Riffs on a Sunday night...

(1) I am so bored. Not only am I positively bored by the stuff I am doing (crim, torts), I am negatively bored by the stuff I am not doing (learning anything fun, interacting with different people).

(2) I can't believe it, but at the age of 29, I have a crush on my TA. This is SO college. Which was 8 years ago.

(3) Many years ago, when hk was a young chiclet in DC, she had a crush on a Harvard lawyer. hk's mum said, "Congratulations," since it is every Korean mother's dream to have her children either become Harvard lawyers/doctors or marry one. Now, it appears that hk is actually dating a Harvard lawyer (or law student, to be precise). A couple weeks ago, Friend actually did say yes, let's give it a try. (Well, he didn't actually say it. I asked him, as I have periodically this semester, "Have you got an answer for me yet?" and he said, "How's this for an answer?" and kissed me. Which I guess is ... yes. But which is also ... unsatisfying. I know, I know, I'll never be happy.)

I didn't mention it before because it seemed too amorphous and unclear to say. I'm still not quite clear on where we are or what we are. It merely seems that the hook-ups are now legit. Or something.

MattSal was right -- if you're hanging out a lot and hooking up on the side, what does it matter what you call it? It's dating per se.

(4) And finally, a complaint about Crimson College Law Review, the most prestigious law journal of the most presitigious law school in the country. This year, the board of editors was 75% white, 25% minority (10% East Asian, 7% South Asian, 7% black, and 1 Hispanic editor). The ratio of men to women: 73% male, 27% female. Considering that you have to be on law review to become a Supreme Court clerk or a professor, this is supremely depressing. Considering that the Crimson College Law School is currently 56% male and 44% female, this is mysterious. Considering that the school is 54.3% white, 10% black, 12% Asian American, 5.3% Hispanic American (and 14% unknown), this is out of whack.

It's easy to say, hey! that's wrong and we need to encourage women and minorities to apply, and there needs to be special affirmative action spots (there are), and women need to actually turn in the application (they often don't, out of lack of confidence), but it's harder to say, hey! there's something going on here that clearly favors white men, and that's disturbing, but only because law review is THE key to superstardom in the legal world, and why in the world is that the case, anyway? Why not mad advocacy skills, or devotion to public service, or the ability to motivate communities? You can be quite successful without making it onto or even trying out for law review, but why does legal superstardom hinge on your ability to digest a Supreme Court opinion and write a comment about it (the application)? Why should women and minorities try to squeeze themselves into a model of superstardom defined and created by white men of yore, when we could be questioning the model itself?

Sometimes I think we ask the wrong questions.