I have always been the person in any group that speaks my mind. I was never one to back down from an argument and I rarely leave a store or restaurant dissatisfied without at least voicing my opinion. This I think is both a curse and a blessing. By curse I mean I have had some people refer to me as a bitch. However, those same people are the ones that come to me to help them solve a problem, the ones who say they would want me on their side in any argument. Recently I have realized that this quality has somewhat changed in form since I began law school. I still no longer back away from an argument and I still have my strong opinions, but occasions of direct confrontation have become fewer and yes occasionally far between.

So, the grand question I suppose is why am I telling you this? What does this have to do with winter evidence 1999? Well you asked us to write about what we thought you were trying to teach us this semester. In thinking about that, a few things come to mind: evidence (obviously), the power of the internet, the persuasiveness of storytelling and that the court system operates due to perceived legitimacy. However, I think the one thing that you taught the class that most affected me had to do with my confrontational nature.

During the class one thing that came across to me loud and clear was that there could be more value created in keeping disagreements civil, whether they be legal or personal. Making waves too loudly and too soon may cause you to give up a route to victory. I learned this lesson the best while working on my group project about Peter Berkowitz. There you have Berkowitz who has a specific goal in mind, getting reevaluation of his tenure decision. On the opposite side there are university officials who among other things are concerned about protecting their reputations. When we consider the position these officials are in it is easy to see how by failing to choose our words carefully we could frustrate our own purposes. If we were to make accusations regarding specific wrongdoing by these officials (which Berkowitz has not done), it would in effect back those officials into a corner where they would be forced into vigorously defending their reputations and therefore the decision. Instead by taking a more laid back approach and not immediately making direct attacks it leaves the path open to reevaluation of tenure without causing the officials to admit to any personal wrongdoing. In effect we are allowing for them to correct for an appearance of bias without admitting actual bias.

This is a point that was referenced by you in class. First in reference to your pleasure that the Woburn case was ultimately resolved in a way that allows for the story to be further explored in a forum like the January conference. Second in reference to your hope that Berkowitz can be resolved in a similar matter allowing perhaps for open discussion of tenure policy reform.

This I think perfectly illustrates the reason that I have become less confrontational and may even have made me understand the change in my behavior that has recently begun. I now understand that I am not just getting soft in my arguments, but I have learned that initial calm negotiation and exploration of other possible options may prove to be more fruitful in the long run. This will make me (I hope) a better person as well as a more effective person.

But I always keep in mind if that initial approach fails; I can still be quite a bitch!