Jeffrey Harrison at MoneyLaw has been gathering data on law student tendencies, reaching the conclusion that the Slackoisie have brought about the New Age of Disability. Of course, since use of the word “disability” is viewed by many as pejorative, we shall reform his language to “differently abled,” having rejected the characterization of “bunch of total losers” as being unduly lengthy.
Following the best of scientific protocols, Jeffrey’s research has produced the following examples:
1. A student asked to have a 2 year old grade changed in order to improve his class rank.
2. A mother called to complain about her son’s grade in a class.
3. A student was devastated by a comment on a paper because it was followed by an explanation point.
4. Two attorneys and one judge have asked “What is going on.” They say they have never encountered students who required as much “hand holding.”
5. Employers visiting to interview complain about student attitudes as signified by wearing shorts and ipods to an interview, being aggressive about what they will and won’t do, lateness, etc.
Of course, we’ve accumulated the same sort of data anecdotally here at Simple Justice. And where we can’t find an anecdote, we just make it up, which is why it’s important that our machinations are verified by properly conducted research.
Jeffrey goes on to note:
If ability means being prepared to contend with the ups and downs of life, being able to shake things off, being determined, to learn from criticism, and to take the initiative to solve difficult problems, it seems like we are well into an new age of disability.
Pondering both the source of this ugly turn for the worst, as well as its implications for law schools, he accepts his share of the blame.
I am pretty sure we play a role in the disabling. In talking to some law professor friends, none could not remember more than a time or two when he or she said in response to an classroom answer “No, actually that is wrong.” Instead, the answer is something that leaves the student feeling good but likely hearing an inaccurate message.
Having offered his mea culpa, because God knows it couldn’t possibly be the fault of the Slackoisie themselves as they cannot, by definition, be responsible for anything in their lives that negatively affects their self-esteem, it seems appropriate that our brethren in the theoretical lanes of the legal superhighway receive the full support of those of us in the far left lane, weaving in and out as suits our disposition.
Shortly after that glorious day when your students toss their mortar boards high in the air, without the slightest care for the return of the deposit on the regalia that was charged to mommy’s credit card, your former law student who has likely never been told by any professor that his response to a question in class was “wrong” or that he was a “blithering idiot” who should consider an alternative career path, will stand up before a judge.
Now judges have changed somewhat since the old days. But not that much. After your former student expresses his most thoughtful and well-prepared argument on behalf of an actual, living client, forcefully and with a passion that can only be mustered by the young and inappropriately healthy, beaming with the glow of knowing that he has crafted a position that fills him with pride as his finest work, he will hear the magic word:
DENIED
No “and”, no pat on the head, no hug. Just denied.
The former law student blinks a few times. His eyes begin to glaze, then water. His face is red, flush with emotion. His head spins. “What could this be,” he thinks, as his mind races to make sense of this new experience. At first, he thinks he must have heard wrong, as he knows how much he loved his argument and that it was the best argument he could possibly make. But as the uniformed court officer grabs him by the shoulder to push him out of the well, he realizes that something is wrong. Very wrong.
In a dream-like state, he walked toward the bench, staggering until he drops to the hard, cold surface. He feels the firm, no harsh, grip on his upper arm, the sense of wet droplets striking his cheek and ear. He realizes his client is next to him, so close that he can smell the odor of his warm, moist breath. Then he hears the assault of sounds, pounding and pounding his head.
“You moron, you idiot, you fool . . . you told me you had this under control…you’ve ruined me…you’ve ruined my life…you suck…you stink… you idiot…”
The problem, you see, is that this former law student is unprepared for this eventuality. He’s never been told before that he can be wrong. His world has never included outright rejection of his thoughts and ideas. He has never experienced the moment when someone says “no” to him, without equivocation or explanation. Throughout his education, he’s been told that if he tries his best, if he believes that he has produced the best work he is capable of, then he has succeeded.
No one ever prepared him for the judgment day. No one ever told him that someday, it will not matter what he thinks, as there will be another person who will judge him. His entire life has been guided by “I think” up to now, and the very notion that what he thinks no longer rules the day will rock the foundation of his existence.
Jeffrey concludes by asking the question, “Is disabling people really a way to be kind or show your respect?”
I guess it’s easier than fielding that call from the vicious helicopter mom. But no, shielding junior from judgment day is not a sign of respect. It’s just the path of least resistance.
