I am writing this letter because I think you provide a vital voice to the Columbia Law School community, and because the time you devote to students in office hours and the work you do on the wiki is more than commendable and should be more common. However, though you are one of the most engaging and dedicated professors I have encountered at CLS thus far, its not all just peachy.

In class today, we had a brief exchange about Apple computers. There is more to the story, and perhaps you remember our conversation last time I came to your office hours, but that isn't important here.

In compliance with Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Apple presents evidence to substantiate its claim that it is "years ahead of anyone in the industry," when it comes to the environmental impact of it computers. This is an amorphous statement that probably isn't true, but bear with me.

The reports claim that the 2008 15" Mac Book Pro uses 26% as much energy (measured in average US power grid CO2e emissions per hour of product use) as a 60 watt lightbulb. Apple claims in its GRI reports that it is the industry leader in removing lead, BFR, PVC, mercury, arsenic, and other harmful substances from its products. It claims its policy is to design smaller, thinner products that use less material, and to use materials such as aluminum which are more desirable for recyclers. It claims it has gone beyond existing legislation in both Europe and the U.S. in minimizing the environmental impact of its products.

Whether any of this is enough (it isn't) and whether greater strides can and should be made (they can and should) isn't the point. The point is also not to build up or promote or praise Apple, Apple products, Steve Jobs, Apple users etc. in any way.

The point is that you hide behind tenure and an aura of genius (no one disputes you are smart Eben, but your point today applies to you as well: there are things in this world you don't know.) to disparage all of us every time you make sweeping comments such as those today, and other comments that vastly oversimplify and polarize complex issues.

Usually, you will immediately attempt to justify this by saying "I'm trying to make you uncomfortable" or to "frustrate you" or ask whether we can't "separate the actor from the play," then allude to some greater but equally amorphous purpose (like encouraging students to use their licenses for justice). Like most statements of this kind, this is a misdirection. It attempts to disguise or distract from the fact that you are, in fact, simply pissing on us. (Eben likes to say students should not do EIP b/c it is an opportunity for firms with no jobs to offer to "piss on" us; thanks for the terminology Eben, I guess I have learned something)

I am tired of being pissed on, especially by a man who continually implies that he is morally against such behavior. I say "imply" b/c you have never quite said, that I know of, that you are morally against the kind of abuse you claim law schools and big-law firms dole out to law students on a frequent basis. You certainly imply, however, that you are against this as a matter of principle, because you believe we should instead be taught how to "use our license" for the the "pursuit of justice" (back to that old refrain).

I have come to the conclusion, that in fact you do not oppose these things you decry based on principle. Despite Apple being one of the less offensive major computer manufacturers with respect to the environment, you single them out. Why? Your constant disparagements of Steve Jobs, Microsoft, the entire financial industry, big-law, etc. are due more to personal vendetta than anything else. I understand you have ideological, legal and other kinds of problems with these entities, but that's not what you base your comments on.

If Apple switched tomorrow to computers so environmentally friendly you could bury them in your garden and your tomatoes and tulips would grow better, you would still have a problem with them. Its that closed operating system, the "flat keys," that they run hot, etc. Fine. But don't preach your ideology as gospel every alternate Tuesday and Thursday and decry people who don't agree as ignorant, heretics, or as (in your words) "having Steve Jobs looking up their assholes and liking it." It's unprofessional, unproductive, intellectually immature, and wrong. Not to mention it undermines your supposed goals.

If you have a real problem with these companies and practices, a real interest in your students, their pursuit of "justice," and possess knowledge that we don't, then do your job. Teach us.

I write this from the vantage point of a frustrated student, who came to your office hours interested in learning more about privacy law, and was instead berated for 45 minutes because I unapologetically own a Mac and an Ipod. I will not change my beliefs and practices simply to better coincide with yours. I will, and did, approach the question openly to learn more and come to an educated conclusion. When I tried to explain this, you called me a "moron." Again, unprofessional, unhelpful, and nothing but so much pissing.

I hope you enjoy your year off, and if you happen to change your mind about things, let me know. I have an extra Ipod you can borrow.

-- ArtCavazosJr - 06 Apr 2010

As someone who has been accused of flattery towards Eben (granted, by the man himself) it is probably redundant to explain the reasons I have a deep appreciation and the utmost gratitude for our Professor and his class.

I also find it interesting that nobody wants to touch this post when I know many of you feel strongly about how this class is run. But Eben has to give us a grade and nobody wants to piss him off, so I guess it is expected. All the power to you Art.

With respect to Art's criticisms I must say that the single most distasteful and upsetting part of this class is Eben's willingness to resort to name calling. I wish that Eben's brilliance would extend to his treatment of the people he does not like.

One of the legs on which this class stands is that of the presumption of kinship. We are all descendants of a mitochondrial Eve, and to hide this fact is to give ourselves permission to oppress what Eben calls the other. Thus, we hear Eben's eloquent insistence on the humanity's collective right to a fair shot. We owe the same respect to the Afghan children who are killed by our bullets, to the crippled Bangladeshi computer student, and to the hardworking librarians at the Supreme Court. Even more than respect, it is incumbent on us, as lawyers, to advocate for those who will need us the most. We need to save Joe Stack from himself.

It is curious to me, then, that this same respect is not extended to our kin who have been dealt a set of cards that have ended up to be most favorable to him or her. Dean Schizer becomes Boy Dean, Tim Wu is unqualified, "every professor is stupid and lazy" and so on and so forth. If we recognize that we are all kin, and that recognition demands a level of respect for everyone, it should extend to EVERYONE-- blood sucking capitalists deserve it just as much as misguided men who fly planes into buildings.

I find the name-calling offensive, rude, and demeaning to me as a student and as a person. It is the most resounding flaw in this class and every time Eben does it I cringe at how he is undermining himself and my admiration for him. Eben talks about the most oppressed groups of society with a level of empathy that is unmatched and that extends to his fight for freedom. I couldn't imagine him talking about stupid and lazy poor people, or homeless people who are idiots and morons. Unfortunately, I have heard him use these words with respect to people in his owner class.

I understand that from one angle, he sees our society as binary. The owners and the non-owners. I don't believe this justifies the different language he uses in talking about them.

I know that I do not have a license, but if Eben were my client I think I would advise him that his choice of words blunts the impact of his teachings and thus, his fight for freedom. -- NonaFarahnik - 06 Apr 2010

I guess this is what you would call a "concurrence", since I agree with Art's point but not all of his statements. When I first got to Eben's class, I really did think his words were gospel-- but it didn't take long before I started disagreeing with many of his points. I found myself frustrated by his one-sidedness, but I figured this is part of the experience.

I agree, his personality in class is more of a TV character than a professor, but I do believe that this serves some compelling purpose.

As far as the name calling and disrespect of his colleagues, that's something I don''t understand. Based on conversations with some of my professors, it seems Moglen's blind adherence to ideology has created a number of social conflicts. On the other hand, I also talked to a professor who described him as a gentle and kind friend.

As a student, I appreciate the effect of his class and how his teaching style furthers his purpose. At the same time, at some point I want to meet Eben the person, not simply the Moglen I know from class and office hours.

-- MikeAbend - 07 Apr 2010