There's one giant problem solved, or at least apparently so--certainly, it's on its way to being remedied. Time to move on to another one.
PROFESSOR YALE: You're not on the seating chart, are you? Why don't you insert yourself here?
SCOTT: (voice-over) Don't say, "That's what she said." Don't say, "That's what she said." Do not say, "That's what she said."
YALE: You look like you want to say something, Scott.
After class I explained to Yale the classy joke I refrained from, but he was unimpressed.
During class, I told him his Critical Legal Scholar-esque position of "the impossibility of neutrality" was quote unquote stupid.
Funny how talking to your family can lighten one's mood.
Note the strangeness of fondness for familial affection. Consider two nearly-identical people each consisting of attributes A, B, C, D... where A is ambition, B is bravery, C is caring, D is dental health... and so on, with only one noticeable difference: the F factor, with a positive indicating a familial relationship and a negative indicating the opposite.
Strange then, that given these two individuals:
1. A, B, C, D... F+
2. A, B, C, D... F-
It should be the first that gets heavy affection, who should warrant deep love, while the other is a stranger, and likely to remain so. So much would turn on a commonality of childhood environs and genes.
Strange, yes, but not problematic. People are, after all, entitled to the unique traits and assets that chance bestows on them. Otherwise Rawls would be right.