrooms, who promised that she would represent my sisters and me and protect our interests. When the proceedings had ended, I remember thinking that my lawyer kept her promise. My dad had full custody of my sisters and me, and we were finally safe. | | | | |
<
< | Good Samaritan Law is void of morality | >
> | I knew my lawyer only briefly, and never saw her again following the settlement of my parents' divorce, but the difference she made in my life is virtually indescribable. This advocate – who made sure that my voice was heard when I couldn’t use it myself – freed me from the circumstances of my childhood and changed the course of my life entirely. And so it was this experience that informed my initial understanding of our legal system as synonymous with advocacy and justice. | | | | |
<
< | Each course has taught me doctrines I completely disagree with on moral grounds, yet the decisions crafting these doctrines are rife with justifications for them; like Cohen says, they are only based in “the eyes of faith.” | >
> | My second perspective on the law is different and more cynical. Interestingly, this is the perspective that has been molded by my experiences thus far in law school, learning the intricacies of the very system I previously regarded as infallible. I struggled with reading and speaking in the legal jargon that fills the pages of every judicial opinion that we read, mostly comprised of words and rules that meant nothing to me just a few months ago. I began to wonder where and how these words and rules originated. Moreover, I wondered why the words are regarded as meaningful, why the rules are regarded as self-evident truisms. Cohen’s piece gave form and coherence to my nebulous thoughts: the magic ‘solving words’ of legal problems are hollow transcendental nonsense; the ‘rules’ are self-referential creations by the law. Thus there is inherent circularity in couching legal arguments in these meaningless terms. Cohen made me acutely aware of the disheartening implication of my other, more jaded musings about our legal system: courts hide behind a barrage of transcendental nonsense while arbitrary factors and undisclosed agendas potentially drive much of their decision-making. | | | | |
<
< | Both civil law and criminal law excuse bystanders who fail to help someone in need.
for example, in Pope v. Statehttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=571071934417681053&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr, a woman took a mother and child into her house, and witnessed the mother beat her newborn to death without interfering. She was acquitted of all criminal charges. The court based its reasoning on the fact that Pope did not fall neatly into one of its four categories of people responsible for another party. This legal rule is clearly one, in line with Cohen’s proposition, that isn’t based on logic or morality. It seems highly logical, and undoubtedly moral, for someone to assist an innocent baby from being battered, whether by taking the child, restraining the mother, or, to avoid harm to self, calling the police. | >
> | After realizing that I do in fact have two perspectives on the law that are seemingly at odds with each other, I began wondering how studying a system I revered as a child could have diminished my reverence for it so rapidly. I think that an explanation lies in the fact that when I was a child, my view of the law was not colored by the transcendental nonsense that pervades my law school studies and informs my more recently formed perspective on our legal system. As a child, the contours of my understanding were shaped by functionalism. | | | | |
<
< | Courts base the “no duty to rescue” idea on the basis that sometimes, a person may endanger him or herself by attempting to save another. Under this rationale, the rule concededly makes sense in some situations; it seems ludicrous to hold a person liable for not jumping in front of a bullet or moving car for another, regardless of their relationship to that person. However, should that same person be free from duty while watching a child drown in a pool as they leisurely stroll past? The court fashions a “one-size-fits-all” rule, while different scenarios demand a case-by-case analysis. The jurisprudence of good samaritan law is abhorrent in that it places paramount importance on judicial administration, while being completely divorced from morality. | >
> | More specifically, my first understanding of our legal system was created by the answers that my lawyer gave me when I asked her questions. While I don’t have memories of specific conversations with her, I know that she was able to convey clearly to me how the judge would decide which of my parents my sisters and I would live with. She was straightforward; she allayed my fears by telling me exactly what was going to transpire in the courtroom. I see now that my attorney was using Cohen’s functional approach to law. Her language was stripped of nonsensical legal terms that mean nothing to a child. My attorney made the world of courtrooms and judges understandable to a ten year old by distilling this foreign universe down to how it would actually, tangibly impact my sisters and me. In so doing she eased my fear at having my fate decided by a process I could not control. | | | | |
<
< | Many civil law doctrines have no rational basis
In civil proceedings there are also doctrines devoid of ethical or logical considerations. The modern conception of personal jurisdiction is one of these “supernatural entities,” based on nothing but judge discretion. In Goodyear v. Brownhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6139328910784593631&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr, for example, two boys were killed in an automobile accident in Paris. Their parents, citizens of North Carolina, were not allowed to file suit there based on the ephemeral notion of “minimum contacts.” Goodyear, a multi-billion dollar corporation, has the means and financial ability to send lawyers anywhere to try a case; a trial in North Carolina would hardly burden the company. Meanwhile, these parents, reeling from the death of their sons, cannot bring suit where they live. Other jurisdiction cases mandate that a case can be tried where the injury occurred. Just because the boys were killed in Paris, can’t the injury have occurred in their home state to a degree? Is that not where their family and friends mourn their death? In shaping the legal concept of personal jurisdiction, the court has drawn strict lines which make sense only in certain cases.
