by Yonina Rosenbaum

I just read an article in the Wall Street Journal called “Tough Times
for Big Law” by Elizabeth Wurtzel.  (It was actually printed in
December but I am still reading through the stack of papers, articles,
and New Yorker magazines on my desk that grew, unread, during exams.)
The article is available here:
http://www.online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240504574586431109327544.html.

Ms. Wurtzel discusses the trend of some big law firms offering
incoming associates a lump sum to basically disappear from the year.
In particular, she zeroes in on mega-firm Cravath, which offered the
class that joined this year $80,000 not to work, though they would
still get benefits and student-loan payments.  She does not dwell on
the wisdom of this decision, or on what put the firm in this situation
to begin with. Rather, she focuses on the incoming associates who did
not take the offer, calling that decision disturbing.  Ms. Wurtzel
continues, “If even one person said no to $80,000 for bubkes, I’d
question the sanity and intelligence of that sole handout.  Cravath
recruits the best and the brightest kids from the most highly ranked
law schools—and given $80,000 and a dream, all many of them could do
was report to work on Monday.” When she phrased it that way, it had me
wondering what I would do if offered such an opportunity.

Then, the piece de resistance—you know the author is about to hit home
in a WSJ editorial when she quotes the Supreme Court’s King of
Sprachgefuhl.  “Recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said:
‘I worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this
enterprise.’….These top-notch law grads…may actually be idiots who
lack imagination underneath it all.  Maybe they just don’t have enough
vision to know what to do with $80,000 worth of free time.”

Ouch. She had a point though. I had to wonder whether so many law
students are so programmed to follow a specific track that they could
not think outside the box—even when they were being paid to do so and
had an in-the-box job lined up at the end of the year. I could picture
myself traveling or volunteering abroad for a year, which $80,000
could reasonably cover.

Then again, as a couple of people responded to Ms. Wurtzel, many law
students actually want to practice law and don’t want to wait. Even if
they might have tried to find another way to do that during the year
off, their job prospects are so flimsy in this economy, can you really
blame them for taking a safe route? Then there are those who feel like
they have to start as soon as possible, because making a six-figure
salary is their fastest route to pay back their student loans, with a
going rate of $40,000 a year for tuition.

It seems like a vicious cycle. And I’m willing to bet a whole of
people go into Big Law as “due diligence” in order to pay back loans
or get the so-called experience needed to qualify for the job they are
really after. I would not want that kind of debt hanging over my head
the rest of my life. The fact that the dilemma is there to begin with
is the real problem. Is there any way around this? If I was offered
$80,000 for the year, maybe I would spend the time trying to find out.

By: Albert Ortiz
I remember when I first arrived at law school for orientation, feeling a mixture of excitement and anxiety. For many years I had known that I wanted to go to law school, and here I was, with my ears wide open, yearning for some words of wisdom that would aid me in the legal journey I was about to embark in. Yet looking back now, only a year and a half later, I cannot say, without be disingenuous, that I remember a word that was said. I do however remember the screening of the film, Changing Lanes, and the lasting impression the film’s underlying message had on me.
The film, starring Ben Affect and Samuel L. Jackson, is a perfect depiction of Prof. Rosenbaum’s Human Rights class, especially with regard with the seemingly simply, yet practically “difficult,” notion of doing the right thing. In the film, the lives of Doyle Gibson and Gavin Benek, a recovering alcoholic and a Walls Street layer respectively, are forever altered when their paths cross. On a decisive day in both their lives, Gibson, going to court to try winning custody of his children, and Benek on his way to seal his career-making case, the two get into a car accident, causing Doyle to miss his hearing and Gavin to accidentally give Doyle a signed document that is critical to his case.
As the film unravels it becomes evident that Benek’s life has been based on bending rules and making unequivocally immoral decisions—an apparent requirement to becoming a successful Wall Street lawyer. Benek is eventually faced with a moral crossroad, when the firm’s partner’s (one of which is his wife’s father) as him to forge the document that he lost. The film is interesting because although it is clear that not going through with it is the right thing to do, Benek seems to be the only one to even consider the line between right and wrong. Even his wife, whom one would hope would be the voice of reason, advises him to forge the document and to focus on his career.
Hence, implicit in the entire film is the notion that the line between right and wrong is simply irrelevant to many lawyers when making career-related decisions. At one point in the film, Benek’s father-in-law states, “at the end of the day, I do more good than harm; what other standard have I got?” This distorted, yet prevalent view is a perfect example of why lawyers are so distrusted and even hated in our society. Doing the right thing is not about balancing the good and the harm one does. What other standard does one have…? How about simply doing what you know is right?

