Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

« The New IE, i.e., Firefox scares Microsoft || Back to Blog | fac.etio.us »

February 16, 2005

My life as a Berkperson

Before I applied for a Berkman fellowship, I had to ask John Palfrey and Ethan Zuckerman, neither of whom I knew, a whole bunch of damn fool questions. I had no living sense of what it meant to be a Berkman fellow. Do you drink sherry at 4? Just how witty is the banter? Would I get a discount on ascots?

I've been a fellow since July. Here's what it's like.

[Note: I'm uncomfortable posting this because it's so positive. The truth is that I'm very happy at the Center. And in terms of sucking up, my fellowship has already been renewed for a year and sucking up still won't get me a parking space, so what'd be the point?]

Context

The Berkman Center for the Internet and Society is a Center within Harvard Law. The professors affiliated with it are all (?) with the Law School, and so are many of the students who take part in the various activities, but I find the overall interests have more to do with policy than law; I spend little of my time listening to lawyers discussing cases in an argot I don't understand.

When you apply for a fellowship, you have to state what project you want supported, and that determines what your activities will be. The site lists five project areas, each prepended with the word "open": Law, governance, education, commerce and content. Some of the actual projects underway are:

button Documenting Internet "filtering" (=censorship) by various governments

button Trying to increase international awareness in the blogosphere by facilitating "bridge bloggers"

button Encouraging and facilitating the growth of blogs in rights-challenged countries

button Aggregating information about all the groups aiming at establishing international governance of the Internet

button Building software to encourage classroom cross-discipline and cross-border conversation

button The Digital Media Project, looking at the legal, social and economic effects of five possible "scenarios" describing the development of digital media tech and law

The Center combines research and advocacy, which is always a tough balance. While the Center doesn't enunciate official stands on issues, it comes down consistently in favor of keeping the Internet an open space for ideas and innovation.

What it's like

The Berkman Center has its own house, a three-story Victorian on Mass Ave a few blocks (but on a cold day, a very long few blocks) from Harvard Square. It's a funky place, furnished with a dog pound of furniture, just the way your college apartment was. There's not a lot of space, so only a few people have offices there. The rest of us come in as appropriate and hang around the small-ish downstairs meeting room or perhaps grab a spare computer in a hallway or cranny. (You've gotta like a house with crannies.) I have a home office, so I don't come into the Center to write. I come to hang out with people.

Last year, the Center started a new semi-policy: Tuesdays are fellows days. That's the day to show up. In the morning, fellows hang out in the downstairs meeting room around a table. There are bagels, fruit and coffee, and no topic. It's usually only a handful of us. I think I most see Rebecca MacKinnon, Ethan Zuckerman, Zephyr Teachout, Mary Rundle, Derek Bambauer and Wendy Koslow there. There's never a problem getting a conversation going. Jezoos Carruthers, I learn a lot.

Most Tuesdays there's a lunchtime speaker. It's in the same small room, often with an overflow crowd of twenty or so. The speakers range pretty much all over the lot, from a Microsoft lawyer talking about copyright to a report on connectivity in Uzbekistan. Typically the speaker doesn't get through her presentation entirely. The Center provides sandwiches.

Tuesdays are the most structured, but any day of the week you will find interesting people from whom you will learn gobs. Plus, there are speakers, meetings and get-togethers at random times.

What you have to do

Each fellow is expected to present her research at a Tuesday lunch or equivalent and to write something for the Center's journal. The rest of your duties are determined by the project the Center is supporting.

My case is a bit unusual because my project — working on a book about the effect the digital organization of stuff is having on the nature of knowledge (I really have to find a more interesting way of describing it) — is a bit off-topic for the Center. So, I'm supposed to work on the book and also lead a series of Wednesday night discussions.

Fellowships are usually for one year.

What you get

button A stipend that ranges from $0 to $42,000. (I'm way at the low end of the scale, and certainly need to keep my day job.)

button A Harvard ID that lets you use just about any of its resources

button A Harvard business card that impresses the hell out of people

button The opportunity to participate in the life of the Center

button No parking privileges

The Culture

I've been in a variety of academic environments, and the Berkman is the most collegial of them. Much of that is due to the personalities of the law professors in charge. The Center's first instinct, in my limited experience, is to support you in your project or line of thought. There is an air of sweetness about the Center, which I did not expect. I mean, these are Harvard law professors. Didn't they see The Paper Chase, fer pete's sake?

