| | |
|
FuckThisStupidRule 9 - 04 May 2009 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| | Fuck This Stupid Rule
Yesterday I spent what felt like an eternity - probably around 6 hours - trying to learn how to apply the Rule Against Perpetuities. Over and over, I thought I had it, but when I got to the next fact pattern I fell on my face again. Admittedly, math is not my strength, and my ability to imagine people dying at age 5 or procreating at age 80 just doesn't cut it. What's wrong with my brain, I thought, why can't I understand this? Then it happened: I realized that I don't have to learn the Rule Against Perpetuities! It's my education, damnit, and I don't give a shit about this stupid rule! I'd rather learn more about the tragedy of the commons or the public trust doctrine than wrap my brain around some legal fiction that all but a handful of jurisdictions have done away with. I think I just might write in my exam that I - along with the vast majority of US jurisdictions - think this is a stupid rule, and that perhaps it's time to strike it from the standard 1L Property syllabus. So what if I get a bad grade in Property? I feel empowered. | | | against one another and shouldn't be helpful to one another"
bullshit? | |
<
< |
- I don't agree with this last point. After reading a post about how happy Anja is that she's decided she doesn't care about the Rule Against Perpetuities, and she feels empowered by ignoring it, we're supposed to respond by explaining it? I don't mean to make this about me and Will, since our class didn't learn the rule (although admittedly this sounds defensive), but in general, such a response doesn't seem to get at the revelation that motivated Anja's post - namely, she doesn't want to learn something stupid and antiquated, regardless of what it could mean for her grade (which, I agree with you, is probably quite little). - MF
| >
> | I don't agree with this last point. After reading a post about how happy Anja is that she's decided she doesn't care about the Rule Against Perpetuities, and she feels empowered by ignoring it, we're supposed to respond by explaining it? I don't mean to make this about me and Will, since our class didn't learn the rule (although admittedly this sounds defensive), but in general, such a response doesn't seem to get at the revelation that motivated Anja's post - namely, she doesn't want to learn something stupid and antiquated, regardless of what it could mean for her grade (which, I agree with you, is probably quite little). - MF
- Well, I'm certainly not criticizing you for not explaining something you didn't learn, and I'm glad there's at least one Property teacher still working around here who can dispense with the rule. But it seems far less counterintuitive to me than to you that a student proclaiming empowerment from not learning is actually seeking reassurance and assistance. I run into that situation fairly frequently around this time of the year, though rarely more than two or three times a day.
| | |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="AnjaHavedal" date="1241269585" from="Sandbox.FuckThisStupidRule" to="LawContempSoc.FuckThisStupidRule" |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |