KrystalCommonsFirstPaper 5 - 13 Jan 2012 - Main.IanSullivan
|
|
< < |
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
| > > |
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper2010" |
| | I moved this to the old place, and made a few other minor changes, like redating your signature, because the tools I use to analyze revisions are based on the "History" element of the wiki, so when a revision is put on top of the version it replaces everything works most smoothly. Comments should be available shortly, as yet another version of the topic.
The Anxiety Over Freedom |
|
KrystalCommonsFirstPaper 4 - 25 Jun 2010 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
| |
< < | The Anxiety Over Freedom
-- By KrystalCommons - 25 Feb 2010
“The way we’re going to know whether you can free people is by whether you can free yourself. Freedom is a thing we make. If it’s made for us, it isn’t freedom. “ – Eben Moglen
As the legal market adapts to the Recession, more questions have emerged amongst law students about how carve out a space for themselves in the legal field. The anxiety over freedom (whatever “freedom” is) has consumed the minds of law students as big firm options diminish and loans abound. Who and what we will become seems to be at the forefront of our minds. The goal for many is to make money while still having a career that allows us freedom, meaningful practice, and the usage of our skills to better someone else’s reality. I concede here that this is more of a brainstorming exercise than an offering of any real answers. I’m only a 1L.
I. What is freedom? The beginning of a definition. | > > | I moved this to the old place, and made a few other minor changes, like redating your signature, because the tools I use to analyze revisions are based on the "History" element of the wiki, so when a revision is put on top of the version it replaces everything works most smoothly. Comments should be available shortly, as yet another version of the topic. | | | |
< < | The anxiety of freedom begins with a simple question -what freedom is? After completing only one semester of law school, this seems the only place to begin. Envisioning freedom and determining what it means on an individual level seems to be the most important step in beginning to build a career.
Freedom begins with making choices for yourself instead of letting them be made for you. Defining a legal career starts in law school- what classes we choose, the extracurricular activities we get involved in, and the professors we choose to work with or under. Many go for prestige over substance. It seems that getting a wide array of exposure to different areas of law would be important for determining one’s passions, definition of justice, and where a license can best be used. I assume that that search would lead to the discovery of a practice free of others’ impositions.
The problem is that there are several obstacles that present anxiety over freedom: grades, getting the coveted firm position, or even being asked to submit a transcript and resume´ for a study group. | > > | The Anxiety Over Freedom | | | |
< < | Amazing. When I was in
law school, people who did this would have been regarded as
terminally arrogant and incapable of social interaction. They would
have been famous throughout the law school for three years, and not
in a good way. I can't believe we have reached the point where this
is not only possible, but no one calls them on it. | | | |
< < | Actually, this didn't quite happen - though something more appalling (in my opinion) did. During the first week or so of Legal Methods, a student made a joke that everyone here was so accomplished and driven that she expected to be required to submit a resume to join a study group. That likely got taken out of context to create the rumor, and derision teemed (in the small pockets of student whispers and not in open confrontation - very high school of us). The real disgusting thing is that some other student - who I assume must have heard the rumor early on in the semester - posted the rumor as fact on a website that lots of law students read the day before our first exam. That was the unbelievable, despicable act for me. - Stephen Severo | > > | “The way we';re going to know whether you can free people is by whether you can free yourself. Freedom is a thing we make. If it';s made for us, it isn';t freedom. “ – Eben Moglen | | | |
< < | The exterior pressures imposed on the 1L student create a set of fears and anxieties that all suggest that one’s best is not good enough. While Mr. Robinson is not “beholden” to anyone, the 1L seems bound and weighed down by everything. The issue is that freedom seems bound to everything and contingent on everything but the character of the self. At every turn, it seems that external pressures and “advisors” have input and advice to offer to suggest what exactly freedom is. This imposition makes it hard for the 1L student to determine or even begin to ask questions that are a result of their own thought process and discovery. Undoubtedly others’ anxiety, desire for competition, and fears swallow even the most level-headed and rational 1L student. | > > | As the legal market adapts to the Recession, more questions have emerged amongst law students about how to carve out a space for themselves in the legal field. The anxiety over freedom (whatever “freedom” is) has consumed the minds of law students as big firm options diminish and loans abound. Who and what we will become seems to be at the forefront of our minds. The goal for many is to make money while still having a career that allows us freedom, meaningful practice, and the usage of our skills to better someone else';s reality. I concede here that this is more of a brainstorming exercise than an offering of any real answers. I';m only a 1L. | | | |