The Center is multi-partisan in theory. In practice, the Center's heart is clearly pro-grassroots. It's unlikely to file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the RIAA. (If you're from the RIAA and give a lunchtime talk, you'll be treated with respect, but you'll also be asked tough questions by Harvard lawyers.)

I personally love the mix of scholarship and activism. These are folks passionate about the Internet both intellectually and practically. And it's a "learning community": I have yet to be laughed at (to my face, anyway) for asking dumb questions. The ethos is one of generosity: People will spend forever helping me to understand things.

I see more women there than men.

Negatives

The gender balance feels about right in practice among the fellows (yes, I'm aware of the irony of using the word "fellows" in this sentence), although it's way off at the professorial level. And the atmosphere is definitely not one of macho competition and oneupmanship. There's a fair bit of international presence, and most discussions occur within a global perspective. The racial balance sucks.

It is an academic environment, which often informs the discourse. If that's not your cup of tea, then the Berkman Center is probably not for you. It is, however, also an activist center. I like the balance. You may not.

The range of political and policy opinions among the fellows is fairly narrow. More diversity would help.

I'm having trouble coming up with other negatives. (Oy, that sentence sits there like bait!)

In Conclusion

If you can't tell, I'm enjoying my time as a Berkperson. I'm meeting people I care about and, unsurprisingly, you can't hardly walk through the doors without falling into a conversation that changes the way you think. What more could I ask for? Besides a parking space.

[Technorati tag: berkman]

Posted by D. Weinberger at February 16, 2005 12:09 PM


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My life as a Berkperson:

» Berkman Men and Women from Doctor Daisy
[Read More]

Tracked on February 16, 2005 11:52 PM

Comments

I understand that it's more than "bagels, fruit and coffee" and I for one do not understand how a vegetablist such as yourself could countenance the eating of kittens for brunch, but oh well... sounds like that Emerson thing about consistency and hobgobblins and such.

Posted by: fp | February 16, 2005 01:33 PM


Excellent article. I think your true talent is a kind of verbal scenery painting.

"I'm having trouble coming up with other negatives."

Well, as an outsider who has explored the subject, there's a few things where I can comment with I hope some insight. Perhaps they shouldn't be called "negative". But let's say the description has various aspects depending on where you are in a certain framework.

It's bohemian in terms of Harvard Law School. But as I'm an "MIT" techie, there's a phenomena, well, the best way I can convey it is the difference between the English Cockney and Oxford accents. This is overall minor, but it exists.

Much more seriously, there's a our-people-right-or-wrong effect (which is thorughly rational, and institutionally typical). I'm certain it's absolutely positive to the insiders. But I can assure you it's quite negative to those balefully affected by it. The recent Zephyr Teachout set-to is the best and most easily discussable example (perhaps I should be tedious and note that the "evil kitten-eating cyborg" bit, was a deliberate satire of the concept of randomly posting easily checkable charges, to many journalists, for "discussion".)

[Disclosure/disclaimer: Per above, I'm not disinterested, though I'll go light on details so as not to be accused of riding my own hobbyhorse]

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | February 16, 2005 02:17 PM


"The gender balance feels about right in practice among the fellows (yes, I'm aware of the irony of using the word "fellows" in this sentence), although it's way off at the professorial level. And the atmosphere is definitely not one of macho competition and oneupmanship. There's a fair bit of international presence, and most discussions occur within a global perspective. The racial balance sucks."

Why is this a negative? I mean i can see arguments for diversity. But isnt ideological diversity more important then what everyone looks like?

I would only really see it as a negative if that situation was somehow activly reached.

Posted by: Graham | February 16, 2005 08:48 PM


"What more could I ask for? Besides a parking space."

Is Zipcar a possibility for you? I know they have them in and around Harvard.

Posted by: daniel luke | February 17, 2005 12:35 AM


You are making (some of) the rest of us very jealous.

What does one have to do be endowed with these privileges (preferably at the Berkeley or Stanford equivalent), aside from being smart, a nice guy, and a good writer who has written some pretty intelligent and well-known things?

