|
> > |
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
What is the law, anyway, and who is making it?
-- By ShidehZokaiy - 19 Feb 2025
Growing up, I thought law meant justice—the gold standard of civil behavior, peace, and freedom. If everyone followed “the law,” we would all be sitting around the fire, singing kumbaya, and things like crimes against humanity, tax evasion, presidential conspiracies defrauding The People, and jaywalking would be a thing of the past.
My parents and I came to America 14 years ago with just four suitcases. We stayed in my aunt’s guest room until my parents worked enough odd jobs to afford an apartment. My parents slept on mattresses in the living room while I kept the bedroom. Compared to Tehran, where a stick of gum cost five dollars, I lived lavishly. I wore optional uniforms to school to save on clothes. We didn’t have enough money for a tutor, so I lugged our Farsi-English dictionary to the library every day and looked up every foreign word to learn English. I wish I didn’t know any English though when my White neighbors called the police because we were speaking our, "Terrorist language too loudly,” or when his sons chased me across the courtyard, yelling, “You hairy, smelly, big-nosed monkeys are taking over!”
I still wish I couldn’t understand English when I hear First World leaders spew hate speech or preach discriminatory laws. I think of seeing my brothers in Iran beat to a pulp because they practiced a different religion or rubbing oil on my sisters’ scars from slashes received for failing to cover their hair. I was almost taken from my parents because I did ballet, which was deemed sexually provocative and therefore illegal in Iran. I was 8.
Surely, America is different. We get rights. We get freedom. We get choice. We get a voice and we get democracy! Iran’s leaders fatten on blood money and send their kids abroad for education, while the majority of domestic youth become dropouts hooked on drugs by 15. They are hypocrites who preach Sharia law but rape and murder women and children. America has it figured out!
Oliver Wendell Holmes said law was the conditions under which public force is applied in courts—what about those who sidestep the law through connections? Legal realists argue that law derives from prevailing social interests and public policy, not purely formalistic legal considerations. So how can judges craft rules against established public good notions—like bodily autonomy? If judges are paragons of morality, why does our Supreme Court include a man accused of rape and photographed while wearing black face?
I interned at a global lobbying firm after college. During negotiations, I observed renowned human rights activists involved in lucrative backchannel oil agreements that fueled Mullas’ extravagant lifestyles and helped them divert attention from their cruelty. Even the UN appeared compromised after appointing Iranian officials to women’s rights commissions. I kept going, hoping law school would help me find tangible solutions.
I now feel like an immigrant again. My peers with educated parents understand the system. LLMs make sense of codes. I don’t have time to look up words I don’t know. “It’s inefficient,” say professors and peers. How will I catch up, and what will I sacrifice along the way?
Now more than ever, American youth are disillusioned by the government. Their anxiety about health or careers are understandable with such an inconsistent system. How do judges make decisions? Shall we examine their clerks, clerks’ professors, or the legal institutions that define law and justice. Is it about the law on the books—if so, which text? Bible or Constitution? Originalist, historical, precedential, or structural lens? How much do politics and self-interests influence rulings?
Don’t waste time, you are in a capitalist society that demands you make money. An Ivy League law education opens doors, yet how can students serve the public when they're forced to see nothing but the law in heterogeneous terms and shun corporate greed that could free them from debt? How much does my voice/vote matter anyway?
I can count the number of times I’ve seen people laugh in my classes. Peers look at me like I’ve lost my mind if I react to a professor’s jokes. Only way to refrain from questioning my own sanity has been [soft]self-isolation. Musn’t… give… in…. to the comparison game. Ah, the Big Apple, waiting for me to take a bite!
You’re not here to laugh or question the institution. Live in the moment by identifying the cases and theories your professor emphasizes—distractions spark too many ideas. Noses in the books, heads in the sand. Unironic ostrich defense. Everyone knows everyone in this industry. You won’t go far by scrutinizing our great leaders!
You'll understand “law” eventually—if not, fake it on LinkedIn? ? with a fancy firm or prestigious clerkship. Work for big oil to save for your eco-friendly practice, or become a retired partner who escapes to the Swiss Alps to ‘reconnect with nature.’ Forget values, faith, family, or friendship. Work New York big law; once you get hitched and the ol’ ball n’ chain can’t take it anymore, move to the Californian suburbs to raise a family (where you might cheat with your “secretary” and start surfing to prove that you didn’t waste your physical pique on blow and all-nighters). This is the life you chose! You're too old. Too busy. Too late. Everything’s meaningless but Kafka's writings. You’re a clichéd Suit whose thrills are oral arguments or clicking buttons to seal a deal. Should you kill yourself or just have a cup of coffee? And is it better to be or not to be? Why didn’t you just suck it up and become a STEM major so you could’ve practiced patent law instead? If I just made more, I would have been done already! Now, I need to do this. How could I ever feel so rich when I was on food stamps at 10? No matter. I must work. No time 4 counterfactuals—maybe for the best.
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 "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|