< < | And that continues to
happen inside other large totalizing organizations, which is why
people working in law firms wind up doing so little
self-discovery. | > > | I. What is freedom? The beginning of a definition. | | | |
< < | II. Freedom and BigLaw: Mutually Exclusive? | > > | The anxiety over freedom begins with a simple question -what is freedom? After completing only one semester of law school, this seems the only place to begin. Envisioning freedom and determining what it means on an individual level seems to be the most important step in beginning to build a career. | | | |
< < | There has been a lot of talk about pawning one’s license to BigLaw. Entertaining the idea of working at a big firm seems to be the beginning of a decision that is counterproductive to attaining one’s freedom. Can working 80 hour weeks serving the “man” act as the underground railroad to freedom? While exaggerated, the slave analogy is poignant nonetheless. As a 1L, there is no certainty about what a big firm job entails. We know only that the hours are long and an entering associate is at the bottom of the food chain. Yet, no one really offers any alternatives. Public interest acts as the counter-narrative to big firm but between debt and trying to establish a new life, the quickest and easiest way to begin that life, the most accessible means to an end, is the big firm. Financial stability is important and without ingenuity and creativity, BigLaw appears the best alternative for beginning the trek to long-term stability. | > > | Freedom begins with making choices for yourself instead of letting them be made for you. Defining a legal career starts in law school- what classes we choose, the extracurricular activities we get involved in, and the professors we choose to work with or under. Many go for prestige over substance. It seems that getting a wide array of exposure to different areas of law would be important for determining one';s passions, definition of justice, and where a license can best be used. I assume that that search would lead to the discovery of a practice free of others'; impositions. | | | |
< < | But ingenuity and
creativity is what you have. And stability is not the only possible
goal. | > > | The problem is that there are several obstacles that present anxiety over freedom: grades, getting the coveted firm position, or even being rejected to join a Legal Methods study group. (personal experience) | | | |
< < | Only 26% of lawyers are self-employed either as partners or solo practitioners. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm). The other 74% are beholden to someone else. Can’t freedom be attained by carving out a particular niche and then working up the food chain? Does working a big firm mean you must consume someone else to avoid being eaten in an attempt for freedom? | > > | The exterior pressures imposed on the 1L student create a set of fears and anxieties that all suggest that one';s best is not good enough. While Mr. Robinson is not “beholden” to anyone, the 1L seems bound and weighed down by everything. The issue is that freedom seems bound to everything and contingent on everything but the character of the self. At every turn, it seems that external pressures and “advisors” have input and advice to offer to suggest what exactly freedom is. This imposition makes it hard for the 1L student to determine or even begin to ask questions that are a result of their own thought process and discovery. Undoubtedly others'; anxiety, desire for competition, and fears swallow even the most level-headed and rational 1L student. | | | |
< < | It seems that BigLaw is appropriate as a temporary stop, less so as a permanent station. However, maybe it’s somewhat like speed dating. Trying different things, BigLaw, public interest, government for the delegated five minutes (or rather years) and then determining who you’re most compatible with and can wake up to in the morning. | > > | II. Freedom and BigLaw: Mutually Exclusive? | | | |
< < | But, as with sexual
intimacy, this process looks simpler than it proves in practice.
Those five-year flings are long enough that one accretes reasons not
to go, becomes dependent on the available affection, starts
rationalizing remaining in a bad relationship, fears uncertainty and
loneliness more than before. | > > | There has been a lot of talk about pawning one';s license to BigLaw. Entertaining the idea of working at a big firm seems to be the beginning of a decision that is counterproductive to attaining one';s freedom. Can working 80 hour weeks serving the “man” act as the underground railroad to freedom? While exaggerated, the slave analogy is poignant nonetheless. As a 1L, there is no certainty about what a big firm job entails. We know only that the hours are long and an entering associate is at the bottom of the food chain. Yet, no one really offers any alternatives. Public interest acts as the counter-narrative to big firm but between debt and trying to establish a new life, the quickest and easiest way to begin that life, the most accessible means to an end, is the big firm. Financial stability is important and without ingenuity and creativity, BigLaw appears the best alternative for beginning the trek to long-term stability.