Good samaritan law and personal jurisdiction are just two of the doctrines which, applied in some scenarios, are not only unjust, but reprehensible. In class Eben brought up efficient breach, and how it ignores promise-keeping, a socially valuable trait. The takings clause, which mandates a government need only to compensate a victim when there is a full diminution in value is yet another example. According to current takings law, reducing the value of a home from $1 million to $100 does not require compensation under the fifth amendment; the property must be rendered entirely useless. This rule makes no sense considering basic supply-and-demand market economics, nor is it ethical. Moreover, it leaves the court as ultimate arbiters of the value of property, when certainly market valuation is out of their area of expertise, and, in itself, an assessment rife with mere preponderance.
Don't Start Believin'
Aristotle said “the law is reason free from passion.” The amoral character of legal principles showcases the truth of this statement. Most, if not all, doctrines I have learned in law school consist of rules that are too rigid. Granted, they do make judicial proceedings easier and faster. However, they fail to recognize people and situations on an individual basis. The social outcomes of decisions are not considered, and instead these decisions are based on transient principles. We need to stop being the “eyes of faith” that pay homage to these rules. Without our faith, these concepts will lose relevance, and hopefully morality will find its way into the law.
If legal concepts continue to be so removed from ethical and reasonable considerations, the law will definitely continue to be a weak form of social control. With the law in its current formalistic state, maybe that is not such a bad thing.
Words: 956 | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | And so perhaps the key to improving our legal system so that it is synonymous with justice, so that it truly does reflect my childhood conception of it, is for more lawyers and more judges to speak and write as if informing a child, as my attorney did for me so many years ago. After all, children do not care about or revere meaningless legal principles and concepts – children seek functional answers. Their inquiries are outcome-based. A shift to this outcome-oriented functionalism in conjunction with a disregard for hollow, amoral legal principles is the only way I can see to bring my childhood perception of the law into accord with reality. A transformation of this type will make room for ethical appraisal of our legal system, and in turn, perhaps someday it will be guided by human values and conceptions of morality. Only then will our legal system actually be worthy of my childhood reverence for it. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
LilyVoFirstPaper 6 - 15 Feb 2012 - Main.AbbyCoster
|
|
<
< |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="AaronShepardFirstPaper" |
|---|
| >
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | CONFLICT version 3: | |
<
< | I. Seams Illogical | >
> | Swimming in transcendental nonsense | | | | |
<
< | Seams Illogical
We are often told that going to law school will not teach us how to be a lawyer. It will teach us how to think like. So, summer internships and associate positions are seen as a kind of residency: a chance to learn how to be a lawyer by doing (and seeing) what lawyers do. I am finding that there are ample opportunities for only certain kinds of residencies, and for other kinds, scarcity is the norm. | >
> | Felix Cohen’s assertion that “legal concepts are supernatural entities which do not have a verifiable existence except to the eyes of faith,” makes more sense than anything else I’ve read thus far in law school. That may be because much of what I have read makes no sense at all. Most legal doctrine doesn’t square with common sense, with my innate hunches, because, like Cohen says, the law is neither based in morality nor logic. | | | | |
<
< | One of my passions is fashion. I think it is amazing how a person’s personality, behavior, and how they are perceived can change depending on what he or she is wearing. The creative and social intuitions that inspire fashion are interesting to me, but so are the legal and management aspects of creating a brand that people respect and that maintains longevity. One career aspiration that I have is to meld my love of fashion with my problem solving skills and put my law school degree to use by running a fashion company. In preparation for learning more about this legal arena, I have been researching different brands and companies that I like and inquiring about internships. | >
> | I’m not a saint, but I consider myself a ethically principled person. I don’t steal, I don’t cheat, I don’t hurt other people. I also think I am logical-a left-brained, sudoku-addicted finance major who actually liked studying for the LSAT logic games. I applied to law school to learn and ultimately enter a field grounded in logical decision-making and the pursuit of righteousness. Yet, so many classes have made me uneasy, in the sense that the doctrines being taught are grounded in neither. | | | | |
<
< | Only two of the seven companies that I have contacted have legal internship programs, even though all of them have in-house legal departments. Initially, I was dismayed by this because it meant that I may have to forgo the possibility of having an internship at one of the fashion houses. Then I realized that there was a greater implication to this: lack of opportunities for legal training for would be in-house attorneys. An executive at one of the fashion houses told me, rather bluntly, that internships at their offices are design and finance focused and that they have never had a legal internship position or program and were not considering a change. | >
> | Good Samaritan Law is void of morality | | | | |
<
< | In a day and age when more lawyers are running companies (eg, Kenneth Chenault—American Express; Gerald L. Storch—Toys “R” Us; John Chidsey—Burger King) I thought there would be more internship programs designed to train us in this capacity. Granted, I am interested in the niche area of the fashion industry, but I would gladly participate in in-house/general counsel training programs if more existed. The Association of Corporate Counsel only offers one internship program in partnership with Cardozo Law School. Generally, legal internships with corporations are rare and there seems to be a push to encourage lawyers to attend business school rather than opening positions in corporate legal departments. | >
> | Each course has taught me doctrines I completely disagree with on moral grounds, yet the decisions crafting these doctrines are rife with justifications for them; like Cohen says, they are only based in “the eyes of faith.” | | | | |
<
< | I think there should be more training to enable lawyers to run companies. Two reasons come to mind. First, lawyers can maintain and monitor the ethical practice of a company. A lawyer can advise as to the direction and actions of a company against the backdrop of the relevant laws and guidelines that are in place and enforced by the government. With this oversight power, a lawyer can keep the company from engaging in endeavors that are illegal or likely to incite lawsuits because they are detrimental to society or cause some harm. With such an important role, it is disappointing that in-house legal departments are viewed as an overhead expense rather than an important asset that requires dedicated investment.
Increasingly, before major decisions are made, companies turn to their counsel for approval. It would be all the more beneficial to the company and to society, if such lawyers were trained on how to run a company. The questions that a general counsel usually addresses are varied and reflect a more general practice as opposed to specialization in a particular area. If there are internship programs that law students can participate in, they can gain exposure to these various fields and be well-rounded advisors. | >
> | Both civil law and criminal law excuse bystanders who fail to help someone in need.
for example, in Pope v. Statehttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=571071934417681053&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr, a woman took a mother and child into her house, and witnessed the mother beat her newborn to death without interfering. She was acquitted of all criminal charges. The court based its reasoning on the fact that Pope did not fall neatly into one of its four categories of people responsible for another party. This legal rule is clearly one, in line with Cohen’s proposition, that isn’t based on logic or morality. It seems highly logical, and undoubtedly moral, for someone to assist an innocent baby from being battered, whether by taking the child, restraining the mother, or, to avoid harm to self, calling the police. | | | | |
<
< | My second reason for wanting more internship and training opportunities for lawyers who want to run companies is tied to my love for fashion. Beyond the legal considerations that counsel for a fashion company has to weigh, there is a focus on the company’s bottom line. In-house attorneys have to understand the implications of the companies’ business strategy, in order to protect the companies interests and sell clothes. What better way to learn about a brand, its aesthetic, target consumer, and growth and development than by interning in their offices? | >
> | Courts base the “no duty to rescue” idea on the basis that sometimes, a person may endanger him or herself by attempting to save another. Under this rationale, the rule concededly makes sense in some situations; it seems ludicrous to hold a person liable for not jumping in front of a bullet or moving car for another, regardless of their relationship to that person. However, should that same person be free from duty while watching a child drown in a pool as they leisurely stroll past? The court fashions a “one-size-fits-all” rule, while different scenarios demand a case-by-case analysis. The jurisprudence of good samaritan law is abhorrent in that it places paramount importance on judicial administration, while being completely divorced from morality. | | | | |
<
< | Mickey Drexler is the merchandiser praised for making the clothing store The Gap into an apparel behemoth whose t-shirts and jeans can be found in practically every home in the US. After Drexler left The Gap, the company had a series of failed management teams and struggled to regain profitability. One of the major criticisms of Drexler’s successors is that they did not understand the brand or merchandising. Thus, the company was no longer satisfying its clientele and no longer making clothes that people wanted to buy. | >
> | Many civil law doctrines have no rational basis | | | | |
<
< | For many understanding design, fit, fabric choice and trends is not intuitive. An attorney who has had exposure to the design and merchandising aspects of a company can be a trusted savant in making decisions relating to these aspects, which affect the company’s profitability. Internships in in-house legal departments would allow exposure to the production side of the company, leading to the crafting of business strategies that advance the companies interest in selling apparel. It is unfortunate that not many opportunities for such internships exist. | >
> | In civil proceedings there are also doctrines devoid of ethical or logical considerations. The modern conception of personal jurisdiction is one of these “supernatural entities,” based on nothing but judge discretion. In Goodyear v. Brownhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6139328910784593631&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr, for example, two boys were killed in an automobile accident in Paris. Their parents, citizens of North Carolina, were not allowed to file suit there based on the ephemeral notion of “minimum contacts.” Goodyear, a multi-billion dollar corporation, has the means and financial ability to send lawyers anywhere to try a case; a trial in North Carolina would hardly burden the company. Meanwhile, these parents, reeling from the death of their sons, cannot bring suit where they live. Other jurisdiction cases mandate that a case can be tried where the injury occurred. Just because the boys were killed in Paris, can’t the injury have occurred in their home state to a degree? Is that not where their family and friends mourn their death? In shaping the legal concept of personal jurisdiction, the court has drawn strict lines which make sense only in certain cases. | | | | |
<
< | Companies may not have the budgetary freedoms of big law firms when it comes to recruiting and training, but they can at least open their doors and provide unpaid internships that can serve as invaluable training for law students. It is very disconcerting that certain areas of the practice of law are so absent from the training field. Going into law school, I knew that there would be less funding and pay because of the state of the economy. But, I did not realize that certain opportunities for training would not exist. While I am in law school, I will think like a lawyer, but there is no guarantee that I will practice how to be one. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Good samaritan law and personal jurisdiction are just two of the doctrines which, applied in some scenarios, are not only unjust, but reprehensible. In class Eben brought up efficient breach, and how it ignores promise-keeping, a socially valuable trait. The takings clause, which mandates a government need only to compensate a victim when there is a full diminution in value is yet another example. According to current takings law, reducing the value of a home from $1 million to $100 does not require compensation under the fifth amendment; the property must be rendered entirely useless. This rule makes no sense considering basic supply-and-demand market economics, nor is it ethical. Moreover, it leaves the court as ultimate arbiters of the value of property, when certainly market valuation is out of their area of expertise, and, in itself, an assessment rife with mere preponderance.
