Aaron Greenspan’s story, “Who Founded Facebook? A New Claim Emerges,”
appeals to me on a few levels. First, he’s self-reflective:

“This book is partly a search for justice,” he wrote in the introduction. “You don’t write an autobiography in your early 20s unless there’s something you need to get off your chest.”

Second, he’s willing to go up against institutionalized authority in a range of ways.

“I’ve written a lot about Harvard’s motto being ‘veritas,’ ” he wrote recently in an instant message, “and how uncomfortable I was when I discovered that Harvard actually didn’t abide by the ideals of truth at all times. But it’s a good motto. Possibly the best there is, because if you wait long enough, the truth will come out.”

Third, he’s got a new project underway, CommonRoom. The University of Massachusetts Amherst is already an organizational member.

I imagine that the largest appeal of his book will be the critique it presents of the disconnect between Harvard’s asserted ideals and actual practices. I’ll be more interested in the way Greenspan describes his maneuverings with/against particular political/business networks/structures of power and influence. Does he manage to effect change in dynamics already under momentum? Does he sidestep by creating new ones? Do the two strategies interact productively, generatively (what I would label as dialogic) or are they coopted by the trajectory of existing dialectics?