Only 26% of lawyers are self-employed either as partners or solo practitioners. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm). The other 74% are beholden to someone else. Can';t freedom be attained by carving out a particular niche and then working up the food chain? Does working at a big firm mean you must consume someone else to avoid being eaten in an attempt for freedom? | | | |
< < | III. Social Action as a Means to Freedom? | > > | It seems that BigLaw is appropriate as a temporary stop, less so as a permanent station. However, maybe it';s somewhat like speed dating. Trying different things -- BigLaw, public interest, government -- for the delegated five minutes (or rather years) and then determining who you';re most compatible with and can wake up to in the morning. | | | |
< < | Oliver Wendell Holmes suggests that if we remove morality and practice only the law, then the law would be more salient in its application. While this makes sense for people who are allowing their homes to foreclose, does it make sense for the lawyer seeking to achieve justice? Doesn’t morality motivate social action? The conception of what is right and wrong, just and unjust, seems to drive the nature of the practice some of us will engage in and delineates the work we find repulsive and oppressive. | > > | III. Social Action as a Means to Freedom? | | | |
< < | Holmes said we learn the
law best, "and nothing else," by thinking about it as a bad man. He
did not say that this was a principle of
practice. | > > | Oliver Wendell Holmes suggests that if we learn the law by thinking like a bad man, then the law would be more salient in its application. Does this make sense for a lawyer seeking to achieve social justice? Learning how the “Other” thinks in order to eventually achieve justice would likely help in one';s fight for social action. The conception of what is right and wrong, just and unjust, seems to drive the nature of the practice some of us will engage in and delineates the work we find repulsive and oppressive.
A little morality and a lot of justice would have been good for Sean Bell. Unfortunately, the roadblocks to creative practice (resources, time, and a lack of evidence) disabled social justice. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/nyregion/17bell.html?scp=2&sq=sean%20bell&st=cse) | | | |
< < | A little morality and a lot of justice would have been good for Sean Bell. Unfortunately, there were no creative lawyers concerned about social justice willing to enact action. Ironically, the decision was made by the Justice Department. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/nyregion/17bell.html?scp=2&sq=sean%20bell&st=cse) | > > | Free lawyers have new creative ideas. But how? As a 1L, it seems creativity consists in a much narrower scope only for the purposes of arguing both sides on an exam. While only one semester down doesn';t generate a strong foundation for initiating reform of the structure of law school, I think the question of creativity has some correlation to freedom and if it can be aided then that would be an interesting addendum to the current curriculum. | | | |
< < | I have to say that I
think this is unfair to the lawyers in the EDNY and the Civil Rights
Division. The statute isn't a homicide law: it requires them to
prove that the policemen who fired on Bell were intentionally seeking
to deprive him of his civil rights. As the Justice Department
statement more accurately than grammatically reminded us, “Neither
accident, mistake, fear, negligence, nor bad judgment is sufficient
to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation." So the
lawyers will have gone through the entire record looking for evidence
that could support the only charge they can actually bring, and they
will have used the FBI assets available (which will be neither the
best nor the worst the Bureau has here) to reinterview witnesses
trying to find the evidence that would justify them in going
confidently to trial. But in a situation overflowing with mistake,
fear, negligence, and bad judgment, if a jury chooses, as it usually
does, to give the police officers the benefit of the doubt, the
statute doesn't create a general federal power to take "a second bite
at the apple." Convictions are very difficult to secure. That's
why, despite the high-profile, and the pressure from victims'
families and community organizations, almost all of the cases in
which the DOJ is asked to investigate it ultimately declines to
prosecute. The lawyers who tried to make a case here are
professionals, absolutely committed, and as creative as you would
want them to be. But that doesn't make evidence, and we should be
glad it doesn't.
| > > | Creativity begins with thoughts about social action which in turn could potentially lead to freedom for individuals outside of myself. Yet, first, one has to free themselves. Is this circular? I am anxiously awaiting my opportunity to make freedom. | | | |
< < | Free lawyers have new creative ideas. But how? As a 1L, it seems creativity consists in a much narrower scope only for the purposes of arguing both sides on an exam. While only one semester down doesn’t generate a strong foundation for initiating reform of the structure of law school, I think the question of creativity has some correlation to freedom and if it can be aided then that would be an interesting addendum the current curriculum. | | | |
< < | I agree it would. Hence
this course. | | | |
< < | Creativity begins with thoughts about social action which in turn could potentially lead to freedom for individuals outside of myself. Yet, first, one has to free themselves. Is this circular? I am anxiously awaiting my opportunity to make freedom. | | | |
< < | No, it's not circular,
it's a spiral. It exists in four dimensions rather than two, and the
element of time, of experience and wisdom gained, is crucial. You're
right in emphasizing your nearness to starting: there's more that
goes into making freedom than can be taught in a room.