Don't Start Believin'
Aristotle said “the law is reason free from passion.” The amoral character of legal principles showcases the truth of this statement. Most, if not all, doctrines I have learned in law school consist of rules that are too rigid. Granted, they do make judicial proceedings easier and faster. However, they fail to recognize people and situations on an individual basis. The social outcomes of decisions are not considered, and instead these decisions are based on transient principles. We need to stop being the “eyes of faith” that pay homage to these rules. Without our faith, these concepts will lose relevance, and hopefully morality will find its way into the law.
If legal concepts continue to be so removed from ethical and reasonable considerations, the law will definitely continue to be a weak form of social control. With the law in its current formalistic state, maybe that is not such a bad thing.
Words: 956 | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
LilyVoFirstPaper 5 - 26 Feb 2010 - Main.WendyFrancois
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="AaronShepardFirstPaper" |
|---|
CONFLICT version 3: | |
<
< | I. Innocence
1. Innocent?
2. Does innocence matter?
II. Women and children v. men
III. Journalist's purpose and impact
IV. Conclusion | >
> | I. Seams Illogical | | | | |
<
< | Whenever there is a suicide bombing or, let's say, an air strike or a missile strike going on, the victims seem to include women and children. The media is very quick at telling us that “innocent women and children“ have died in the incident. Although the statement is made quite often, no one seems to realize the implicit statements. In the following, I would like to show the views expressed by the “innocent women and children died” statement for the purpose of showing that people need to be aware of the (often implicit) values expressed by other people and “society”. | >
> | Seams Illogical
We are often told that going to law school will not teach us how to be a lawyer. It will teach us how to think like. So, summer internships and associate positions are seen as a kind of residency: a chance to learn how to be a lawyer by doing (and seeing) what lawyers do. I am finding that there are ample opportunities for only certain kinds of residencies, and for other kinds, scarcity is the norm. | | | | |
<
< | I. Innocence | >
> | One of my passions is fashion. I think it is amazing how a person’s personality, behavior, and how they are perceived can change depending on what he or she is wearing. The creative and social intuitions that inspire fashion are interesting to me, but so are the legal and management aspects of creating a brand that people respect and that maintains longevity. One career aspiration that I have is to meld my love of fashion with my problem solving skills and put my law school degree to use by running a fashion company. In preparation for learning more about this legal arena, I have been researching different brands and companies that I like and inquiring about internships. | | | | |
<
< | 1. Innocent?
In our suicide bombing scenario, the first question every journalist should confront himself with is: If the women and children are innocent, they are innocent with respect to what? If a journalist claims that somebody is innocent, he must be able to identify in which respect such person is innocent. Or, to pose the question in a different way: Guilty of what? Guilty of the bombing/air strike? The war? Climate change? Today's weather? We do not know the answer, the journalist would not tell us what he believes the victim is not guilty of. But since the answer to that question is not self evident, every journalist should provide his audience with his answer to it.
In addition, the claim is usually made quite soon after the incident happened, usually at the very next day. But how does the journalist know that the victims are innocent? The exact identity of the victims might not even be known at the time he writes his article. And even if, do journalists really read the victims' biographies before claiming their innocence? | >
> | Only two of the seven companies that I have contacted have legal internship programs, even though all of them have in-house legal departments. Initially, I was dismayed by this because it meant that I may have to forgo the possibility of having an internship at one of the fashion houses. Then I realized that there was a greater implication to this: lack of opportunities for legal training for would be in-house attorneys. An executive at one of the fashion houses told me, rather bluntly, that internships at their offices are design and finance focused and that they have never had a legal internship position or program and were not considering a change. | | | | |
<
< | 2. Does innocence matter?
