|
ShayBanerjeeFirstEssay 14 - 07 Oct 2015 - Main.GreggBadichek
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| | | We are socially conscious and talented individuals sitting in one of the most privileged institutions in the world. Why are we not learning how to use the Internet to fight economic inequality, reduce the cost of living, and restructure governmental institutions? Why are those being written off as secondary goals, taking a back seat to discussions about IP laws, free education, and data privacy? The answers to those questions involve a political judgment about what it means to be a lawyer in the Internet society. I am not out of line demanding an adequate explanation for where that judgment came from.
-- ShayBanerjee - 04 Oct 2015 | |
>
> |
Shay: I think you overstate your presumption as to the purpose of the class. That may be the purpose as you receive it; but it's not clear to me that it really is the purpose in the objective sense, supposing that exists. For my part, to exemplify the nuances to the reception, it may very well be that exposure to topics greatly unfamiliar to a majority of the class ultimately results in the expansion and more precise direction of creative legal approaches than those which would result were the class to focus on overly materialist orientations. Funny enough, this possibility seems to mirror the conceptual framework of impoverished Indian children expressing their curiousity and ingenuity through the language of computers; we simply take the role of the children and our knowledge of the law fills in the gaps newly created by the subject matter and presentation within the class. I don't take it that the goals you describe are couched as secondary. Rather I suggest that the process of countenancing them is somewhat inverted in relation to what we would otherwise expect in the pursuit of such ambitions—expectations hardwired into our learning centers, I may surmise, by an educational system that Eben seems to fundamentally denounce.
As for the ultimate point as to where the judgment came from, my two years and change of law school have given me the impression that, when dealing with matter that is simultaneously arcane and unprecedented, it is often best to simply throw a bunch of stuff at a wall and see what sticks.
None of this is to disagree with your perspective as such. Just a thought.
-- GreggBadichek - 07 Oct 2015 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
ShayBanerjeeFirstEssay 11 - 04 Oct 2015 - Main.ShayBanerjee
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| | | -- LizzieOShea - 03 Oct 2015 | |
<
< | Lizzie, I greatly admire your repeated attempts to assuage two competing approaches to social action, but I fear that you have missed the point. Here you simply restate the perceived benefits of the incumbent approach without fully engaging with the central criticism brought by the insurgent. This makes sense to you because a recurring theme underlying your argument is that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive, and that so long as the incumbent appears even slightly productive, it is undeniably worth our time. That belief is erroneous and must be corrected before we continue this discussion any further. | >
> | Lizzie, I admire your attempts to assuage two competing approaches to social action, but I fear that in attempting to moderate you have missed the takeaway. Here you simply restate the perceived benefits of the incumbent approach without fully engaging with the central criticism brought on by the insurgent. This makes sense to you because a recurring theme underlying your argument is that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. According to you, there is no conflict - there are benefits to each approach. Thus, as long as the incumbent appears even slightly productive, it is undeniably worth preserving. That belief is erroneous and must be corrected before we continue this discussion any further. | | | | |
<
< | By approaching this subject the way you have, you are de-politicizing an essentially political decision that is shaping our common life together. To teach a subject one way involves a conscious choice not to teach it another way. Students are at liberty to question that choice, which is undeniably political. Teachers are obliged to explain it. | >
> | By approaching this subject the way you have, you are de-politicizing a fundamentally political decision - one that is actively shaping our common life together. To teach a subject one way necessarily involves a conscious choice not to teach it another way. Students are at liberty to question that choice. Teachers are obliged to defend the merits of that choice or change it. | | | | |
<
< | As far as I can tell, the purpose of this class is - or ought to be - to teach law students how to drive social impact using the Internet. The question hidden beneath our entire discussion (until the end of this sentence) is simple: Is the curriculum that we have purchased the optimal way to fulfill that goal? | >
> | As far as I can tell, the purpose of this class is - or ought to be - to teach law students how to drive social impact using the Internet. The question underlying our entire discussion has until the end of this paragraph gone unstated, but to law students it should have already been obvious. The question, put simply: Does this curriculum represent the optimal value of our purchase? | | | | |
<
< | As I have stated, based on my personal experience and understanding of social theory (both of which are admittedly less expansive than Eben’s), it is not clear to me that mass distribution of knowledge resources constitutes the most productive form of social action (or even close to it). There are ways to teach law that at once center on the Internet and also are more overtly materialist, striking directly at social injustice/poverty rather than relying on the additional assumption that knowledge will be used productively by others. For whatever reason, we have chosen one way to teach and not the others. | >
