The rest of my professors that day started each class with a warm welcome. They seemed approachable as they encouraged us to use their office hours. They all made jokes about the high cost of tuition and how heavy our books are.
Each professor seemed energetic and positive. They gave us optimistic descriptions of the legal profession and told us how much good we could do in the world.
Although we were given assignments for the first day of class and were warned that our professors would "jump right in"-- our classes went slow and steady. We barely touched upon our subject matter. Looking back, I realize that this was simply the handshake before the wrestling match.
Prof. Mahmud, our Contracts teacher told us it was ok to be wrong. In his beautiful South Asian accent he consoled us, "don't be afraid to make a mistake- you are paying 26K a year to make mistakes". He told us outright that he didn't like the "case law" approach to studying law because it was faulty, but he had to teach it this way because that just "how they do it in America". He always seemed mysteriously arrogant, as if he was sitting on a pile of precious secrets that he had to constantly fend us away from.
But Prof. Mahmud showed us that he was not only the caretaker of knowledge- he showed us that he was surprisingly "hip". He smugly explained the quintessence of a contract after many of us failed to do so adequately against his high standards. To do this, he used a modern day example.
Mahmud told us that the essence of a contract is explained best today by Janet Jackson. The purpose of a contract, is explained by the "Janet Jackson Rule".
"I'm sure you have all heard her new song- 'What have you done for me lately'. This is the essence of a contract. People don't expect to do something for another out of pure kindness. We expect something for something or nothing for nothing."
The class laughed and Mahmud smirked with joy. With that, he ended class and excused us.
Our next professor was a tiny young, vivacious woman. She was contantly talking as if silence would de-rail the class. In fact, she reminded me of the train in the movie speed- the train had to continue to gain speed or else the bomb on board would go off. Before long, the train was careening dangerously along the rails at 100 miles per hour.
When there was a pause, Prof. Townsend-Gard, in her high voice would repeat her last sentence multiple times. If the silence continued, she would ask us rhetorical questions then proceed to answer them for us. She tried to talk to us like we were peers, but she came off sounding like she was addressing her three year old.
"Property is about possession. What is possession, class? Possession is ownership. You can own land right class? Yes, you can own land. Just like you can own ideas, right? You can own land and you can own ideas right? You all are looking at me like I'm crazy," she laughs then continues, "What kind of ideas can you own? You guys think I'm nuts like, 'how can someone own an idea'. Well you can own ideas just like you can own land. So if possession is ownership, how do you claim ownership over and idea? How do you claim ownership over an idea? Can anyone claim ownership over any idea? How do you claim ownership over an idea?"
Sitting through her class was like trying to duck a whirlwind of pillows being thrown at you. I had a headache when class was over and resolved to either drink more coffey before Property class so I could keep up with her or try to find her "slow" switch.
