REVOLT!

As I walked to class this morning, thinking deep thoughts about how a 23 year-old came to skip the "$1000 Wardrobe" spread at page 162 in April's Esquire in favor of the "$5000 Wardrobe" spread 6 pages later, I could not help but detect the drums of discord. Or, with somewhat more precision, the 'pings' of discord; as most of the angry racket has been flowing via Outlook inboxes. Basically, people don't much like the new dean, or his plan to turn this place into the only "holy trinity" law school on the quarter system, or the fucking (adj.) undergrads in our library; or the fact that said dean refuses to dispose of said undergrads. A few tidbits follow:

Right on, [L]. I'd be willing to trade my library use for the ability to use the actual grass at the driving range. those mats are awful, and the lines make alignment impossible.

I'm sure any administrative discussion will be just like the quarters
system: the students are against a situation, therefore it will continue unabated, much like the domestication of the dog
- A charmingly cynical soul

...Let the undergrads go work on the damn second floor, where there are no windows, or on the third floor, which is still stuck in the 1970s. The good chairs are on the first floor, as is the reserve desk, as is our lovely new chess board. When does my opinion count at this school? Didn't count during the quarter system debate, doesn't count now......why did we hire a Dean who cowtows [sic] to the administration when we pay his salary? Why is it that whenever there is an issue that affects students he is against us instead of working for us - which is his job (that and raising money on our behalf)?
- Anon.

Man, with 90-plus-percent of the law school pissed at the undergrads, the undergrads chatting up irritating us on their email lists, offers of what will surely be a terrible drinking event at the enchanted broccoli compound (as opposed to those other rocking undergrad events where grad students are always labeled "sketchy"), and serious discussion going forward about a petition drive to withhold 3L giving until this or the quarters system reflects students' wishes, we really have so much comity here. So much!


Sooner or later someone is going to stop asking questions about the undergrads and the pedagogical benefits of the quarters system and start asking the right questions: How much does Sullivan really want to take the California bar again, and how long is our current leader's contract?
- Anon.

...Thus, the attorneys found themselves preparing for engagement on no less than two fronts

Then the undergrads tossed a bomblet...

My personal retort:
Average SAT: 1400+
Number of "hot dates" in past year: 1
Time spent jacking off in law library in preparation for physics exam: 2 hrs.
Time spent screeching on cell phone in law library in preparation for physics exam: 3 hr.
Time spent showering, brushing teeth, applying deodorant, picking out clothes prior: null
Directions to "Go Fug Yourself" in link list at right: damn near priceless

The learned attorneys mused about a response...

It's very kind of the undergrads to take time off from studying to share fashion tips with us, but I think we might have the formula down already:

ill-covered beer gut (on both guys and girls- charming) + sloppy sweatpants and/or unfortunate miniskirt + distorted sense of one's own physical attractiveness = Stanford undergrad

I'm crushed I'll be missing the 8 pm fugly parade- should make for some decent observational humor...
- Genteel Bane of UGrads

A short time later, hostilities commenced...

Scene: Undergrad grossness gathers around the library tables.


Large Dustin Diamond look alike (very loudly): "Ok, we're going to sing happy birthday to..."


[E, Fearless Insurgent Captain](equally loudly): "No you're not. This is a library and people are trying to study. Shut the f**k up."


Classic stuff. And yes, actually sing happy birthday. The undergrads party that much.

The next day (this afternoon), the dean looked down from his perch and said:

...For the Law School to flourish it cannot conduct its business apart from the rest of the University as an independent operation. We need the support and cooperation of the University in a great many areas...immediately and in the long run, the Law School as a whole, but especially the students, have more to gain by being an integral part of the larger Stanford community than we do from remaining separate. .... It would do us significant harm within the University were we to be the lone department that precludes other members of the University community from using our facilities.

Never mind that the current acrimony has nothing to do with access to the book resources of the library; only access to a very expensive (paid for by law school alumni), and heretofore quiet, reading room on the first floor. Never mind that I use the other libraries to (gasp) check out books and depart. But, alas, my commentary skews officious. The gentle dean continued thusly:

...the law library will address issues of noice [sic] and inappropriate behavior by clearly posting our rules and asking everyone to comply. Incidents like what took place last night will not be tolerated. The library is a space to study, not to protest or socialize, and anyone who interferes or disrupts the proper use of the room will be asked to leave. .... I view restricting access to our current space as a last resort and want first to see if we can address the problems in less drastic ways.

