King Solomon. The quarter. The Necker cube. The Rim. Vinny. The robed judge as a pot bellied bathtub masturbator. The dying declaration. Rhetorical space. "Bad" - the black sense or the white sense of the word? Dancing on tables. The Rodney King case. Favorite numbers. Chuck and Betty.

Conversations in the Hark, following Evidence or Torts. "Nesson’s crazy." "He musta been on something’ today." "We’re not learning anything." "He’s bizarre." Unfortunately for those students they simply do not get "what exactly it is that you are trying to teach here." Cloaked in their increasingly safe and comfortable world of an academia of books, regurgitation, correct answers and rote memorization - like Linus clinging to his blanket, these students are afraid and/or unable to open their minds, venture into the unknown, and explore other possibilities with regards to learning, thinking and most importantly living. What is not known to them scares them. As storytellers they will not succeed because they do not comprehend and cannot even imagine that which is different from them. They see one side to every story. They see one manner in which school should be taught. They see one way in which life should be lived.

The question "explain to me what I’m trying to teach you here", has an oxymoronic sense to me. My reason directly ties in to what I’ve written so far. With many professors the answer would be simple - "the Federal Rules of Evidence". Isn’t that what the course catalog says we’re going to learn? Isn’t Evidence the name of the course? Won’t we need to know the rules down to pass the bar and become practicing attorneys? Obviously, the answer is not that simple. It wasn’t that simple in your torts class and isn’t that simple here. I do not feel there is any "one thing" you are trying to teach us. Of course we are learning some evidence. Of course we learned some torts. However, to me the most important things we have learned are the powers of storytelling, of expansive thinking, and ultimately of not simply accepting things for what they appear to be or are "supposed" to be without extreme challenge, extreme thought and extreme probing.

Ultimately, when the Bar comes up we all will take review classes, take millions of practice tests, study from commercial outlines, "learn Evidence" and pass. We will understand evidence like programmed computers, incapable of independent thought. Professor Nesson what I have enjoyed the most about your torts and evidence classes is your ability to make me think. The power with which your examples are given. The diaspora of ways you present to us in which a particular problem, word, picture, number or image can be viewed and understood. The ways in which you use in every class, every lecture, every issue as a metaphor for everyday living. For the students who miss "the message", (the ones that storm out of the room in the middle of torts class, complain in the Hark "we’re paying $37,000 a year for this crap", buy commercial outlines and stop coming to class), I have sympathy. Sympathy that they are so disappointed with class, but a much greater sympathy for the boring simple-minded people they are, will continue to be, and for the soulless lives they will lead. I have enjoyed your classes greatly and will remember the stories, the messages, and the metaphors for leading one’s life. The image of you and Fern - both established Harvard Law graduates, dancing in class the other day, enjoying life outside of the books, outside of the law, will stay with me for sometime. "Play that funky music white boy" - had to get you back for that "bad" quip last year. God knows I’ve heard enough about it from the "other" students.

Take care and have a wonderful intercession.