- Why Firmly Refuse?
- Do You Accept the Status Quo? It’s About Time to Shatter the Ceiling
- A Refreshing Approach to the 1L Curriculum
- Before You Feel Anxiety About Your Grades…
- Ralph Nader: A Letter to Dean Minow
- The Socratic Method: Ralph Nader
- 'Stand Your Ground' Laws and Trying to Prevent the Next Trayvon Martin
- Does Affirmative Action Benefit White People?
- A Reflection on the Role of Lawyers in Social Justice Movements
- Law, Lectures, and Laptops
Search Results for: Darren Gardner
Opinion / November 15, 2012
Several months ago a friend and I discussed the differences between Harvard Law School and our undergraduate universities. One story he told me involved an answer he gave to a professor’s question during his 1L year at HLS—one that was not bulletproof, but one which his undergrad classmates would have accepted or dismissed without protest. At HLS, another student responded and proceeded to dismantle the argument, picking apart every piece of porous reasoning. That was the major difference, he and I decided, between HLS and our previous schools. Here, half-baked arguments don’t get a pass and faulty analysis gets called out. For that reason, HLS students tend to think before they speak or, more commonly, share on Facebook. For some, however, such self-restraint becomes an impossibly herculean task during election season. In one scene from Disney’s “Finding Nemo,” Bruce and two other sharks raise their fins and pledge “fish are … Continue reading