Me: [Describes my assignment this term. It concerns a current supreme court case.]
Him: Wow, they’re teaching you real ideas! That’s something. That’s how you make something of yourself in your field. What do you think about that?
Me: Uh? Regarding my brief or something else? My brief was just assigned. I haven’t started researching it yet.
Him: No, that they’re teaching you real ideas. Do you have an opinion on that?
Me: um, no? I like the assignment. It seems interesting.
Him: That’s not good. You should have a take on that. If people don’t believe in what you’re saying, you won’t be worth anything. You need to have a take and be able to argue for it, because that’s what your field is paid to do.
Me: Well, no, the law applies to you whether you believe in it or not-
Him: No, it doesn’t! Those systems were set up by globalists and Trump destroyed all of that. It’s all worthless now. You need to convince people to believe in good ideas that make society better.
If he’s right in something it’s this very part
He’s not right though. The law is the result of hundreds of years of thought conducted by people much smarter than me. It’s stupid to argue over things that are well-settled, like the right to not have your home searched without a warrant.
To a degree you’re correct, but something being “well-settled” is not, in itself, reason to disregard the idea of reexamining it. Many bad laws and concepts - like slavery, disenfranchisement of women, and hazardous child labor to name just a few - were well-settled ideas right up until they stopped being so because the people disagreed enough to start the fight, fought that fight, and the majority realized they agreed with the fighters and decided to change things.
Challenging something that others think is “well-settled” is one of the most important moves any activist can make.