Once he have answered the first question, we may proceed to the second one: Does it matter whether the dead are guilty or innocent? Let's assume that these women and children are guilty, that they caused the war, the climate change, today's weather. Does that make the killings any better? Is it better to kill guilty people? The journalist who expressly states that the killed are innocent implies that killing guilty people is different (otherwise, he would not have stated the innocence). | >
> | In a day and age when more lawyers are running companies (eg, Kenneth Chenault—American Express; Gerald L. Storch—Toys “R” Us; John Chidsey—Burger King) I thought there would be more internship programs designed to train us in this capacity. Granted, I am interested in the niche area of the fashion industry, but I would gladly participate in in-house/general counsel training programs if more existed. The Association of Corporate Counsel only offers one internship program in partnership with Cardozo Law School. Generally, legal internships with corporations are rare and there seems to be a push to encourage lawyers to attend business school rather than opening positions in corporate legal departments. | | | | |
<
< | II. Women and children v. men
That leads us to the third and last question we have to pose: Is it important that women and children have been killed and not men? In the classic ship wreckage scenario, the “women and children first” policy might make some sense since men are considered to be stronger and therefore better equipped to rescue themselves. In suicide bombings or air strikes, however, it seems to me that men are as vulnerable as women and children. If that is true, why is it that journalists still explicitly mention the death of women and children? Again, by telling us that women and children have died, the journalist wants to tell us something. Is it that the death of a young human being is worse than the death of an old person (or, for that matter, an old man)? Or shouldn't we assume that each human life is worth the same, that we cannot balance one human life against another? | >
> | I think there should be more training to enable lawyers to run companies. Two reasons come to mind. First, lawyers can maintain and monitor the ethical practice of a company. A lawyer can advise as to the direction and actions of a company against the backdrop of the relevant laws and guidelines that are in place and enforced by the government. With this oversight power, a lawyer can keep the company from engaging in endeavors that are illegal or likely to incite lawsuits because they are detrimental to society or cause some harm. With such an important role, it is disappointing that in-house legal departments are viewed as an overhead expense rather than an important asset that requires dedicated investment.
Increasingly, before major decisions are made, companies turn to their counsel for approval. It would be all the more beneficial to the company and to society, if such lawyers were trained on how to run a company. The questions that a general counsel usually addresses are varied and reflect a more general practice as opposed to specialization in a particular area. If there are internship programs that law students can participate in, they can gain exposure to these various fields and be well-rounded advisors. | | | | |
<
< | III. Journalist's purpose and impact
What the media does here is changing the world using words. In my view, journalists are implicitly expressing at least two opinions: First, it is better to kill guilty people than innocent people. Second, it is better to kill men than women and children. Since these statements may be controversial, they are not expressed explicitly. They are well packaged and transmitted indirectly. However, there is a good chance that the reader will consume this viewpoint and internalize it. Most consumers are not asking the questions I just raised above, they prefer to accept the views (implicitly) expressed. The journalist helps the consumer in his passivity by not expressing his point of view directly. | >
> | My second reason for wanting more internship and training opportunities for lawyers who want to run companies is tied to my love for fashion. Beyond the legal considerations that counsel for a fashion company has to weigh, there is a focus on the company’s bottom line. In-house attorneys have to understand the implications of the companies’ business strategy, in order to protect the companies interests and sell clothes. What better way to learn about a brand, its aesthetic, target consumer, and growth and development than by interning in their offices? | | | | |
<
< | That being said, I am not quite sure whether every journalist actually knows what he is doing or whether the reference to “innocent women and children” is a mere reflex: suicide bombing automatically entails innocent victims. (Whenever the German government promises monetary help to the victims of natural catastrophes, such help is necessarily “quick and unbureaucratic”).