> | As I have stated, based on my personal experience and understanding of social theory (both of which are admittedly less expansive than Eben’s), it is not clear to me that mass distribution of knowledge resources constitutes the most productive form of social action (or even close to it). There are ways to teach law that both center on the Internet and also are more overtly materialist, focusing directly on social injustice/poverty rather than on distributing knowledge to others in the hope that they will use it productively. For whatever reason, we have chosen one way to teach and not the others. | | | | |
<
< | Here we are socially conscious and talented individuals sitting in one of the most privileged institutions in the world. Why are we not learning how to use the Internet to fight economic inequality, reduce the cost of living, and restructure governmental institutions? Why are those being written off as secondary goals to take a back seat to discussions about IP laws, free education, and data privacy? The answers to those questions involve some sort of judgment about what it means to be a lawyer in the Internet society (and also a judgment about the definition of human freedom). I do not think I am out of line demanding an adequate explanation about where that judgment came from. | >
> | We are socially conscious and talented individuals sitting in one of the most privileged institutions in the world. Why are we not learning how to use the Internet to fight economic inequality, reduce the cost of living, and restructure governmental institutions? Why are those being written off as secondary goals, taking a back seat to discussions about IP laws, free education, and data privacy? The answers to those questions involve a political judgment about what it means to be a lawyer in the Internet society. I am not out of line demanding an adequate explanation for where that judgment came from. | | | -- ShayBanerjee - 04 Oct 2015
|
|
|
ShayBanerjeeFirstEssay 10 - 04 Oct 2015 - Main.ShayBanerjee
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| | | Lizzie, I greatly admire your repeated attempts to assuage two competing approaches to social action, but I fear that you have missed the point. Here you simply restate the perceived benefits of the incumbent approach without fully engaging with the central criticism brought by the insurgent. This makes sense to you because a recurring theme underlying your argument is that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive, and that so long as the incumbent appears even slightly productive, it is undeniably worth our time. That belief is erroneous and must be corrected before we continue this discussion any further. | |
<
< | By approaching this subject the way you have, you are de-politicizing an essentially political decision that is shaping our common life together. To teach a subject one way involves a conscious choice to not teach it another way. Students are at liberty to question that choice, which is undeniably political. Teachers are obliged to explain it. | >
> | By approaching this subject the way you have, you are de-politicizing an essentially political decision that is shaping our common life together. To teach a subject one way involves a conscious choice not to teach it another way. Students are at liberty to question that choice, which is undeniably political. Teachers are obliged to explain it. | | | As far as I can tell, the purpose of this class is - or ought to be - to teach law students how to drive social impact using the Internet. The question hidden beneath our entire discussion (until the end of this sentence) is simple: Is the curriculum that we have purchased the optimal way to fulfill that goal? | |
<
< | As I have stated, based on my personal experience and understanding of social theory (both of which are admittedly less expansive than Eben’s), it is not clear to me that mass distribution of knowledge resources constitutes the most productive form of social action (or even close to it). There are ways to teach law that at once center on the Internet and also are more overtly materialist. For whatever reason, we have chosen one and not the others. | >
> | As I have stated, based on my personal experience and understanding of social theory (both of which are admittedly less expansive than Eben’s), it is not clear to me that mass distribution of knowledge resources constitutes the most productive form of social action (or even close to it). There are ways to teach law that at once center on the Internet and also are more overtly materialist, striking directly at social injustice/poverty rather than relying on the additional assumption that knowledge will be used productively by others. For whatever reason, we have chosen one way to teach and not the others. | | | Here we are socially conscious and talented individuals sitting in one of the most privileged institutions in the world. Why are we not learning how to use the Internet to fight economic inequality, reduce the cost of living, and restructure governmental institutions? Why are those being written off as secondary goals to take a back seat to discussions about IP laws, free education, and data privacy? The answers to those questions involve some sort of judgment about what it means to be a lawyer in the Internet society (and also a judgment about the definition of human freedom). I do not think I am out of line demanding an adequate explanation about where that judgment came from. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|