St. Thomas (MN) Gives Money Away

It's been hard to not post more on the Rakofsky case with everything that has gone on: the release of transcript excerpts, the attorney withdrawal, the federal wiretapping allegation, etc., on and on.

Yesterday I found out that the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota version) has settled with Rakofsky for his "nominal" request of $5,000. Apparently, St. Thomas' insurance carrier chose to pay this amount rather than fight what everyone thinks is a frivolous lawsuit.

With all the hoopla universities and their professors make about academic freedom, you'd think one would actually fight for its faculty's right to speak out. But while the for-profit corporations and lawyers pulled out swords and shields, the University of St. Thomas and its insurance carrier ceded a small patch of territory rather than risk an additional dime defending what should be its institutional principles.

It's one thing to balance the costs of legitimate litigation and decide settling is superior to the risk. It's another to just give away thousands to someone who sues you in what many people think is a baseless SLAPP suit.

So, kids, if you need a hot new moneymaking scheme to pay off the loans, get a law school to talk about you negatively. Sue the shit out of them for libel. Profit. Don't mess around with the Washington Post, just go after the loan-backed educational institutions.

What if each of the ~40 real defendants paid Rakofsky his settlement figure of $5,000? He'd make a nice profit off the whole ordeal, right? Is this really the lesson St. Thomas wants to be teaching its students, even if it is its insurer's act?

God, if I was a current or former student, I'd be pissed. A fraction of my tuition and fees would have gone to an insurance policy that's so weak in basic principles that it paid this guy for a strike suit.

Hiatus and Reassessment

Recently, I hit 200 posts on this site, although I think that might include some posts that I started but never posted or deleted. In any event, it's mid-summer and I think it's a good time for me to take an Internet vacation and go on indefinite hiatus. Cooley aside, news is drier lately (expected given the time period) and I have a variety of personal projects that should get attention.

I have no plans of closing up shop and hope to actually get back to my anti-USNWR proprietary law school rating system when I return. It's been on the neglected back shelf for too long.

I also want to briefly reassess what this blog is and where it's going. When I originally started it, I viewed the space as a positive one, where serious reform and change would be discussed instead of merely serving as a whine outlet (an unfair characterization of many of the "scamblogs"). Obviously, it's far more interesting to write about where the action is at, which has been almost exclusively in law school "scam" exposure over the last eight months.

In the interests of meeting the blog's original intended purpose, I'd like to state my beliefs and where I think we're headed:

The fundamental problem with the legal education system is that it has the barriers of entry and membership requirements accompanying a profession without any of the subsequent marketplace protections.

That's it in one sentence. If legal representation were an ordinary business, like owning a pet shop or running a restaurant, any licensed party could open up a law office and no one would have a system at which to direct their anger if the business went under. Restaurants fail all the time, and yet we never hear of the "restaurant starting scam."

Law is differently precisely because there are bar associations that mandate relatively stringent requirements to join the club, including an investment in time and capital before even getting the chance to sit for the licensing exam. In the majority of states, even those who could pass the licensing exam without law school must attend for 85+ hours under the care of a full-time faculty with a full-blown library and blah blah blah.

Ostensibly, we do this to promote professionalism and to further normative values of justice and democracy and ethics. It's part consumer protection, but the lawyer faces much greater scrutiny than the bar & grill owner or the truck driver. In theory, those barriers exist to guarantee that people seeking legal representation will have someone who upholds high standards of ethics and professionalism, who promotes the prestige of the court, etc.

That extra inculcation costs time and money, which in most professions should be compensated by broader protections on the output side, as is the case with many medical professionals. And yet, the accrediting agencies and state bars have refused to maintain any type of protectionism, citing antitrust concerns.

If we're doing away with the economic aspect of professionalism on the output side as lower-ranked schools open up night programs and boast about how law should be accessible to everyone, we need to do away with the economic aspect of professionalism on the input side as well. Part of the implied benefit of a professional degree is a feeling of exclusivity. If that's gone, it should be reflected in a lowered price. The ABA should do away with its ridiculous criteria that give schools an excuse to raise costs. Law schools would become as common as trade schools and prices would drop to a few thousand a year. Anyone who took a glorified BarBri course could become a lawyer and set up shop; in that case, misallocations would be less significant as the individuals would have far less debt if they entered a bad field.

That's option one: to make it a more pure free market and rid the system of costly but profitable barriers that saddle students with massive debts if the market is oversaturated.

