Wed Apr 2 22:27:35 CDT 2008
i am persuaded that the harm to Kacey justifies the posts being scrubbed. it
doesn't serve any purpose being online. Scott P is correct that it's an easy
thing to take care of. and David is right that the potential harms outweigh
any (no) benefit.
i don't understand how what i said was paternalistic. couldn't the calls for
greater regulation of edebate be deemed paternalistic?
i am insensitive, about most things. my jovial demeanor often masks that
insensitivity. i think most people take themselves way too seriously, and
tend to exaggerate the harm done to them by someone else's words. for
instance, i've never been "horrified" by anything i've ever read on edebate.
what was written about Kacey was offensive. not because she's a woman. not
because she wants to be a lawyer and might have to explain to some uptight
firm why edebate is silliness X infinity. simply because it was wrong and
vulgar. it was wrong and the people responsible should be the focus of
Kacey was an ass when she debated; mean to her opponent, egotistical, and,
ironically, dismissive of the idea that things she said in a debate might be
offensive to others. it's not that i'm disqualifying her feelings. i simply
find them odd coming from her. in many ways, she was the epitome of the
insensitive debater. i watched her take great joy in the suffering of her
opponents, so i find it difficult to sympathize with her. despite all that,
what was said about her was unwarranted and over the line. and i can
sympathize with that. her being an asshole when she debated does not justify
what was said about her.
questioned whether there was any purpose for edebate archives at all, i
explained there was. not that there's a purpose for what was said about her
to remain in the archives. but then again, her question was clearly intended
to suggest that there shouldn't be any archives at all. the same way she
proposed to solve the whole problem by getting rid of Kerpen. which is also
a bad idea. until someone wants to step up and volunteer to do his job, that
i do accept being ignorant on the law interview process. true, i haven't
been to almost 100 law interviews, or even 100 job interviews of any kind.
i'm not sure i even have the intestinal fortitude to be rejected that much.
david's shock and awe at how someone would dare imply the world has too many
lawyers made me laugh. out loud. the rant about how bad it is to judge
lawyers was even funnier. don't worry, the legal field can always compare
itself to insurance companies when they need an esteem boost.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:22 PM, David Marks <dgm2109 at columbia.edu> wrote:
> Everything Scott said is true.
> Yes, Kacey went overboard with calling for Kerpen's removal. Yes, Kerpen
> does a whole lot of good. But that doesn't mean you can disqualify her
> genuine feelings on this matter.
> As someone who has gone through almost a hundred law interviews and knows
> many other people who have as well, I am horrified by Hester's
> paternalistic, ignorant, and generally insensitive email.
> If you're looking at a top firm and they have two equally good candidates
> but limited spots to offer even at the interview stage, you MAY NOT GET AN
> INTERVIEW IN THE FIRST PLACE. This may be a corporate firm. It can also be a
> civil rights firm, a class action plaintiff firm, or even the Attorney
> General's office. So take your "lawyers bad" DA and shove it.
> Firms often make decisions on trivial information because they have so
> many people to choose from. They don't have time to interview you for more
> than 20 minutes at a time. You don't want to spend 5 of those minutes
> talking about some stupid edebate post.
> Yes, they do judge you on how you eat and how you dress, etc. It's not
> just image - it's the fact that your clients ALSO google you. If you're in
> house counsel and see this about an associate who is working on your case,
> you're going to ask about it. Too much money is at stake and even if it's
> wrong, it will affect decisions. Even if it doesn't affect decisions, you'll
> have to sit there worrying about it. This when you already have a lot to
> worry about.
> Does it suck? Yes. Is this all the more reason not to make it harder on
> the people choosing to go through it? Yes. Is this just giving into the Man?
> Shut up and eat your judgmentalism (if that's even a word). Some people
> do firm work because they want to be rich (though those people really should
> do investment banking). But a lot of people do it because they need/want
> financial security (heard of law school loans?) or have to support other
> people. Some people do it short term to get good and then switch into
> something else. You don't know, so don't judge. And a hell of a lot of
> people do it because they want cutting-edge, challenging work.
> You would never, ever, ever, want your partner (a.k.a. boss who decides
> how much you make and whether your life is wonderful or hell) to find emails
> like that about you. I can't even imagine what it's like if you're a woman
> in a law firm to think about your coworkers --- or a male-dominated
> partnership --- circulating emails about you being a slut or whatever when
> you're working your butt off trying to make them think of you as a lawyer
> first instead of a sex object. And, most importantly, to be told that you're
> powerless because that story is somehow important to the edebate memory or
> identity or some such crap. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened.
> Hester, I think you're a nice guy, but your email was uninformed and
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman