I’ve been having a hard time in this class, and would like others’ input. While this class is by far my favorite, it is also the most frustrating. I’m not sure how to look at what I consider to be stereotyping, judgmental views, and bifurcated ways of thinking: Good law versus bad law, pink skin versus non-pink skin, complacency and greed versus (what I assume is meant) altruism and righteousness. I’m probably not the most articulate person to be making the points I’m about to make, but please understand I mean no offense – I’m only trying to understand and be understood, and, through this classroom experience, to learn some non-academic things along the way.

Do I like money? You’re damned right I do. Why? Because, in this society, it opens up options and is the main instrument that one is forced to use in order to produce resources that one needs and prefers (in other words, those things that make life a heck of a lot easier). I don’t care about status, social position, or wealth per se (despite what may be unintentionally implied by the sentence about being a secretary as opposed to a lawyer in the profile at http://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2007/December07/2010profiles.) The reason I applied to Columbia instead of law schools in my state is because I assumed (and I think rightly so) that on balance, there is too good a chance I will be unemployed after law school if I’m not able to tell prospective employers that I went to what this society considers a “top” law school. If I had chosen to go to a law school in my state (in my case, Indiana University), I would be paying $15,784 in tuition this year; at Columbia, I am paying $42,024. Yes, I’m paying up-front almost three times per year in tuition what I could be paying. But I, employers, and the law schools know that my chance of recouping that financial outlay is by far greater if I have the Latin equivalent of “Columbia” at the top of my diploma instead of “Indiana.” Frustrating, but real.

I’m a practical person – I believe only those who don’t need to worry about money can afford not to. I hope I don’t make others feel uncomfortable with what I’m about to say (as in, “gee, thanks for sharing, Barb”), but I think I know, directly and indirectly, what financially tough is, and what it produces. Aside from my personal background (not all of which is in the CLS profile), my mother grew up in the foothills of Tennessee during the depression. She was one of 14 children (remember, no easy, cheap methods of birth control, unlike today), and her mother was widowed while pregnant with my mother. My mother had Ricketts. According to the death certificate, her grandmother died of pellagra (a niacin and protein deficiency) at the age of 54. While we now live in an economy where we can rely on escaping the consequences of not having enough food to eat, we still suffer other economic consequences that we can’t avoid, can’t always control, and (in my opinion) should deal with in a responsible, realistic, and objective way.

I admire those who choose to apply their legal skills to less-than-financially-secure pursuits. However it is that they have come by their choices, I assume they feel comfortable in taking those steps. I don’t. Although one could say that my concern with how much I’ll owe after law school and how I’ll pay it off should not be one of my main concerns, it is a major part of the reality that I am forced to live with, and deal with. Why ask for trouble (financial or otherwise) when you can avoid it? We all have to live in the real (not the transcendental nonsense) world. So tell me why I shouldn’t feel the way I do. Am I being naive, focusing too much on avoiding the physical and emotional discomforts that attend the inability to directly or indirectly create resources? Keep in mind: I know I can contribute to not-for-profit endeavors without having to work in a not-for-profit organization: I have done it, and I will continue to do it. But I’ll defer a job position at the not-for-profit organizations to those who can put up with the financial juggling, mental and physical exhaustion, and emotional frustration that goes with limited resources -- I’ve learned both through observing and by the hard way (maybe neurotically so, but if so, please forgive me) that not being able to come by necessities is, at a minimum, tough.

Any thoughts? -- BarbPitman

---

---

None of us responded to Barb’s post online before Eben did in class. I’m irrepressible, but I worry that some of us will now feel uncomfortable responding—even here, on the TWiki, and not just to Barb but to others in the future. That saddens me, because the TWiki is the best forum to hear each other, and the safest forum to learn from each other.

Last week, I would have told those classmates what I posted under ClassNotes17Jan08:

The professor believes in open information, and … this class is, after all, about challenging authority. I grant that Eben presents a difficult classroom environment for that. But I theorize that he asserts his opinions so strongly in class to force us to absorb them ("listen"), so that we can only critique them later -- i.e., after thinking -- i.e., intelligently. He reserved the TWiki as our forum for that critique.

I am concerned that we will be discouraged from sharing ideas on the TWiki by a feeling of “prior constraint”. This is a rough metaphor. Eben is a teacher, not an official wielding the public force. If anything, his rhetorical style prepares us for the disputes we should expect if we hope to become passionate intellectuals convincing other passionate intellectuals of our values.

But Eben can mobilize laughter, which is a kind of public force, and many of us are embarrassed to be laughed at. And many of us look to teachers as authority figures, and feel a moral duty to respect our teachers. And many of us will confuse his descriptive statements for prescriptive ones, since that is what humans do. And many of us need to learn to think like lawyers before we can learn to argue like lawyers; those who are not prepared to argue like lawyers will surrender out of respect, and will not be learning to think like lawyers.

I am not saying that Eben should not comment on the TWiki! But we may enjoy more of the values of free speech by sacrificing some free speech. Public speakers have private values, and not all speech and speakers can be treated equally, even in the forum. Some ideas are best understood by a limited audience. Some ideas need to gestate publicly before they can be challenged publicly.

What do you guys think—was the TWiki designed for free speech? If so, was it well designed, both internally and accounting for exogenous forces? You don’t have to go out on a limb to answer these questions: Say nothing until class next week, and we will find out the answer experimentally. -- AndrewGradman - 24 Jan 2008

---

---

Hi Barb,

I thought Eben threw up a bit of a straw man when he was talking about this today, so I wanted to respond and ask what your thoughts really were.

The first argument that was presented involved pointing out the arguably false dichotomy between socially beneficial and financially beneficial work. I thought that while this was a valid point to make, it in no way addressed your question. I understood your point to be not that it was necessary to abandon ones societal and moral goals to achieve financial security, but rather that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with generally privileging financial goals over general societal concerns.

The dichotomy argument seemed to be assuming that the weighting between the two types of concern (personal social versus general societal) was relatively even, whereas I understood you to be saying that there is not necessarily a problem with weighting once over the other.

Eben's practicality argument (asking to define "practical") also seemed to be directed at another question. Again, it seemed as though you were using "practical" to mean something like "locally and personally fulfilling" - finding meaning in the development of small incremental (and personal) goals. I would argue that this is a valid way to deal with personal meaning. The only counterargument is appealing to your sense of personal morality and trying to show that your belief structure somehow conflicts with this way of finding meaning (showing that you really do care, but you are just repressing it and selling out.) If finding meaning in small problems and privileging financial security is truly consistent with your morality, it would seem to be unassailable from the arguments of others.

I hope I am not misinterpreting what you were saying. Please correct me if I am raising my own straw man.

-- TheodoreSmith - 24 Jan 2008

-- BarbPitman - 24 Jan 2008