Option two is to restore professionalism and all its benefits to the output side. In this case, the accrediting agencies would actively try to fix the oversupply of lawyers, not out of anticompetitive concerns, but out of respect for the normative values underlying law's professionalism. Because we would want officers of the court and personal representatives to lead respectful, content lives in the furtherance of democratic principles (yeah, yeah, I know - try to read it without sarcasm), we would ensure that only the best candidates get in and that their investment in developing their career won't be undercut by some fly-by-night program shooting out lawyers like a factory.

In this model, the accrediting agency would limit enrollment and/or the distribution of federally-backed loans to serve as a watchdog over the profession. Sounds mildly socialist, but it's worked comparatively well in other fields. Going to law school would again be a prestigious, exclusive thing, and the public could rest assured that even bottom-half graduates of 4th-tier toilets would be competent to handle their business. In this model, even taking away bankruptcy rights makes sense.

The problem in legal education, like other areas (see, e.g., health insurance, primary education), is that we've mixed incompatible principles to create a monster. On one hand, many of the profession's elite (the ABA, BigLaw, etc.) demand that the legal profession be prestigious and exclusive (for the latter, it's a marketing ploy), and the existing law schools obviously have a vested interest in keeping the expensive, wasteful three-year study requirements. On the other hand, the ABA is concerned about antitrust principles while many of the lower-tier schools bark on about democracy, opportunity, giving everyone everywhere an easy path to a legal education, etc., again as a marketing ploy.

Thus, the system is pulled in two different normative directions by business interests while a neutered ABA lacks the power or the will to choose a side.

The good news - and why, contrary to make allegations made against me, there's room for optimism - is that this system is completely unsustainable, like a building that's been constructed from two separate foundations and held together by duct tape. At some point, something will give. My honest guess is that the barriers to entry will vanish, the ABA will cease to exist in its present form, and law school will become a radically different experience with a radically reduced cost.

This may seem like a far-flung pipedream right now, but the world is dynamic. The current legal education system didn't get this way until the 80s, by my reading. It can change, and it will. What change means is uncertain and can take many shapes, but I have little doubt it will happen for the better of, well, everyone.

'Til next time, kids.

Cooley Sues Kurzon Strauss and Joe Does, Streissand Effect in 3, 2, 1...

Thomas Cooley has filed a lawsuit against the law firm claiming to investigate it and another one against four John Doe bloggers for defamation and tortious interference. The complaints are linked from the comments; I'm currently having technical difficulties getting them to work on here.

The John Does

The four John Doe bloggers are "Rockstar5," "Informant," "Anonymous," and "Ch. Burns." They're seeking discovery of the identities behind the IP addresses.

John Doe 1, a.k.a. Rockstar 5, is the author of The Thomas Cooley Law School Scam, which I believe Nando might link to on Third Tier Reality. Cooley believes that John Doe has defamed Cooley by calling them "criminals" who engage in "fraud" to "lure" in/retain students, and by alleging that Cooley is "essentially a multi-million-dollar business."

John Doe 2, a.k.a. Informant, made a comment on John Doe 1's blog that accused Cooley of "using their students to make and create . . . securities that they can offer and sell to banks, student loan serviers, guaranty agencies, investment banks, and institutional investors" and that Cooley employees are actually agents of the financial industry.

John Doe 3, a.k.a. Anonymous, left a comment on John Doe 1's blog that claimed a multi-year investigation into Cooley's practices revealed that Cooley undertakes a variety of unscrupulous practices as part of an elaborate student loan fraud, similar to what John Doe 2 wrote.

John Doe 4, a.k.a Ch. Burns (Monty?), left a comment on the HuffPost alleging that Cooley was under investigation for serious title IV violations (I believe this has been reported by others previously).

Damages? A full tuition payment from each. Just kidding, but not quite: they ask for a minimum $25k on each count from each, or $50k total from each individual defendant (to be fair, I think it's the threshold to get into that court).

Personally, I don't think Thomas Cooley is involved in what the John Does allege. I don't think they're racketeering or in bed with the bankers in an elaborate scheme. Nor do I think Cooley's faculty are double agents or any other such nonsense. I do think they're analogous to a multi-million dollar for-profit corporation, but really no more than any other large university.

On one hand, I can't blame Thomas Cooley for filing this suit where people are making crazy false allegations against them.

