At the risk of being accused of ass-kissing and without commenting on whether I agree with the ideas presented in class, I'll say that I enjoy the directness and bluntness of the professor's teaching style. I think the point is that, behind the veneer of professionalism and respectability presented here at Columbia, there are serious fundamental problems with the system of teaching and learning law school. Simply making law school cosmetically nicer by having a generous curve, passing everyone through Legal Methods, or not having Paper Chase style Socratic isn't going to produce good lawyers nor is it going to reduce the anxiety level among students that causes them to make bad career choices.

The abuse doled out by the law school (pissing on us) is not the same as what Professor Moglen does. Law school pushes people into high-anxiety periods where they are implicitly threatened with life-ruining failure (bad grades, no job, huge debt), and it does this with a smile (a veneer of "respectability"). I'd rather have a system that is rough around the edges but is based on respect for the students than one that is respectable on it's face but rotten inside.

However, I wonder whether Professor Moglen's hostility towards some faculty members might make them unwilling to adopt some of his teaching methods, such as the Wiki, even though the effectiveness of the medium in terms of participation and feedback is obvious.

-- JonathanWaisnor - 08 Apr 2010

Maybe my comment requires some slight clarification and elaboration:

I do not being called a moron, stupid, etc. or someone really pressing my beliefs because it needs to be done for two fundamental reasons: (1) Many (if not most) of us have been coddled our entire academic lives to this point and need someone to press us (2) In any job you plan on pursuing post-graduation, you will find people calling you a moron in some fashion. And since most of us (or many of us) are going into biglaw, I'd assume a fair number of us will be receiving daily "moron" updates.

There is an important (3) though, which is, Eben has the courage to say what he feels on the issue and put the belief out there on the open. I cannot say the same for most of my classmates, myself included. I feel like I am being called a moron in an assortment of non-verbal ways, almost daily. To be honest, the fact that Eben has the courage to call someone a moron to their face, even if it is in the context of one grand theatrical masterpiece (or hack job) means to me that he has profound respect for us as individuals. But I could be wrong.

Can Eben improve his rhetoric to make it more effective? Sure, I suppose. However, I'd just like to remark that all great advancements, scientific or otherwise, require some sort of sacrifice. In this instance, Eben has sacrificed the cordiality of the classroom (etc.) in order to establish a point and further, what I believe to be, a legitimate and honorable objective of the course. Does he have to do it? Probably not. But, this thread seems to serve as prima facie evidence of its effectiveness in ways that other means could not have achieved. Most important, I'd rather it be Eben, a professor who truly cares about his students, call me a moron than another professor or student. To me, it is like hitting someone over the head with a wiffle bat.

-- MatthewZorn - 08 Apr 2010

@Jessica: 1. I think that that is why Art is so annoyed. Eben just has a super vehement dislike for Apple because its behavior contradicts his own work so deeply (again, I maintain that this class is about his fight for freedom). I think Apple's products are beautiful (even with the understanding that my conception of beauty is socially defined to a great degree).

2. Anything beyond bare necessity is waste. I don't think the question is agreement about what constitutes waste, but an understanding that waste is the way we define ourselves to others. How else can I explain my expensive watch graduation present or any jewelery for that matter? I guess it would be least wasteful to tell the time by the sun.

-- NonaFarahnik - 08 Apr 2010

"Apple is a cargo cult; it makes hyperexpensive shiny things designed to ensnare consumers in a system that is technically and psychologically difficult to escape, but which integrates so completely with the self-image of the consumer that it creates organizational loyalty making it possible to sell cult members a lifetime supply of wallet-busting schlock with total predictability."

You can make this exact argument, or the same argument, for so many other companies, and even for entire industries. But how do you respond when someone says that this is an unavoidable consequence of a free market economy. Some will see it as a benefit - people can sell what they want to sell, and people can buy what they want to buy, waste or not, and they see this as a great thing. Is there any way to get around this argument without blaming it on capitalism? Also, how do you get around the problem that might arise when you try to solve this problem....people will never agree on what constitutes "waste" and will never agree on how much "waste" is enough "waste" to become a problem that we should address. Where do you draw the line?

So, two questions that I will clarify if I haven't presented them clearly but whose answers I'm interested in hearing from people.

-- JessicaGuzik - 08 Apr 2010