We have been friends for a little more than one year. While we are not the closest of friends, I would like to think that we enjoy spending time around each other (usually in a large group). I also think we respect each other enough to avoid actions that could adversely impact the other party's resume.
I noticed that you have recently signed up to run for one of the same law review managing board positions as me. While there is no limit to the number of positions for which each individual may run, I wish you would have considered the potential impact of your decision to run for this particular position.
The potential result is that neither of us will get elected to the position. This explanation will be easier to read in the following list form:
1. Law review elections are likely to be a giant orgy of popularity contests akin to junior high SGA elections.
2. Several of our mutual friends are on law review, and they probably form a sufficient voting block to get someone from the group elected to almost any position on the managing board even if they don't discuss their votes in advance.
By the third step, even someone without the slightest knowledge of who we are (or perhaps someone who deludes himself into thinking the junior editors will generally vote for the "best" candidates, not their friends) should see where this is going.
Technically, we are not allowed to campaign or form voting agreements, and I am not suggesting that we should have done either of those things. However, I had the forethought to avoid running for another position for which you were already signed up because I did not want to split our group's votes. I just wish you would have taken the same consideration for me as I had for you when I decided not to run for the other position in question.
Some people would call this "gamesmanship" with all the accompanying negative connotations, but I call it common sense in this particular set of circumstances. I don't think there is anything dubious or dirty about not wanting to split the votes of our friends. I am particularly qualified for this position, perhaps more qualified than the other candidates and definitely more qualified than I am for any other position, and I will be very disappointed if neither of us gets elected. I am not angry at you for running, as it is your privilege as a junior editor to run for whatever positions you want, but it would have been nice if you had chosen one for which I am not running.
Sincerely,
Guy Fawkes
Posts
5 comments:
Believe this comment should be tagged under the "Maybe I should have gone to med school" label. What do you think?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-4P4NPM4-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=824d8642dc03a6d8602aedbc9b8de143
That letter is bush-league. What makes you think that your friend should not run against you. This is America.
A. Why do people with snarky things to say always do it anonymously? You should at least have the stones to use an online handle to identify yourself.
B. Anonymous, did you even read the damn letter? Here's the quick version of the point you seem to have missed: "You have every right to run against me, but I would have appreciated it if you didn't so we would both have a better chance to get elected."
C. I don't exactly agonize over the writing on this blog, which perhaps makes it "bush-league" on occasion. By the way, that should have been a question mark in your second sentence, not a period.
...and of course it played out as anticipated. Oh well, at least that means I'll have less work as a 3L.
I have wondered myself about the "anonymous" comment people. I think that they are generally, and excuse me for using technical terminology, "chickens."
I am about to experience the silliness of law review elections myself. I will keep ya updated. Good luck guy fawkes!
Post a Comment