Again, never mind that the "last resort" option of restricting access to the space has been working fine for years. I’d mention some other candidates for dean but I wouldn’t want them disappeared.

Colliton gets a bit less...Cravizzle

So, last time I lived in New York, it was my habit to wander up Third Ave. on Sunday mornings as the hour approached for legal alcohol purchasing. Along the way I'd pass the St. Marks Hotel and wonder what sort of debauchery was afoot within. Seriously, what kind of hotel has a green door, a green sign and happens to be located between Cooper Union (geeky weirdos) and the rest of St. Marks Place (kinky weirdos)? Low and behold, I crawled out of my very hazy weekend to discover that a tax attorney, formerly of the venerable Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, had been captured within. See Google News Dump.

I should say something off colour here about tax attorneys, but I won't because some of my friends claim to have enjoyed tax law and I don't want them to feel like perverts.

Anyhow, Mr. James Colliton, a fellow, who, if guilty of the several misdeeds alleged against him, ought to be clapped in irons, looks like a complete wanker. See his picture here. To the credit of the financially endowed Cravizzle folks, one could paraphrase their response to media inquiries as "Colliton don't work here no mo'!"

Seriously dude, exercise a little restraint and at least move to Colorado City, Utah. There you can stay married to your original wife, keep hanging out with your kids and engage in committed, though un-sanctioned, liaisons with all the underage girls you want—blessed by God's graceful smile, if you ask the locals. Hell, you might even score a pair of sisters. Of course, you might have to part with that posh job at Cravizzle, which does not maintain offices in Utah. For very good reasons, I'm sure.

addendum sequitur :
I have never worked for Cravath; I didn't even interview with them. I did hear that one of their hiring partners had to the nerve to ask a classmate of mine if he was a practicing Muslim during the interview. So, I guess you could say they occasionally push the bounds of propriety—if only when faced with a robust non-discrimination policy.

Also, the polygamists in Colorado City aren't even Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints, for that matter.

Wherein we plumb the depths of law-student psychosis

I went on a mid-week urban adventure. It was a bad idea; I had a meeting with a professor at 11:00 the next morning. Needless to say, nobody actually plans to go clubbing in San Francisco when they have perfectly good reasons to stay in Palo Alto and attend to very important, very erudite, conversations and tasks.

Anyhow, through an artifice, the details of which I omit to spare the innocent, I found myself in a bar/club in San Francisco accompanied by some very interesting girls with quite divergent personalities who I had never gone out with before. Throughout the evening the character in question remained quiet and subtle, usually signs of the socially competent and conscientious. However, after apparently failing to locate members of our cadre for not more than 15 minutes, she wandered outside in a huff. When we eventually found her, she proceeded to shriek and shove at her girlfriend in a manner very much in keeping with the child-like state in which she entered law school.

Draw whatever conclusions you will from the previous sentence.

As I fled up Castro Street with my friend of many years, desperate to escape the feminine sidewalk carnage in our wake, I wondered: how do people of such emotional fragility survive three years of the most severe mind-fucking devised by the legal academy? What skills could this person possibly have that would convince anyone to both put up with her attitude and pay her US $140,000 per year with virtually guaranteed yearly bonuses and raises? That amount is several times what the typically good-natured American can expect to earn at the apogee of his or her career. Perhaps the typically good-natured American is both pathetic and stupid but that's no excuse for rewarding borderline-psychotics who happen to stumble through a torts outline.

To address the afore-posed questions, perhaps this unfortunate soul, lacking social grace or ability to just suck it up and be an adult, is a victim of the law school. Perhaps the bankruptcy professor yells too much; or the Con-Law guy made too many mean-spirited quips; maybe her partner in negotiations was a hard-ass. Any of these things could explain such bizarre behaviour--and the fact that I find it necessary to write about this. But perhaps I've too much empathy re: the whole law school mind-fucking thing; it's more likely that there's just something fundamentally unreasonable (here I intend a strict legalese usage) about people who start fights with their friends in public and commit other social torts. I suppose that since I can't sue for my evening back, I'll just put it down to a lesson learned and (hopefully) karmic currency for better adventures to grace this space.

As for the ridiculous amount of money this person is going to make, I make no good-faith complaint and only mention it to arouse the gentle reader's outrage. Hell, I've probably got the same package.