CONFLICT version new: | >
> | Mickey Drexler is the merchandiser praised for making the clothing store The Gap into an apparel behemoth whose t-shirts and jeans can be found in practically every home in the US. After Drexler left The Gap, the company had a series of failed management teams and struggled to regain profitability. One of the major criticisms of Drexler’s successors is that they did not understand the brand or merchandising. Thus, the company was no longer satisfying its clientele and no longer making clothes that people wanted to buy. | | | | |
>
> | For many understanding design, fit, fabric choice and trends is not intuitive. An attorney who has had exposure to the design and merchandising aspects of a company can be a trusted savant in making decisions relating to these aspects, which affect the company’s profitability. Internships in in-house legal departments would allow exposure to the production side of the company, leading to the crafting of business strategies that advance the companies interest in selling apparel. It is unfortunate that not many opportunities for such internships exist. | | | | |
<
< | As you might have guessed, the attitude just described not only applies to journalism, but to everyday life – we are surrounded by implicit views, opinions and values every day. Most people however do not seem to realize this fact (or did you ever question the “innocent women and children” statement?). Be it gender stereotypes perpetuated in television (in the news, TV ads and TV series) or other political or moral statements portrayed by society. Why do so many women still chose to stay at home and look after the children instead of pursuing their professional career (and having the man staying at home)? Is that due to a completely conscious decision or is it due to internalized and unquestioned traditions and views shown in almost every TV series?
*
IV. Conclusion*
It is not my purpose to suggest answers to the questions raised above. I am not saying that the death of innocent people is worse than the death of guilty people. I am not saying the the death of children is worse than the death of men. I am not saying that women should not stay at home and look after their children. What I would like to say is that we should be aware of the fact that many views and opinions are not expressed explicitly but much in a much more subtle way and that everybody should be careful to identify and recognize these views and to question them. Furthermore, I suggest that everybody treat the views offered by others very carefully and think even about the most simple proposition. Certainly, this applies all the more to lawyers. | >
> | Companies may not have the budgetary freedoms of big law firms when it comes to recruiting and training, but they can at least open their doors and provide unpaid internships that can serve as invaluable training for law students. It is very disconcerting that certain areas of the practice of law are so absent from the training field. Going into law school, I knew that there would be less funding and pay because of the state of the economy. But, I did not realize that certain opportunities for training would not exist. While I am in law school, I will think like a lawyer, but there is no guarantee that I will practice how to be one. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
LilyVoFirstPaper 4 - 28 Feb 2009 - Main.PatrickCronin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="AaronShepardFirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | CONFLICT version 3: | | | I. Innocence
1. Innocent?
2. Does innocence matter? | | | What the media does here is changing the world using words. In my view, journalists are implicitly expressing at least two opinions: First, it is better to kill guilty people than innocent people. Second, it is better to kill men than women and children. Since these statements may be controversial, they are not expressed explicitly. They are well packaged and transmitted indirectly. However, there is a good chance that the reader will consume this viewpoint and internalize it. Most consumers are not asking the questions I just raised above, they prefer to accept the views (implicitly) expressed. The journalist helps the consumer in his passivity by not expressing his point of view directly.
That being said, I am not quite sure whether every journalist actually knows what he is doing or whether the reference to “innocent women and children” is a mere reflex: suicide bombing automatically entails innocent victims. (Whenever the German government promises monetary help to the victims of natural catastrophes, such help is necessarily “quick and unbureaucratic”). | |
>
> | CONFLICT version new: | | | As you might have guessed, the attitude just described not only applies to journalism, but to everyday life – we are surrounded by implicit views, opinions and values every day. Most people however do not seem to realize this fact (or did you ever question the “innocent women and children” statement?). Be it gender stereotypes perpetuated in television (in the news, TV ads and TV series) or other political or moral statements portrayed by society. Why do so many women still chose to stay at home and look after the children instead of pursuing their professional career (and having the man staying at home)? Is that due to a completely conscious decision or is it due to internalized and unquestioned traditions and views shown in almost every TV series?
* |
|
|
LilyVoFirstPaper 3 - 28 Feb 2009 - Main.PeterHaberrecker
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="AaronShepardFirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | I. Innocence
1. Innocent?
2. Does innocence matter?
II. Women and children v. men
III. Journalist's purpose and impact
IV. Conclusion | | | | |
>
> | Whenever there is a suicide bombing or, let's say, an air strike or a missile strike going on, the victims seem to include women and children. The media is very quick at telling us that “innocent women and children“ have died in the incident. Although the statement is made quite often, no one seems to realize the implicit statements. In the following, I would like to show the views expressed by the “innocent women and children died” statement for the purpose of showing that people need to be aware of the (often implicit) values expressed by other people and “society”.
I. Innocence
1. Innocent?
In our suicide bombing scenario, the first question every journalist should confront himself with is: If the women and children are innocent, they are innocent with respect to what? If a journalist claims that somebody is innocent, he must be able to identify in which respect such person is innocent. Or, to pose the question in a different way: Guilty of what? Guilty of the bombing/air strike? The war? Climate change? Today's weather? We do not know the answer, the journalist would not tell us what he believes the victim is not guilty of. But since the answer to that question is not self evident, every journalist should provide his audience with his answer to it.
In addition, the claim is usually made quite soon after the incident happened, usually at the very next day. But how does the journalist know that the victims are innocent? The exact identity of the victims might not even be known at the time he writes his article. And even if, do journalists really read the victims' biographies before claiming their innocence?
2. Does innocence matter?
Once he have answered the first question, we may proceed to the second one: Does it matter whether the dead are guilty or innocent? Let's assume that these women and children are guilty, that they caused the war, the climate change, today's weather. Does that make the killings any better? Is it better to kill guilty people? The journalist who expressly states that the killed are innocent implies that killing guilty people is different (otherwise, he would not have stated the innocence).
II. Women and children v. men
That leads us to the third and last question we have to pose: Is it important that women and children have been killed and not men? In the classic ship wreckage scenario, the “women and children first” policy might make some sense since men are considered to be stronger and therefore better equipped to rescue themselves. In suicide bombings or air strikes, however, it seems to me that men are as vulnerable as women and children. If that is true, why is it that journalists still explicitly mention the death of women and children? Again, by telling us that women and children have died, the journalist wants to tell us something. Is it that the death of a young human being is worse than the death of an old person (or, for that matter, an old man)? Or shouldn't we assume that each human life is worth the same, that we cannot balance one human life against another?
III. Journalist's purpose and impact
What the media does here is changing the world using words. In my view, journalists are implicitly expressing at least two opinions: First, it is better to kill guilty people than innocent people. Second, it is better to kill men than women and children. Since these statements may be controversial, they are not expressed explicitly. They are well packaged and transmitted indirectly. However, there is a good chance that the reader will consume this viewpoint and internalize it. Most consumers are not asking the questions I just raised above, they prefer to accept the views (implicitly) expressed. The journalist helps the consumer in his passivity by not expressing his point of view directly.
That being said, I am not quite sure whether every journalist actually knows what he is doing or whether the reference to “innocent women and children” is a mere reflex: suicide bombing automatically entails innocent victims. (Whenever the German government promises monetary help to the victims of natural catastrophes, such help is necessarily “quick and unbureaucratic”).
As you might have guessed, the attitude just described not only applies to journalism, but to everyday life – we are surrounded by implicit views, opinions and values every day. Most people however do not seem to realize this fact (or did you ever question the “innocent women and children” statement?). Be it gender stereotypes perpetuated in television (in the news, TV ads and TV series) or other political or moral statements portrayed by society. Why do so many women still chose to stay at home and look after the children instead of pursuing their professional career (and having the man staying at home)? Is that due to a completely conscious decision or is it due to internalized and unquestioned traditions and views shown in almost every TV series?
*
IV. Conclusion*
It is not my purpose to suggest answers to the questions raised above. I am not saying that the death of innocent people is worse than the death of guilty people. I am not saying the the death of children is worse than the death of men. I am not saying that women should not stay at home and look after their children. What I would like to say is that we should be aware of the fact that many views and opinions are not expressed explicitly but much in a much more subtle way and that everybody should be careful to identify and recognize these views and to question them. Furthermore, I suggest that everybody treat the views offered by others very carefully and think even about the most simple proposition. Certainly, this applies all the more to lawyers. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|