The tick sheet is a grid. The vertical or "Y" axis separates the day into hours. This is fairly self evident. If a question comes in at 3:43, it is to be recorded in the row marked, "3-4pm." I think everyone can get behind that.
The tricky part is the horizontal or "X" axis. This has three columns. the first is marked "law." The second is marked "non-law." The third is marked "others."
OK. I will admit to being confused by this classification system. I will also admit to not caring enough to inquire further. I'm a smart boy, I thought to myself. I won't be defeated by a piece of paper. But the truth is that I never figured it out.
See, if I was asked a legal question, this presented no problems. Find the hour, and tick under "law." But I had trouble differentiating between "non-law" questions and "other" questions. It seemed to me that these questions could fall equally under either of these categories.
I stuck out the spring semester, but now that I'm working in the evenings over the summer, I figured I had to ask. I had to work this out.
So, I did. Today when I came in, I asked one of the reference librarians and he explained it to me. He told me that I had fundamentally misunderstood exactly what I was to be categorizing. I was not supposed to be evaluating the questions asked, I was supposed to be evaluating the person asking the question. Let me see if I can clear this up.
A mark in the "legal" column means that a law student, or law professor asked me the question. A mark in the "non-legal" column means that a student who is not studying law asked me the question. And finally, a mark in the "other" column means that a lawyer, or pro se patron who wandered in off the street asked the question.
I will tell you that the converstaion between me and the reference librarian was spirited and lengthy and observed by a number of our co-workers and patrons who happened to be in the vacinity. In the end, he brought me around to the idea that I was to classify people at a glance, despite the obviously institutionalist viewpoint this represents.
I sat down at the reference desk to settle in for work and think about all the grossly inacruate Saturday tick sheets I had happily turned in. I got a little lost in thought, a not uncommon experience for me.
I snapped out of it when I noticed a man with no teeth waving at me. He wore a wide brimmed hat and cowboy boots. His chest hair was plentiful and housed a number of gold medalions suspended from chains around his neck and nestled into his fur. He carried a brief case and his finger was holding his place in one of the regional reporters as he carried the volume across the library. I cannot stress enough that he had no teeth.
"You sleeping there?" he asked.
"No, sorry. I was lost in thought."
"Did you ever figure out the answer to your question? The legal/non-legalquestion?"
"Oh, yes. I'm all clear on it now."
"It's all about whether they got statutes."
I stared at him blankly for a moment. "What?"
"Yeah. See, it's legal when they got a statute. And sometimes when they don't they got to get a judge in there and that's non-legal, or illegal."
"Oh." I thought if I placated him, he'd move along, and I didn't feel like explaining that I was confused about something that had nothing to do with anything he was saying, because I felt that would prolong my exposure to his lack of teeth.
"See, it's just like when they got the bio-terrorism. They ain't got no statutes, see. They ain't got no statutes, so they have to make statutes to go with bio-terrorism. They still have to make them and until they get them made, it's illegal. We don't know which way it will go, but after the statutes, there will be legal."
He concluded his line of reasoning with a flourish that included slamming the reporter down on the reference desk. He stood there, looking at me, smiling broadly, and waiting for questions so he could further clear up any confusion I may harbor.
"I see," I said.
He was plainly disappointed in this response. "Another thing it's like is mining minerals from the moon. That's illegal. They ain't got statutes about it. It's illegal. So some judge comes in and says, it's ok for you, but only if they don't have a statute. It's called interpretation of the statute. They could just go up there and dig and get the minerals from the moon, but if they do then it's illegal because there ain't no statute. See? No statute, so illegal.
"Now, once they get the moon mineral statute, then it gets legal. That's when they'll know what to do. That's when. After they get the statute. But right now," he smiled broadly and leaned in providing me with a greater view of his toothlessness, "they ain't got a statute, they ain't got the legal, the have the non-legal, and no judge can change that."
"Of course," I said. "Naturally."
"See what I mean?"
"Oh, yes. I think I see what you mean."
"You get it?"
"Yeah. I get it." I looked away.
He moved into my field of vision. "Well, let's see if you got it. What was that question? The one that they asked about legal or non-legal. You tell me the question, I'll tell you which."
I was a little exasparated. "Oh, I don't remember. I'll just play it by ear from here on out."
"Yeah," he said. "That's the plan. Play it by ear!"
I looked down at my computer and didn't look up again until he left.
Posted at 5:34 p.m.
previously on Sooner � next on Sooner
last five entries