By Adam Sternberg

Massachusetts ispossibly the most moral state in respect to treatment of victims of crime. Itslegislature has enacted a statute that imposes an affirmative duty to rescue victimsof crime. Another bill in Massachusetts allows a party to a car accident toapologize in its aftermath, without the apology being admissible in court. Therefore, it is ironic that such an immoralperson is the head coach of the NFL team that plays in Massachusetts. Despitemany transgressions, Bill Belichick, the head coach of the New England Patriotshas never truly apologized. Belichick received $1,000,000 from former New YorkJets owner, Leon Hess, as an act of good faith that Belichick will succeed BillParcells as head coach of the Jets. Once Hess passed away, Belichick, wrote ona piece of loose leaf paper “I resign as HC of the NYJ.” He then went to coachthe rival Patriots.
In 2007 Belichick was caught illegallyvideotaping defensive signals of an opposing team. Belichick began toapologize, and then of course qualified his apology by saying, “As thecommissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on theoutcome of last week’s game.
Chargers runningback Ladanian Tomlinson is among the most humble players in the league. In apost game conference after a playoff loss to the Patriots in 2007, Tomlinsoncommented on how the Patriots showed “no class at all” and suggested that itcame from the head coach. After the Patriots secured victory in a tightlycontested game on the road, a few players on the Patriots ran to the Chargerslogo at midfield and imitated the dance that one of Charger’s defensive playersis famous for. As a former high schoolathlete, embarrassing an opponent after a crushing defeat is unacceptable andcan be heartbreaking.
Belichick has alsorefused to take part in the honorary post-game handshake at midfield at leasttwice in his career. Shaking hands at the end of a game is a form of peacemakingand apology after “going to war” on the football field. Belichick has nointerest in making peace or healing wounds.

By Ritha Pierre

As a child growing up, whenever anyone heard that I was Haitian, they
immediately assume that I knew and practiced Voodoo. Of course this
was not only offensive because I was a Christian, but it was more so
offensive because voodoo was not seen as a positive thing. It was not
seen as a religion or a way of life. It was seen as evil and
destructive.
I am in no way involved in the practice of voodoo but I have more of
an understanding of it. This enlightenment did not come from my
parents, because in many ways even speaking of such a thing was very
uncomfortable. The media gave me a one-sided view and for years I was
afraid of some Haitians and their talks of voodoo. Instead I had to
enlighten myself by the use of research and books. Years ago whenever
voodoo was depicted on television, it was always negative. The typical
scenario was if someone wronged another, the voodoo priestess would
put a hex on him or her and curse them. Symbolism was very important
in this depiction. The use of skulls and bones and the notorious
chicken head were all props used to depict voodoo.
One mistake the media made was to make people think that voodoo was
only a Haitian phenomenon. On a hit show back in the early 90’s called
the PJ’s, there was a mumbo woman (voodoo priestess) who was
supposedly from Haiti, however she carried a Jamaican accent. This was
to show that anyone black that was practicing voodoo had to be
Haitian. Forget the fact that her accent meant she was from another
island. Voodoo equaled Haitian. There have been several instances even
as of recent on the hit show Hero’s where the man dubbed “The Haitian”
has these powers to see the future. In my opinion the media is
responsible for societies association of Haitians and voodoo. The
media rarely if ever discusses Haitian voodoo in a positive light. It
never hones on the fact that it is a religion like many others, that
it can be used for good and that it is a way of life. Voodoo is not
all about spells and chicken blood or turning people into objects and
animals.
It is ironic that today there are so many shows on the paranormal,
vampires and witches and other forms of “black magic” yet they seem to
be more acceptable to society.  Harry Potter is filled with sorcery
and magic and yet it is hailed to be a children’s story.  Society does
not have a problem promoting these images in a positive light, yet
whenever there is black magic performed by a person of color, it is
voodoo, it is evil and it represents that entire culture.
To some this may seem over the top, but I have never called a white
person a witch or a vampire based on any of the television shows I
have watched, yet I have been asked the infamous question of “how can
I turn someone into a goat” simply because I am Haitian. Nine times
out of ten if there is a voodoo theme, the person is usually Haitian.
However there has been some sort of a shift in this idea of voodoo in
the media, in where Louisiana has become a focal point. This may be
because of the Haitian community’s protests against this constant
depiction of our culture. However from the media standpoint, it
appears as if the people from Louisiana are more comfortable with
being tied to black magic than the Haitians. Movies such as the
Princess and the frog, Eve’s Bayou, televisions shows such as Bones,
have heavy illustrations of voodoo in Louisiana. Voodoo is just as
synonymous to Louisiana like the gumbo. However even the way it is
illustrated in these movies, no matter how dark and dreary it is
depicted, there is always a turn around where this magic is used for
the good. It is never showcased as pure evil. It is as if Louisiana
voodoo is a safer friendlier version than the voodoo of the West
Indies.
There maybe several theories behind the media’s depiction. Maybe the
fact that Louisiana is a state helps; maybe it is some sort of
propaganda against third world countries. It can be a way to degrade a
particular group of people and their culture. Whatever the reason is,
the fact still remains that there is an injustice. It is a moral
injustice. It is what one would call a spiritual crime. Of course the
media does not care about how it depicts certain people because, they
are in the business of making money, not protecting cultural images.
It has always been said that Haiti will always pay the price for being
the first black nation to declare it’s independence, thus allowing all
the other nations to receive their freedom. Maybe the media’s negative
depictions are part of this ongoing agenda. No one really knows, but
one thing I do know is that voodoo does not encompass Haitian culture.
Is it present? Yes, is it a religion? Yes. Just like Santeria is to
Cuba. It is a part of the whole and not the other way around.