Could you win your way to an understanding of yourself and your
highest employment while working at a large law firm? Quite
possibly. But the institution doesn't need or want you to do that,
and so it is likely to interfere in a thousand ways, of which running
you ragged is the most easy and profitable.
I think this essay expresses your situation and point of view well.
I don't think it needs substantial revision, although you might want
to take account of some of my comments to make minor changes that
would remove distractions.
| > > | -- KrystalCommons - 25 Jun 2010 |
|
KrystalCommonsFirstPaper 3 - 12 Apr 2010 - Main.StephenSevero
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
The Anxiety Over Freedom | | in a good way. I can't believe we have reached the point where this
is not only possible, but no one calls them on it. | |
> > | Actually, this didn't quite happen - though something more appalling (in my opinion) did. During the first week or so of Legal Methods, a student made a joke that everyone here was so accomplished and driven that she expected to be required to submit a resume to join a study group. That likely got taken out of context to create the rumor, and derision teemed (in the small pockets of student whispers and not in open confrontation - very high school of us). The real disgusting thing is that some other student - who I assume must have heard the rumor early on in the semester - posted the rumor as fact on a website that lots of law students read the day before our first exam. That was the unbelievable, despicable act for me. - Stephen Severo | | The exterior pressures imposed on the 1L student create a set of fears and anxieties that all suggest that one’s best is not good enough. While Mr. Robinson is not “beholden” to anyone, the 1L seems bound and weighed down by everything. The issue is that freedom seems bound to everything and contingent on everything but the character of the self. At every turn, it seems that external pressures and “advisors” have input and advice to offer to suggest what exactly freedom is. This imposition makes it hard for the 1L student to determine or even begin to ask questions that are a result of their own thought process and discovery. Undoubtedly others’ anxiety, desire for competition, and fears swallow even the most level-headed and rational 1L student.
And that continues to |
|
KrystalCommonsFirstPaper 2 - 12 Apr 2010 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
| |
< < | | | The Anxiety Over Freedom
-- By KrystalCommons - 25 Feb 2010 | | Freedom begins with making choices for yourself instead of letting them be made for you. Defining a legal career starts in law school- what classes we choose, the extracurricular activities we get involved in, and the professors we choose to work with or under. Many go for prestige over substance. It seems that getting a wide array of exposure to different areas of law would be important for determining one’s passions, definition of justice, and where a license can best be used. I assume that that search would lead to the discovery of a practice free of others’ impositions. | |
< < | The problem is that there are several obstacles that present anxiety over freedom: grades, getting the coveted firm position, or even being asked to submit a transcript and resume´ for_ a study group_. The exterior pressures imposed on the 1L student create a set of fears and anxieties that all suggest that one’s best is not good enough. While Mr. Robinson is not “beholden” to anyone, the 1L seems bound and weighed down by everything. The issue is that freedom seems bound to everything and contingent on everything but the character of the self. At every turn, it seems that external pressures and “advisors” have input and advice to offer to suggest what exactly freedom is. This imposition makes it hard for the 1L student to determine or even begin to ask questions that are a result of their own thought process and discovery. Undoubtedly others’ anxiety, desire for competition, and fears swallow even the most level-headed and rational 1L student. | > > | The problem is that there are several obstacles that present anxiety over freedom: grades, getting the coveted firm position, or even being asked to submit a transcript and resume´ for a study group. | | | |
< < | II. Freedom and BigLaw: Mutually Exclusive? | > > | Amazing. When I was in
law school, people who did this would have been regarded as
terminally arrogant and incapable of social interaction. They would
have been famous throughout the law school for three years, and not
in a good way. I can't believe we have reached the point where this
is not only possible, but no one calls them on it. | | | |