So how exactly are the Slackoisie differently abled? Well, actually they’re not. They’re just a bunch of self-absorbed whiners who hides behind their mother’s skirt rather than face the reality that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, and nobody cares if it makes you feel badly about yourself. And it doesn’t really matter whose fault it is, because eventually everybody has to take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming others for their failings.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An explanation point? Someone was upset becuse the prof explained why they were wrong?
I wasn’t entirely clear what an explanation point meant. But I think it’s some new type of educational lingo intended to avoid use of the word “wrong” under any circumstances. Or it could just be a typo. I don’t know.
Here’s what we at WAC? and Hull McGuire can’t get. The no-backbone issue: Why do “educated” non-boomers (note: not Ken), apparently mostly male, (1) rarely give their real names when they write/post/comment in the blogosphere? and (2) aren’t even ashamed of it? Spine-shortage gene for post-1965 births? Really strange. “Hi, ‘Maynard G’, here…hey you suck…heh-heh..and I am very happy going through life as The Invisible Turd”.
[Ed. Note: Maynard G reference only valid to pre-Slackoisie watchers familiar with the term of art, “beatnik”]
Regarding real names and posts in the blogosphere, I did that back in the beginning, but there were… repercussions. Most folks who understand the Internet who are not blogging in order to advertise their product or name now blog anonymously in order to prevent things like Internet identity theft, frivolous lawsuits over blog content or blog comments, future employers googling their comments about things unrelated to work and deciding not to hire them because they don’t have the same political beliefs, and so forth. (Yes, it is possible to subpoena ISP records to find out who any commenter or blogger is, but it’s an extra step that has to be taken as part of a frivolous lawsuit, and enough extra work and expense to dissuade most of the cranks from doing it).
‘Tis a pity, but that’s the world we’ve made. Younger folk, who came up in the Internet world, sense this implicitly and blog under pseudonyms. Some of us, alas, had to learn it the hard way. And some haven’t yet learned it at all, but will.
The use of pseudonyms is a subject that’s been discussed here at length in the past. Bear in mind that this is a law blog, and many who post here are lawyers. In the blawgosphere, the vast majority of us blawg under our real names. Most of the concerns you express don’t apply, as we not only have no fear that our opinions will come back to haunt us, but feel it’s important that we stand behind our opinions.
In the blawgosphere, anonymous posting or commenting significantly undermines credibility. It makes it impossible to discern the history, background, experience of the poster, thus reducing our ability to accept his or her judgment or value his or her opinion. In non-law blogs, and in anonymous comments here, there is much pointless and, frankly meritless, opining. Most of us ignore it.
Further, anonymous posting allows people to post outrageous and offensive things, knowing that it won’t come back to haunt them. When you put your name behind your post, the posts tend to be far more rational, substantive and helpful.
Most of us here, including Dan Hull (the fellow who’s comment you replied to), have many years of experience as lawyers. I know Dan’s background and experience. I don’t know yours. Your concerns sound like a layperson’s concerns, not those of a lawyer. And nobody will demand that you identify yourself. But on the other hand, you’ve also substantially reduced your persuasiveness by hiding behind a pseudonym. And if young lawyers prefer to hide behind anonymity, they will find that their views are not given the same consideration as they would if they were willing to put their name to their ideas. That’s what they sacrifice to hide themselves.
Like I said, I was on the Internet under my real name for over ten years before the Blogosphere was invented. (Yes, the Internet existed prior to the invention of blogs in 1998!). I blogged under my real name for five years after that time. You are correct that my profession is not law. However, I have encountered the repercussions first-hand, including the lawsuits over blog postings critical of the business practices of certain persons or businesses, attempts to demean my good name by posting articles under said name which can then be picked up by Google by future employers and used as a reason not to hire me, and so forth. So for the past five years, I have blogged under a pseudonym. It is not a “hard” pseudonym, it is rather easy to find out my “real” identity, but it avoids some repercussions that I have actually encountered in real life (not theory).
Note that these repercussions do not necessarily apply to a lawyer posting to a law blog. A lawyer is going to be aware of things like SLAPP laws and is going to have friends in the law profession who he knows can represent him well in the event that a SLAPP action is filed against him. As a result, it is less likely that someone will SLAPP him in the first place. Furthermore, it is good advertising to have one’s legal thoughts available to the public given that this is your profession. For the same reason, I publish journal articles and participate in professional groups and online forums dealing with my profession under my real name. I am just stating that there are real reasons other than cowardice why someone may use a pseudonym on the Internet, especially if posting to a blog which is not directly applicable to his particular profession.
Certainly I would advise a young lawyer posting to a law blog to use his real name, see the “advertise their product or name” that I mention above. On the other hand, I would advise said young lawyer posting to, say, a politics blog, to *not* use his real name. His posting would not be applicable to his profession, and therefore advertising his name in that context would not be conducive to enhancing his career unless he intends his career to be representing political activists. In the end, it is all about context and adding value, and those who decry pseudonymity just on principle must really hate the example of the Federalist Papers, which were published under the psuedonym “Publius”…
No one is challenging why you post anonymously. In fact, the reasoning is as obvious now as it was before. But no matter how strenuously you repeat the obvious, it doesn’t change the fact that you have undercut your credibility by doing so. It doesn’t help you to be quite as pedantic either.
So there is no need to repeat your point. It was obvious before and remains obvious. It’s just unpersuasive.
I don’t have any problem with anonymous comments. I evaluate what is said based on… the merits of what is actually said. Sort of odd, given that I’m a Gen-Y slacker who should look for such heuristics. *Shrugs shoulders.*
You also need to realize that to Gen-Y people, authority doesn’t matter as much. We’ve heard old and “authoritative” figures make ridiculous arguments. So we don’t care who you are. We only care what you have to say.
I can, of course, think of some exceptions where identity would be relevant. For most of the things discussed in the blogosphere, identity is a non-issue.
I think attacking anonymous commenters for being anonymous is fallacious. It’s done by old people who lack the energy to make arguments.
I’m only kidding about that last point…. though these Gen-Y posts do tend to sound awfully cranky.
As if your pot-smoking, flower-child generation that is about to bankrupt us through entitlement programs enacted under your watch has anything to tell us about how to live our lives. Social Security and Medicare are messes that you old guys made, and that we young guys will need to clean up.
If you were handing us Utopia with the admonition that we take care of your baby, we might have more sympathy for your generational bigotry. Instead, we’ll be left cleansing your cess pool. Thanks.
P.S. My 401k took a dive this year, too. Thanks to the OLD GUYS who were charge of hedge funds, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for the market crash.
Current market crisis = another problem created by old guys.
Thanks again.
Expressions of opinion have no merit in the absence of context. Statements of fact without basis or source have no credibility without context. So there is no merit to be had absence of identity, whether the posters or the poster’s source. The rest is just mental masturbation. But that’s such a boomer thing to say, isn’t it?
But not the pot-smoking flower child old guys. The other old guys. We never like them anyway.
Coming soon: “Why Johnny Can’t Work”.
Or, “The New Employee as Houseplant?” Dan Hull just got back to the States–and now suddenly goes back to Europe for a few days. But he plans to finish the above when he returns. (“I may have figured out why…
Coming soon: “Why Johnny Can’t Work”.
Or, “The New Employee as Houseplant?” Dan Hull just got back to the States–and now suddenly goes back to Europe for a few days. But he plans to finish the above when he returns. (“I may have figured out why…
Coming soon: “Why Johnny Can’t Work”.
Or, “The New Employee as Houseplant?” Dan Hull just got back to the States–and now suddenly goes back to Europe for a few days. But he plans to finish the above when he returns. (“I may have figured out why…
Coming soon: “Why Johnny Can’t Work”.
Or “The New Employee as Houseplant”. Dan Hull just got back to the States–and now suddenly goes back to Europe for a few days. But he plans to finish the above when he returns. (“I may have figured out why…
Coming soon: “Why Johnny Can’t Work”.
Or “The New Employee as Houseplant”. Dan Hull just got back to the States–and now suddenly goes back to Europe for a few days. But he plans to finish the above when he returns. (“I may have figured out why…
With your name and a few bits of other information I can see your house on Google maps street view, then, if I had ill intent, maybe follow your kids to school (if you have them, I don’t know. . . but I could). Or maybe pry open some of your website mechanics. For relative anonymity (you can still track my IP address, but not likely get a name without a court order)I’ll gladly trade a bit of credibility in the eyes of some guy who runs a cranky old-guy website. The internets (interblags, world wide net also accepted) are not a series of friendly tubes.