By Gabriel Mendoza

It was recently reported that Washington Wizards players Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton drew guns on each other in the locker room of the Verizon Center in Washington D.C. before practice last week. Apparently the two got into an argument on a team plane over a poker game. Something was said that allegedly prompted Arenas, who by the way signed a six year $111 million contract not too long ago, to bring three guns to practice and let Crittenton know that he was free to pick up any one of them. Crittenton’s natural response was to decline the invitation. Not because he realized how ridiculous it was for two millionaire NBA players to actually draw guns on each other in the same arena where 20,000people pay hundreds of dollars to watch them play, but because he had also decided to bring his own gun from home. This actually happened. And the worst part is how unsurprising it really is. Sadly, their punishment will ultimately be determined by the public, not the law.
Athletes get in trouble with the law all the time. Until recently, the law has tended to let them go with a slap on the wrist rather than holding them to a higher standard. The public has influenced authorities to take more drastic action or “make an example” out of athletes though media publicity or protest. Take for instance, Michael Vick. Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison on dog fighting charges, largely due to the influence of PETA and its protestors. A lot of people thought this punishment was severe, considering that his crime didn’t involve him harming humans, but authorities were pressured into actually punishing Vick, something they probably would not have done without PETA’s influence. New York Giant Plaxico Burress was sentenced to two years in prison on weapons charges. It was a highly publicized case that involved a high profile player in a Midtown Manhattan club. Again the question has to be asked, would he have been sentenced so severely or at all even, had the case not been on the front page of the New York Times and New York Post every day.
On the other side are the less publicized cases. When there is little to no mention of something in the papers or when there are no protests or outcry from interest groups, the charges are often laughable. Take for instance Dante Stallworth, wide-receiver for the Cleveland Browns. Stallworth got drunk and drove his Bentley Continental into a pedestrian, killing him early one morning in Miami Beach. But while the media and people were fixated on Burress’s weapons charge, Stallworth got off with a 30-day sentence, of which he served just 24 days. “Tank” Johnson, another NFL player was convicted of weapons possession, same as Burress in 2006. But because he wasn’t in New York and there was not nearly as much coverage of his criminal conduct, he received no jail time. Later, after assaulting someone at a Chicago nightclub and resisting arrest, police searched his home and found loaded assault rifles, among other weapons. For this probation violation he received four months in jail. He only served two.
The lesson here is the law will only hold athletes accountable to the point that the public cares. If it’s publicized or some interest group decides to take a stand about it, authorities will actually make the athlete accountable for his actions. If not, then the lucky guy will be back making millions on the court or in the field in no time. It remains to be seen how big this old-fashioned showdown between Arenas and Crittenton turns out to be. If it plays out in the papers and in the media, maybe some sort of punishment will come down on them. Otherwise, they’ll get a slap on the wrist and go back to stashing their hand-guns in their locker.