< < | There has been a lot of talk about pawning one’s license to BigLaw. Entertaining the idea of working at a big firm seems to be the beginning of a decision that is counterproductive to attaining one’s freedom. Can working 80 hour weeks serving the “man” act as the underground railroad to freedom? While exaggerated, the slave analogy is poignant nonetheless. As a 1L, there is no certainty about what a big firm job entails. We know only that the hours are long and an entering associate is at the bottom of the food chain. Yet, no one really offers any alternatives. Public interest acts as the counter-narrative to big firm but between debt and trying to establish a new life, the quickest and easiest way to begin that life, the most accessible means to an end, is the big firm. Financial stability is important and without ingenuity and creativity, BigLaw appears the best alternative for beginning the trek to long-term stability. | > > | The exterior pressures imposed on the 1L student create a set of fears and anxieties that all suggest that one’s best is not good enough. While Mr. Robinson is not “beholden” to anyone, the 1L seems bound and weighed down by everything. The issue is that freedom seems bound to everything and contingent on everything but the character of the self. At every turn, it seems that external pressures and “advisors” have input and advice to offer to suggest what exactly freedom is. This imposition makes it hard for the 1L student to determine or even begin to ask questions that are a result of their own thought process and discovery. Undoubtedly others’ anxiety, desire for competition, and fears swallow even the most level-headed and rational 1L student. | | | |
< < | Only 26% of lawyers are self-employed either as partners or solo practitioners. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm). The other 74% are beholden to someone else. Can’t freedom be attained by carving out a particular niche and then working up the food chain? Does working a big firm mean you must consume someone else to avoid being eaten in an attempt for freedom? | > > | And that continues to
happen inside other large totalizing organizations, which is why
people working in law firms wind up doing so little
self-discovery. | | | |
< < | It seems that BigLaw is appropriate as a temporary stop, less so as a permanent station. However, maybe it’s somewhat like speed dating. Trying different things, BigLaw, public interest, government for the delegated five minutes (or rather years) and then determining who you’re most compatible with and can wake up to in the morning. | > > | II. Freedom and BigLaw: Mutually Exclusive? | | | |
< < | III. Social Action as a Means to Freedom? | > > | There has been a lot of talk about pawning one’s license to BigLaw. Entertaining the idea of working at a big firm seems to be the beginning of a decision that is counterproductive to attaining one’s freedom. Can working 80 hour weeks serving the “man” act as the underground railroad to freedom? While exaggerated, the slave analogy is poignant nonetheless. As a 1L, there is no certainty about what a big firm job entails. We know only that the hours are long and an entering associate is at the bottom of the food chain. Yet, no one really offers any alternatives. Public interest acts as the counter-narrative to big firm but between debt and trying to establish a new life, the quickest and easiest way to begin that life, the most accessible means to an end, is the big firm. Financial stability is important and without ingenuity and creativity, BigLaw appears the best alternative for beginning the trek to long-term stability. | | | |
< < | Oliver Wendell Holmes suggests that if we remove morality and practice only the law, then the law would be more salient in its application. While this makes sense for people who are allowing their homes to foreclose, does it make sense for the lawyer seeking to achieve justice? Doesn’t morality motivate social action? The conception of what is right and wrong, just and unjust, seems to drive the nature of the practice some of us will engage in and delineates the work we find repulsive and oppressive. | > > | But ingenuity and
creativity is what you have. And stability is not the only possible
goal. | | | |
< < | A little morality and a lot of justice would have been good for Sean Bell. Unfortunately, there were no creative lawyers concerned about social justice willing to enact action. Ironically, the decision was made by the Justice Department. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/nyregion/17bell.html?scp=2&sq=sean%20bell&st=cse) | > > | Only 26% of lawyers are self-employed either as partners or solo practitioners. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm). The other 74% are beholden to someone else. Can’t freedom be attained by carving out a particular niche and then working up the food chain? Does working a big firm mean you must consume someone else to avoid being eaten in an attempt for freedom? | | | |
< < | Free lawyers have new creative ideas. But how? As a 1L, it seems creativity consists in a much narrower scope only for the purposes of arguing both sides on an exam. While only one semester down doesn’t generate a strong foundation for initiating reform of the structure of law school, I think the question of creativity has some correlation to freedom and if it can be aided then that would be an interesting addendum the current curriculum. | > > | It seems that BigLaw is appropriate as a temporary stop, less so as a permanent station. However, maybe it’s somewhat like speed dating. Trying different things, BigLaw, public interest, government for the delegated five minutes (or rather years) and then determining who you’re most compatible with and can wake up to in the morning. | | | |
< < | Creativity begins with thoughts about social action which in turn could potentially lead to freedom for individuals outside of myself. Yet, first, one has to free themselves. Is this circular? I am anxiously awaiting my opportunity to make freedom. | > > | But, as with sexual
intimacy, this process looks simpler than it proves in practice.
Those five-year flings are long enough that one accretes reasons not
to go, becomes dependent on the available affection, starts
rationalizing remaining in a bad relationship, fears uncertainty and
loneliness more than before.
III. Social Action as a Means to Freedom? | | | |
> > | Oliver Wendell Holmes suggests that if we remove morality and practice only the law, then the law would be more salient in its application. While this makes sense for people who are allowing their homes to foreclose, does it make sense for the lawyer seeking to achieve justice? Doesn’t morality motivate social action? The conception of what is right and wrong, just and unjust, seems to drive the nature of the practice some of us will engage in and delineates the work we find repulsive and oppressive. | | | |
> > | Holmes said we learn the
law best, "and nothing else," by thinking about it as a bad man. He
did not say that this was a principle of
practice. | | | |
> > | A little morality and a lot of justice would have been good for Sean Bell. Unfortunately, there were no creative lawyers concerned about social justice willing to enact action. Ironically, the decision was made by the Justice Department. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/nyregion/17bell.html?scp=2&sq=sean%20bell&st=cse) | | | |
> > | I have to say that I
think this is unfair to the lawyers in the EDNY and the Civil Rights
Division. The statute isn't a homicide law: it requires them to
prove that the policemen who fired on Bell were intentionally seeking
to deprive him of his civil rights. As the Justice Department
statement more accurately than grammatically reminded us, “Neither
accident, mistake, fear, negligence, nor bad judgment is sufficient
to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation." So the
lawyers will have gone through the entire record looking for evidence
that could support the only charge they can actually bring, and they
will have used the FBI assets available (which will be neither the
best nor the worst the Bureau has here) to reinterview witnesses
trying to find the evidence that would justify them in going
confidently to trial. But in a situation overflowing with mistake,
fear, negligence, and bad judgment, if a jury chooses, as it usually
does, to give the police officers the benefit of the doubt, the
statute doesn't create a general federal power to take "a second bite
at the apple." Convictions are very difficult to secure. That's
why, despite the high-profile, and the pressure from victims'
families and community organizations, almost all of the cases in
which the DOJ is asked to investigate it ultimately declines to
prosecute. The lawyers who tried to make a case here are
professionals, absolutely committed, and as creative as you would
want them to be. But that doesn't make evidence, and we should be
glad it doesn't.
| | | |
> > | Free lawyers have new creative ideas. But how? As a 1L, it seems creativity consists in a much narrower scope only for the purposes of arguing both sides on an exam. While only one semester down doesn’t generate a strong foundation for initiating reform of the structure of law school, I think the question of creativity has some correlation to freedom and if it can be aided then that would be an interesting addendum the current curriculum. | | | |
< < |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: | > > | I agree it would. Hence
this course. | | | |
< < | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KrystalCommons | > > | Creativity begins with thoughts about social action which in turn could potentially lead to freedom for individuals outside of myself. Yet, first, one has to free themselves. Is this circular? I am anxiously awaiting my opportunity to make freedom. | | | |
< < | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | > > | No, it's not circular,
it's a spiral. It exists in four dimensions rather than two, and the
element of time, of experience and wisdom gained, is crucial. You're
right in emphasizing your nearness to starting: there's more that
goes into making freedom than can be taught in a room.
Could you win your way to an understanding of yourself and your
highest employment while working at a large law firm? Quite
possibly. But the institution doesn't need or want you to do that,
and so it is likely to interfere in a thousand ways, of which running
you ragged is the most easy and profitable.
I think this essay expresses your situation and point of view well.
I don't think it needs substantial revision, although you might want
to take account of some of my comments to make minor changes that
would remove distractions.
| | \ No newline at end of file |
|
KrystalCommonsFirstPaper 1 - 26 Feb 2010 - Main.KrystalCommons
|
|
> > |
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
The Anxiety Over Freedom
-- By KrystalCommons - 25 Feb 2010
“The way we’re going to know whether you can free people is by whether you can free yourself. Freedom is a thing we make. If it’s made for us, it isn’t freedom. “ – Eben Moglen
As the legal market adapts to the Recession, more questions have emerged amongst law students about how carve out a space for themselves in the legal field. The anxiety over freedom (whatever “freedom” is) has consumed the minds of law students as big firm options diminish and loans abound. Who and what we will become seems to be at the forefront of our minds. The goal for many is to make money while still having a career that allows us freedom, meaningful practice, and the usage of our skills to better someone else’s reality. I concede here that this is more of a brainstorming exercise than an offering of any real answers. I’m only a 1L.