Keep blathering about Gen Y using your real names. Gen Y knows how to use a search engine, and the talented among them won’t hire or work for you.
Yeah, that about sums it up. But us cranky old-guys may not be as worthless and stupid as a talented fellow such as yourself thinks. For example, if I hadn’t manually allowed your comment to post, it would be up here since you tried using a fake email and it didn’t work. Maybe you aren’t as wonderfully talented as think?
I never claimed to be talented.
And I don’t understand, are you claiming that I am wrong in calling you a “cranky old guy?”
It is somewhat strange that you direct all of your sound and fury at gen Y while the world convulses with the results of your generations’ poor decision making (e.g., McMansions).
How did we, all of us, get this way? Can your generation take any credit, or are you too mesmerized by your own reflection to see that *our* flaws are partially your fault?
The world that my generation inherits is is poorer shape than the one you came upon. We have a great deal of work to do, but I cannot fault many of my generation for not buying in to a failed system.
Oh, wait. . . now I see that it is not your fault:
“I didn’t cause this crisis, and I don’t want to pay for it.”
You are wrong, the consumer culture that incentivized bad debt matured under your generations’ watch. Take your own medicine, take the blame. We all should partially.
First, let me congratulate you on figuring out how to create a fake email account so that you can post here without revealing your real email address. It only took 2 tries! Well done.
Second, of course I’m a cranky old man. Was that unclear?
Third, of course us boomers raised you Gen-Ys all wrong, giving you this misguided sense of entitlement. But had you done more than the cursory slacker research, you would know that I have admitted our failures, trying to give our children more than we had, trying to build their self-esteem, trying to make you the best you could be? We bought you everything under the sun to make you happy. Now you blame us for creating the consumer culture that you can’t afford? But you wouldn’t stop crying as children that you would just die if you didn’t have the newest and greatest toy.
Did we blow it? You bet. Just look at the outcome, and the answer is obvious.
But you neglect the second half of the equation. We blew it, but now our offspring are all growed up. You can either sit on your collective butts and whine about it, or shake it off and do something about it. Instead, you whine and complain about how unfair it is, what a terrible world you inherited (which does not reflect the world that I, and people who believe as I do, created; boomers had our political differences too, and I didn’t vote for Reagan, or Bush, or Bush). This justifies being a slacker?
Snap out of it. If mommy and daddy failed you, then grow up and take responsibility for yourself. Send mommy and daddy out in the woods on a sled in the middle of winter if you like, but stop whining about not getting your BMW or your boss not thinking you are the smartest, bestest, most wonderfulest person in the world because you manage to show up for work in flip-flops only 2 hours late. The birthday parties with balloons are over. Get to work.
I understand: you beat a dog that you neglected to train because it refuses to train itself.
My boomer mother and father did fail me. As a teenager, they forced me out of their homes when I came into conflict with their respective third spouses. After a year of trying to make ends meet as a teenager, my depression era grandparents took me in. They saved me. I learned how to live, and how to be grateful for what I have. Above all, my sage Grandmother made me understand that “nobody promised me fair.” My parents, whose third marriages failed like the others, can’t look me in the eye any longer; their cowardice illuminated by my self-reliant accomplishments. I don’t need them, or anyone to buy me anything. Buying useless crap is the problem, not the solution. What I want is for you to get out of the way.
My description of the world I inherit is not a complaint; it is a statement of fact. I have calloused hands from labor, and until NY granted me a license I earned my keep with my back. I have cleaned up plenty of messes, and I’ll clean up yours, however ungrateful you may be.
Your generation has wrecked this world, and I need you out of the way to fix it. Regardless of who you voted for, your narcissistic myopia has poisoned the well. My generation has to dig a new well, unadulterated by your delusional self-absorption. Many of us are not yet up to the task, but need to be led not scolded.
I apologize that I didn’t do my research. If I can’t bill it, and it does not help me understand the fairer sex, I generally don’t do it. Also, I try and stay away from the venom filled rantings of decayed baby boomers; though yours are interesting as a case study.
Oh, and I don’t work for you. I will bury you.
Now that you’ve shared your story, it appears that you aren’t the poster boy for your generation, but someone in need of therapy and along course of psychotropic medications.