Posted by: Tim | February 17, 2005 02:32 AM


Tim: My analysis of it is that you have to have a good answer the question of what you bring to the table. David is a marketing guru, and brings his marketing expertise to the efforts, while in the other direction, the association enhances him. So it's a very good match in that way.

Note this is all meant purely as description, no value judgment implied.

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | February 17, 2005 04:32 AM


Tim, there's an application process: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/fellowship_and_internship_program

And if I've made you envious, then I'm marking this post "Mission Accomplished!" : )

Daniel, I've looked into zipcars. They're expensive!

Seth, there is a natural urge to defend one's associates and friends. I'll stand by my comments at the time on the Zephyr Affair, and will personally stand by Zephyr any time (even if that sometimes means disagreeing with her). As for the kitten-eating incident, I believe it was well-understood as something like satire.

Posted by: David Weinberger | February 17, 2005 08:55 AM


And I'll defend Zephyr as well, for different reasons than institutional affiliation.

Otherwise, this post was very informative, why not post it on the Berkman blog?

As for the issue of inclusiveness, at one particular Berkman co-sponsored conference, I've been told that I gave it a thorough treatment. If the challenge is to bust open the gates of academia (why are journalists the only ones assumed to be gatekeepers?) I think Berkman's done a commendable job so far, though in there areas where there is too much institutional self-love (what Seth was getting at), a resident contrarian may be helpful.

Posted by: Jon Garfunkel | February 17, 2005 09:36 AM


I do think there loyalty is a value. It isn't an ultimate value -- you don't want to stay loyal to, say, Hitler, no matter how good he's been to you -- but it is an important one. In Z's case, institutional loyalty didn't enter into it, but even if it had, I don't think it's always inappropriate, unless you think affiliation is or should be accomplished purely through reason.

Posted by: David Weinberger | February 17, 2005 10:12 AM


about the effect the digital organization of stuff is having on the nature of knowledge

"the ways bits, bytes and links are unbundling and repackaging what we knew as knowledge ?"

Posted by: Jon | February 17, 2005 10:57 AM


Jon, that's punchy but I think I need to get something in there about the change in the principles of organization/classification. I'd love to hear more ideas about how to express this.

Posted by: David Weinberger | February 17, 2005 11:05 AM


I wasn't thinking of any specific person's responses. Rather, on a more abstract level, let me try to express it along these lines:

If there was nobody around who felt he or she should speak up and say something like "What a screw-up! What an unfair way to treat those people, who are now getting smeared.", then that's one problem. If there was nobody who felt they could (politically) do it, that's another problem. Either way, pick one.

It's a very understandable and human problem. But I do think it's worth noting, because it does happen.

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | February 17, 2005 11:17 AM


I was just going to write a post about how amazing it was that we've circumvented Weinberger's Law here, that polished work can't keep up with the blogosphere. Well, this piece was pretty polished, not rushed, original, unique, and it inspired a rich conversation...

until our host railroaded the values talk by bringing up the edge case of a mass-murderer dictator.

What were we discussing, anyways? As with Seth, I suggest the need for a contrarian who skips the perks while hanging with the Berk's. I would have showed up at the dinner this evening, but nooobody told me.

Posted by: Jon Garfunkel | February 18, 2005 01:43 AM


A flag on the play! Five yard penalty to Jon for an unwarranted invocation of Godwin's Law. I didn't call anyone Hitler-like except Hitler. And no one even mentioned it - much less appeared to be "railroaded" by it - until Jon brought it up.

And, yes, I did work on the Berkman piece over time. Glad you liked it.

Posted by: David Weinberger | February 18, 2005 08:20 AM


I'll play the resident contrarian to Seth's earlier comment re your marketing genius. I went to your link and found "Applications for fellowships will be accepted from October 1 to December 31" If the mission of the post was to make me and others envious, why are you busy selling something that no one can buy at the moment, or anytime soon?

P.S. Congratulations on getting a second year, sorry you couldn't do a Berkman style dinner when you were over here in Berkeley.

Posted by: Tim | February 19, 2005 02:53 AM


I came here for a conversation/dialogue, not an edge case.

Posted by: Jon Garfunkel | February 21, 2005 12:03 AM


Post a comment

Guidelines for Commenting

Basically, you can say what you want. (Click here for the fine print.)

If you haven't left a comment here before, your comment may be put into a queue for me to approve. Sorry for the delay. Blame the damn spammers.