I. What is freedom? The beginning of a definition.
The anxiety of freedom begins with a simple question -what freedom is? After completing only one semester of law school, this seems the only place to begin. Envisioning freedom and determining what it means on an individual level seems to be the most important step in beginning to build a career.
Freedom begins with making choices for yourself instead of letting them be made for you. Defining a legal career starts in law school- what classes we choose, the extracurricular activities we get involved in, and the professors we choose to work with or under. Many go for prestige over substance. It seems that getting a wide array of exposure to different areas of law would be important for determining one’s passions, definition of justice, and where a license can best be used. I assume that that search would lead to the discovery of a practice free of others’ impositions.
The problem is that there are several obstacles that present anxiety over freedom: grades, getting the coveted firm position, or even being asked to submit a transcript and resume´ for_ a study group_. The exterior pressures imposed on the 1L student create a set of fears and anxieties that all suggest that one’s best is not good enough. While Mr. Robinson is not “beholden” to anyone, the 1L seems bound and weighed down by everything. The issue is that freedom seems bound to everything and contingent on everything but the character of the self. At every turn, it seems that external pressures and “advisors” have input and advice to offer to suggest what exactly freedom is. This imposition makes it hard for the 1L student to determine or even begin to ask questions that are a result of their own thought process and discovery. Undoubtedly others’ anxiety, desire for competition, and fears swallow even the most level-headed and rational 1L student.
II. Freedom and BigLaw: Mutually Exclusive?
There has been a lot of talk about pawning one’s license to BigLaw. Entertaining the idea of working at a big firm seems to be the beginning of a decision that is counterproductive to attaining one’s freedom. Can working 80 hour weeks serving the “man” act as the underground railroad to freedom? While exaggerated, the slave analogy is poignant nonetheless. As a 1L, there is no certainty about what a big firm job entails. We know only that the hours are long and an entering associate is at the bottom of the food chain. Yet, no one really offers any alternatives. Public interest acts as the counter-narrative to big firm but between debt and trying to establish a new life, the quickest and easiest way to begin that life, the most accessible means to an end, is the big firm. Financial stability is important and without ingenuity and creativity, BigLaw appears the best alternative for beginning the trek to long-term stability.
Only 26% of lawyers are self-employed either as partners or solo practitioners. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm). The other 74% are beholden to someone else. Can’t freedom be attained by carving out a particular niche and then working up the food chain? Does working a big firm mean you must consume someone else to avoid being eaten in an attempt for freedom?
It seems that BigLaw is appropriate as a temporary stop, less so as a permanent station. However, maybe it’s somewhat like speed dating. Trying different things, BigLaw, public interest, government for the delegated five minutes (or rather years) and then determining who you’re most compatible with and can wake up to in the morning.
III. Social Action as a Means to Freedom?
Oliver Wendell Holmes suggests that if we remove morality and practice only the law, then the law would be more salient in its application. While this makes sense for people who are allowing their homes to foreclose, does it make sense for the lawyer seeking to achieve justice? Doesn’t morality motivate social action? The conception of what is right and wrong, just and unjust, seems to drive the nature of the practice some of us will engage in and delineates the work we find repulsive and oppressive.
A little morality and a lot of justice would have been good for Sean Bell. Unfortunately, there were no creative lawyers concerned about social justice willing to enact action. Ironically, the decision was made by the Justice Department. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/nyregion/17bell.html?scp=2&sq=sean%20bell&st=cse)
Free lawyers have new creative ideas. But how? As a 1L, it seems creativity consists in a much narrower scope only for the purposes of arguing both sides on an exam. While only one semester down doesn’t generate a strong foundation for initiating reform of the structure of law school, I think the question of creativity has some correlation to freedom and if it can be aided then that would be an interesting addendum the current curriculum.
Creativity begins with thoughts about social action which in turn could potentially lead to freedom for individuals outside of myself. Yet, first, one has to free themselves. Is this circular? I am anxiously awaiting my opportunity to make freedom.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KrystalCommons
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|