But on the other, what in God's name do they expect to come from it? If these bloggers' IDs are revealed, and it turns out that they are Cooley graduates, how is THAT going to make the school look? How does it make the institution look when they feel like they actually have to respond to such nonsense? And what damages do they expect to come from it when these individuals are likely random internet bums (like myself)?

Granted, they did not go all-out Rakofsky mode. They refrained from including everyone saying bad things about them (like yours truly, who has expressed his opinions on their advertising, justifications for flooding the market, etc.), but how the Streissand Effect not going to kick in here?

They just took a giant spotlight and shined it on some very low-rent, unadvertised internet backwater. Now they risk ridicule, broader inquiry into their behavior, and repelling students by the fact that they were the law school that sued some random idiots. And for what? $200,000k in supposed damages? Isn't their reputational harm going to be much greater than that anything they can collect if they carry on this litigation, especially if it's against their own students/graduates? And discovery. Does Cooley really want to risk going having its administrators deposed with what they've alleged?

Celebrities and large institutions would be wise to ignore random blog postings that very, very few people give any credibility to anyway. And of course, in Cooley's case, the biggest dent in their reputation comes from the protected opinions of, well, a lot of people, including most of the people who do legal hiring.

Kurzon Strauss
As for Kurzon Strauss, I wouldn't be surprised if KS counterclaimed somehow. It seems KS has been making posts as part of an investigation into Thomas Cooley's employment statistics and possible consumer fraud claims, what Cooley's complaint calls "a wide-ranging defamatory campaign" that is "tortious and unethical." KS had made a post on JD Underground with factual allegations re: the employment numbers and loan defaults, after which Cooley sent them a cease and desist letter and KS retracted the statements.

But then, Cooley says, KS continued its defamation/false light/etc. by posting a draft class action complaint, again reiterating its false allegations and violating attorney ethics codes. And then they posted ads on Craigslist looking for Cooley graduates (the complaint lists New York and Detroit; I saw one on Chicago's a few days ago).

Four counts, $25,000 minimum each. I have to imagine KS is going to fight this tooth and nail - maybe even welcomed it, I don't know. If they bring up truth as a defense, discovery might be a very interesting process.

Again, one has to wonder if it's really worth it for Cooley. You just sent out an email to all your students that this firm has been investigating you for fraud. Who do you think disgruntled Cooley students are going to call? Think about it: the law firm was trying to reach the very group you just sent this email to.

Conclusion
Look, I doubt we'll see resolution to any of this any time soon, but my gut reaction is that these things couldn't have been causing the damage Cooley alleges, at least not any more than the mass of Constitutionally-protected speech that has proclaimed Cooley the worst law school in America.

As a final pussy legal disclaimer, I'd like to note that I know absolutely nothing about what goes on at any school I discuss, nor do I ever get "inside info," nor do I think any law school is engaged in what a lay person would call criminal activity. I merely give my opinions and commentary on publicly-available information.

Another U.S. Senator Hounds the ABA

Following Barbara Boxer's lead, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa - who is, by the way, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary committee - has rifled off a stern, well-cited letter to ABA Commissar Stephen Zack.

It rehashes the mass media reporting off the last few months, including both New York Times articles, and shows concern over the ABA's recent non-compliances as an accrediting body.

There's little I can add to the letter; I encourage readers to check it out for yourselves.

The kicker is that Grassley requests a written response to 31 questions (not all are answerable; many are "if not, why?" to previous questions) at the end of his letter and he asked for a response by July 25. Among the questions, these are my personal favorites:

Has the American Bar Association raised concerns with law schools about the practice of awarding more first-year merit based scholarships than they plan to renew?

I like this one because "raised concerns" is ambiguous enough to where I can bet the ABA - if it responds - will say "yes" and try to pass the grenade to the schools.

Does the American Bar Association have a program to ensure borrowers do not-default on their federally-backed student loans?

Do you think the writer chuckled while writing this one?

This is hardly Luther publishing his Theses; the questions seem slightly askew and limited in focus, but maybe that will prove more successful at getting real answers. Personally, I'd rather see more probing questions about the accreditation standards and I'd like to see questions on the ABA's complete lack of oversight regarding bogus/misleading/rigged employment data (think he's trying to avoid a fraud finding?), etc.

But hey, progress is progress. Two percent of the Senate - a diverse and powerful two percent - is now publicly critical of the ABA and aware of these issues.

Senseless Education Part 9234: "Phenom" Brothers May Graduate Non-ABA Law School at 21 and 18

Born 3 years, 8 months apart, they dress alike, finish each other's sentences, both drive restored classic Mustangs and have no plans to leave Stockton.

No, not one of those creepy couples that you dread seeing in public, but brothers who are both attending the Humphreys College Laurence Drivon School of Law in Stockton, California. The older brother, Connor, entered at age 18 and may take the bar by 21. The younger brother, Parker, started at 16.

Neither is gung-ho about practicing law. The older one says he put off medical school to attend law school. The younger says he's focused on law school "now" and "may" go into criminal defense.

The article does not mention why the school admitted these individuals (what's the point of an admissions process, anyway?), but I'd love to hear the dean explain how admitting a 16-year old to a law school is proper without saying "he paid his tuition!"

The kicker? People actually think this is an example of "good parenting:"

Joanne Shelton, 51, said she and her husband, Terry, 53, always encouraged their boys to study hard and get a good education. They didn't expect this.

She's been asked plenty about her secret to good parenting.

"I wish I knew the magic answer," Shelton said. "I could bottle it up and sell it."
You could sell snake-oil, too.

If you think sending this boys to a non-ABA law school at 16 and 18 is an example of "good" parenting shining through, you need to sue your own parents for not passing along any common sense.

I don't care if these kids have 160+ IQs, they'd probably be better off smoking pot for three years than studying at a non-ABA school. Who knows? Maybe they'd be painters or musicians or writers. They could have used the tuition money to travel, start a business, attend a real four-year college, get a degree in something with more transferability or personal fulfillment. They could have lived off the money and volunteered or even - gasp - get a real job and develop the part of their resumes that's almost always a positive (strip clubs and doc review not included).

Doogie Howser is just television, people. It's no way to raise a child, and running through one's "education" to rack degree after degree ASAP is not a civic virtue to celebrate.

Truth is, if these kids pass the bar (despite mandating things like Wills (2 quarters), Family Law, and 3 quarters of Business Entities, Humphreys has a 54% 1st-time bar passage rate), they'll find it very difficult to ever actually practice. Because they're moving at an accelerated speed, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they're not working on the side. Employers will have even less use for them than they do for Pacific or Golden Gate grads. They're probably not developing any social skills in these year - at least not enough to outwit and outlast the other solos in nabbing clients. And the immediate family doesn't have a background in law:

Terry Shelton is a general contractor who manages their rental property. Joanne Shelton helps with the family business and is also a homemaker.

Unless there's an uncle or something, these kids are going to be screwed out of the job market (here's a test: would you hire them?).

So if they ever want to practice law, it was a dumb move. If they don't want to practice law, it was also a dumb move. Law schools, especially non-ABA ones, are professional trade schools. I could see maybe going to certain training-type schools for pleasure, like computer programming. But law? Why? You have a "passion" for learning how to use Westlaw and draft a lousy intra-office memo? You have a "passion" for reading stuff like Pennoyer and memorizing minority rules from other jurisdictions in areas you don't care about? Why?

If you are really interested in hashing out ideas of social justice, freedom, regulation, etc., why not study philosophy? Why not study sociology? Why not study political science? Why not going to the public library and reading book after book on the subject?

And why do we still think paying for products one never uses is "good parenting?"

Freakonomics v. Cooley

In this article, Freakonomics passes along Jonathan Tjarks of policymic.com's take on how going to law school is like being a high school football player today, focusing on things like hidden costs, low odds, how "lower-tier" players even at elite schools (e.g. Harvard for law, Texas for football) are scoffed at, etc., with seeming approval.

This analogy should sound familiar, as I discussed the NFL-to-law school analogy back on June 17th.

I didn't reach it as a search a good comparison to the law school world; rather, I found it because Thomas Cooley Law School was comparing law school to the NFL as a reason why prestige is erroneous.

What are the odds of that happening? Thomas Cooley looks at law school and thinks, "hey, it's like the NFL; that's a POSITIVE (at least for lower-tiered law schools and students)" while Mr. Tjarks looks at law school and thinks "hey's, it's like the NFL; that's a NEGATIVE."

But that's how it works in Cooley-land. Going to play college football at Talledega School for the Eskimo Orthodox Blind is great for one's NFL prospects if just one Jerry Rice comes out of nowhere. In reality, as Tjarks/Freakonomics remind us, it's not even a good idea to go to Texas if you want to play in the NFL, it's just the best of poor alternatives.