By Valerie Hooker

            The television comedy series 30 Rock has had much critical
success, earning numerous major awards, including Emmy Awards for
Outstanding Comedy Series in 2007, 2008, and 2009.  The first episode
of season four of the show, which aired in October, touches on the
question of what it means to be “American” when in the midst of an
economic recession.  We like to think of the American way as fair and
liberating, but while the values of democracy, opportunity, and
freedom are commendable, autonomy and perfectibility tear apart the
connections that people have to each other.  The humane aspect is
lost.  The 30 Rock episode approaches this topic in a comedic fashion,
but the truth underlying it is still clear.

            The episode begins with Jack Donaghy, a network executive
at NBC, trying to encourage the two main co-stars of the fictional
sketch comedy, TGS, to work harder to appeal to “real America.”  As a
part of the elite, they seem to have lost touch with their audience.
Liz Lemon, the head writer of TGS, points out the absurdity of the
phrase “real America” because all America is real America.  Liz’s
comment wants us to ignore Jack’s blunt statement that there is a
division of classes in this country.  She tries to quickly sugar-coat
the situation, but Jack’s rude honesty wins out when we see Tracy, the
star of TGS, burning money for his own amusement.

            Later, we find out that Jack has taken the NBC pages’
overtime away from them because he claims that there is simply no
extra money.  Many jobs have been taken away, including cuts in the
mailroom which has been reduced to one person.  Much like big law
firms that have laid people off because of the economic times, Jack
made the necessary moves to keep the company stable.  But is it really
stability that has leads to the need for layoffs and causes people to
suffer the artificial shame of unemployment?  Of course not – it is
all a result of greed and the desire for those at the top to continue
to enjoy the same luxuries that they have always enjoyed, regardless
of what that may mean for others.

            Kenneth Parcell is an optimistic young NBC page who is
upset by his overtime being taken away, not because he needs the
money, but because he always works overtime and does not want to be
made a liar when he signs his timecard without reporting the extra
time.  Jack explains that sacrifices had to be made and everyone had
to forgo some loss in order to get through the difficult times.  When
Kenneth accidentally receives Jack’s paycheck, he realizes that “all
of those zeros” are not representative of a man making sacrifices.

            Kenneth confronts Jack, who hopes that seeing his paycheck
was inspirational.  Kenneth feels extremely hurt that Jack lied to him
when he claimed there was no extra money.  He tells Jack that it is
just “un-American” to receive that much money when others are being
let go.  Jack responds, “That’s where you’re wrong. It’s extremely
American. My talents are more valuable than yours, so I get paid
accordingly. I’m entitled to my bonus.”  Jack has no problem taking a
ridiculous bonus while others are having their overtime being taken
away and others are being fired.  He has no problem with it because it
is extremely American.  America is about autonomy and the narcissistic
Jack embodies this.  As long as he is not suffering, he sees no
problem in making morally deficient decisions because it a part of his
job.

            The NBC page, on the other hand, embodies the moral
character.  In order to move past this, all he wants is for Jack to
sign his name to a piece of paper that says “I’m a big ole’ liar.”  He
feels that this would be morally fair because Jack made him lie by
signing the timecard.  When Jack refuses, Kenneth begins a strike that
soon becomes huge as people jump into it without even knowing what it
is all about.

            Jack admits that Kenneth has the moral high ground, but
still tries to take him down.  When all else fails, however, he gives
in to Kenneth’s demand and signs the paper.  Kenneth immediately calls
off the strike.  One of the strikers asks what they got in return and
Kenneth responds, “A piece of paper I can’t really tell you about!”
The striker asks if it was just a personal matter between Kenneth and
Jack.  Our moral Kenneth is then placed in dilemma, but the very
American Jack gives him a way out by telling him to “massage” the
truth.  Kenneth hesitates but surely screams out, “No!” and the
episode ends in cheers from the strikers.  Even Kenneth could not help
honesty to for once beat out autonomy.