But even if you win the NFL lottery, odds are that you'll be retired in 4 years, and many will be left with medical bills and long-term concussive damage for their sacrifice.

Of course, the comparison falls flat in some respects. The NFL is almost purely meritocratic. You sack the QB every down, you play. Being a workout warrior can get you drafted, but you won't make it through camp when some free agent takes your place. Law school has no such thing. You have a bum running the stopwatch at the combine, you are never going to the so-called "big leagues."

Who Actually Listens to Decorous Protests?

That First Amendment is such a downer, isn't it?

I give you Andrew Spillane, young ('11 graduate per his bar entry) Wisconsin attorney and now, it seems, the legal community's self-appointed Miss Manners:

And then, there are the scam bloggers. These law students and graduates have taken to the Internet to voice their complaints about the cost and quality of legal education. They claim that their schools defrauded them—or scammed them, if you will—into believing that most of the schools’ graduates landed employment in private practice or with the government or in business post-graduation, all implying to them that they would be working as attorneys. But lo and behold, the employment statistics reported by the schools may have been inflated, counting someone working at the law school on a part-time basis and someone working as a barista at Starbucks as employed under their statistics.

These blogs are dripping with anger and vitriol. Some are littered with curse words. One website even refers to law schools not as schools but with various names for toilets, restrooms, and garbage cans and will even post piles of fecal matter and vomit to begin a rage-fueled rant about a particular legal academic institution. And what of professionalism? Not for us, says one scam blogger, for that is a concept imposed by the elites in the legal profession upon the rest of the bar.
...
Should lawyers and law students care when we see others like the scam bloggers acting reprehensibly?

I say we should care.

We should care because lawyers occupy a special place alongside an American institution that is both a structure and an ideal: democratic rule of law. Respect for the caretakers of our legal system is essential to our respect for the legal system itself.

Ah, yes, if you can't kill the message, kill the messenger. Aside from figuring out that this isn't recessionary, Spillane hasn't learned that the message and the medium are inextricably interconnected.

If so-called scambloggers were publishing under their real names in a marketing attempt - i.e., if they were representing themselves in their professional capacities to gain clients - I might agree with Spillane. Professionalism is a business concept. But these blogs are pure, straight-up political commentary that could be made by anyone, legal professional or not, the type of speech most shielded under our Constitution. Never mind that the only non-decorous of the "scam-bloggers" are either anonymous or have no intent to ever practice law. Spillane's objection thus rings as hollow as a partisan accusing another partisan of lacking respect for the sitting President. It's nothing more than a veiled attempt to silence discomforting speech under the guise of respect and decorum.

In fact, one of the principal points of this debate is the lack of professionalism in the legal community. And another is that the law doesn't have a special place in American society and is actually looked down upon. And a third is that traditional channels of discourse would utterly fail.

So Spillane is completely sidestepping the real debate, and in a rather lame fashion, as it mirrors many of the arguments made by every conservative reactionary in history. Even though many of these problems have been present for decades, the message is now being heard. But Spillane doesn't like the medium, which raises a question: what other medium was possible?

Speech attacking the elites and the status quo is a tricky thing. Contrary to populist bullshit, the mainstream press is extremely pro-status quo and holds professional norms sacrosanct. Most media outlets won't dare quote a blog, no matter how well sourced, -written, and -researched it is. Book publishers won't publish anything without a ready audience; any attempt at "exposing" the law school "scam" through that route would die on an editor's desk or in self-published obscurity.

The law school "scam" isn't conducive to television or radio segments. It's a complex, multifaceted problem that goes decidedly against the standard way of thinking (education = good). And any media outlet would likely call up a law school administrator and/or ABA representative to give "balance." Have I mentioned that the opposition to this message is moneyed and powerful? And that there's a natural inclination against speaking by the nature of the industry? And that the ABA and the law schools have no interest in internal reform?

All in all, the best method for bringing these problems to light was the blogsphere. Fundamentally, it's no different than people in revolutionary times using inflammatory language and pseudonymous speech to present an opinion that went against common thinking and against the moneyed and powerful. I'm not saying Nando is Sam Adams, merely that neither could have expected institutional reform to come from the top, nor would "traditional" and "decorous" approaches have worked to achieve reform.

The most damning part of Spillane's blog is that he agrees in substance. The reader should note that Spillane can provide no alternative about how beneficial change could happen without this particular medium and its interrelated message. Instead, he goes on some harangue about how we all have to "respect" the system and keep its public reputation on par with its lofty place and how "scambloggers" damage the prestige of the law.

But as many have noted, that ship sailed a long time ago. Attorneys' grubby faces are plastered on buses and park benches, replete with dollar signs and entitlement claims to everyone who's ever walked outdoors. Slick operators base whole practices on gambling with contingency fees. Lawyers regularly snipe at each other in pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, and the like. It's an adversarial profession that tends towards animalistic behavioral tendencies. The education system promotes feelings of arrogance, entitlement, and general assholery. The profession's culture promotes hours that deny many the opportunity to participate fully in the community. And so on.

And then there's the elephant in the room: the fact that having a massive oversupply of attorneys demeans the profession itself. A glib response to Spillane would be that if you don't want whining attorneys, give them a fair chance with a reasonable debt load for the product. Teach them useful skills in the school itself. There are honors graduates from Tier 2 schools driven out of the law, talented people who sit fallow for multiple years. Does that not tarnish the professionalism? When qualified members of the profession go broke while similar people a few notches away land $160,000 jobs? A profession protects its members; law does not do this, and it causes many of those things that erode professionalism.

Spillane acknowledges some of this, but he sees "scamblogging" as a detriment to professionalism rather than a possible cure. This is a funny result to me, because if most "scambloggers" had their way, law's professionalism would improve dramatically in the years to come.

Unfortunately, Spillane's view as presented is too superficial, and too assuming of the validity of official channels and etiquette (let's face it, there's no way the ABA changes anything without a critical media) and rejecting the need for literary invention. This is not an issue where state-friendly, decorous speech will accomplish anything (if it actually does ever accomplish anything).

Incidentally, one of the commenters - allegedly Andrew Golden ('09, Marquette) - makes the following claim:

I’ve been out of law school for 2 years, and I can name maybe 5 or 10 people, tops, in my graduating class who wanted a job in the legal field and either don’t have one or would give up their solo practice for something less than a sweetheart offer. And that’s 2 years out, which may seem like a lifetime to you but is really a drop in the bucket career-wise.

It's about 3-5% of a suggested typical career and long enough to default on most loans. But I digress...

The Wisconsin Bar is great because it allows a lawyer search by law school and year graduated and lists most recent addresses for bar members. In Wisconsin, you can waive the bar exam under diploma privilege if you graduate from UW or Marquette, so I think it's a fair assumption that almost all of the class were Wisconsin bar members after law school.

Reviewing the class, I found:

138 in bona fide Private Practice, government jobs, legal aids, decent non-law jobs, etc.
18 who went solo
4 in clerkships
38 with no place of employment listed
5 with suspended licenses

So Mr. Golden is claiming that only 5 or 10 of those latter 43 people didn't want law firm jobs, not even counting the ones with non-law full-time work? Really? There were 203 people in the Class of 2009 who had Wisconsin licenses at one point. That's 21% who don't list any place of employment or whose licenses are suspended. 8.9% of the class went solo, and I frankly can't believe that they all have enviable practices.

But Golden probably wouldn't see the systemic problem if it were served on a platter to him:

[O]ur experience isn’t really that much different than my friends with PhDs or Masters or MDs or MBAs; we all recognize that you don’t start out as the CEO or the general counsel, and it takes time and effort. If people want to sit and pout and whine because they have to struggle for a little bit, fine. But they could have chosen a cheaper law school, or a different part of the country, or different internships, or any number of other factors. They could have gone part-time and worked while they did it. Suggesting that they aren’t the people primarily responsible for their lot in life is, in my opinion, incorrect.

Of course, the "you could have chosen a different path" argument could be used to defeat every attempt at broad social reform ever made, but hey, it doesn't stop people like Golden from telling us fundamental systemic issues, feerally-backed debt loads, popular mythology, and consumer fraud should be swept aside because you can conveniently blame the individual, which I'm not sure anyone actually disputes. (Also: "We're similar to PhD's or MBAs" is not a good argument)

Individuals are at fault; they're the only reason this system continues; the silence of the individuals who came before them is the only reason it's made it this long. And now that people are actually talking about the elephant in the room, there's no reason arguments and free speech should be stifled because of decorum or Ayn Rand-style balderdash.