Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
grapefruit18

programs with a focus on anti-oppressive politics

Recommended Posts

The outcome of not teaching or looking at sexual assault properly and with an open mind is judgments like this:

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/09/15/judges-ranting-rape-verdict-shows-hes-behind-the-curve-dimanno.html

 

Edit: or the keep your knees together and sex was in the air judges.  Note the solution in those cases was to teach them about consent.  So we want to graduate more potential judges without doing that when they're a captive audience?

Edited by providence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I am not the OP but the six figure price tag is a start.

 

It would really help if there was some sort of institution that provided money to students to enable them pay their tuition in exchange for a repayment at a later date, albeit with a slight profit on the part of the lending institution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This infuriates me.

 

Is it just 1L? They still give a comprehensive education in this subject afterwards?

 

I don't see how they could.  Crim is only mandatory in 1L and then you need not take another crim class ever again - I'm pretty sure that's the case in most, if not all, schools.  Consent was part of our 1L Crim curriculum and I don't remember it coming up much again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it's a standing offer, you're more than welcome to join us conservatives, we'll take you! Lord knows we could use some fresh blood and the modern neoconservative movement has its roots in a collection of Marxist,Trot and socialist intellectuals who split with Moscow, Stalin and later the counter culture movement of the 60s. You could be the intellectual figurehead of a new Canadian neocon movement!

 

You could bring balance to the force, you know, like Anakin Skywalker... wait... that's not right is it? Bah, it's not like anyone remembers the three prequels anyhow.

 

Majorly poignant considering the idiocy I saw at the Manning Conference this weekend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is being "excluded" if there is no trigger warning.  I assume there is a course syllabus/outline, a text, reading list etc. that show what topics will be covered when.  And it does actually take away from everyone else's experience when you a) allow rape exceptionalism and give it legitimacy in a law school classroom, perpetuating the idea of women as weak and b) do not rigourously cover and expect students to study and learn an important area of the law.

 

I've never heard that term before...

 

The outcome of not teaching or looking at sexual assault properly and with an open mind is judgments like this:

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/09/15/judges-ranting-rape-verdict-shows-hes-behind-the-curve-dimanno.html

 

Edit: or the keep your knees together and sex was in the air judges.  Note the solution in those cases was to teach them about consent.  So we want to graduate more potential judges without doing that when they're a captive audience?

 

 

Zuker was in law school long before our current sexual assault safe space climate. Obviously back then people looked at rape through a much more patriarchal lens. I'm glad we're a more victim-friendly culture now and it's debatable whether "trigger warnings" are necessary, but using a man on the far side of the rape-perspective-spectrum doesn't help illustrate your point. There's a difference between not learning about sexual assault at all (apparently happening in some classrooms) and learning about it the way an old white guy did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A middle-class white kid and a black woman with schizophrenia both walk into a bank seeking a $50,000 line of credit. Which one is likelier to receive it?

 

 

A few questions

 

 

1. Is the black woman's schizophrenia apparent to the lending officer? Is she receiving medication?

 

2. Do they have sufficient collateral?

 

3. Why are both of them seeking a line of credit?

 

I deeply resent left wing extremists like you who constantly propound this absurd victim narrative about how "the system" is rigged against minorities. People like you are responsible for convincing minorities that there's no point in making any effort because the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy won't allow them to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard that term before...

 

 

 

Zuker was in law school long before our current sexual assault safe space climate. Obviously back then people looked at rape through a much more patriarchal lens. I'm glad we're a more victim-friendly culture now and it's debatable whether "trigger warnings" are necessary, but using a man on the far side of the rape-perspective-spectrum doesn't help illustrate your point. There's a difference between not learning about sexual assault at all (apparently happening in some classrooms) and learning about it the way an old white guy did. 

 

Rape exceptionalism means there is something "special" or "different" about sexual assault as distinct from other crimes and traumatic experiences.  You can only think that if you think women and their sexuality are delicate little flowers who get forever soiled and broken by a rape.... kind of like Zuker was saying - "it murders their souls." I mean, WTF?  I still have a soul, asshole!

 

I know Zuker was in law school long before that - that's my point.  He didn't learn about consent, so he doesn't really understand it.  Nor does Justice Camp on the other side of things. Why would using an old white guy not help my point?  They are most of the judges.  If we are trying to raise a new generation that is more aware, then we have to give them better tools than those guys had, or we'll get more of the same from equally ill-informed but well-meaning people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions

 

 

1. Is the black woman's schizophrenia apparent to the lending officer? Is she receiving medication?

 

2. Do they have sufficient collateral?

 

3. Why are both of them seeking a line of credit?

 

I deeply resent left wing extremists like you who constantly propound this absurd victim narrative about how "the system" is rigged against minorities. People like you are responsible for convincing minorities that there's no point in making any effort because the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy won't allow them to. 

 

And I deeply resent the presumption both that (a) minorities aren't making any effort / believe that there's no point in making any effort and that (b) because a view is constantly propounded, minorities will necessarily act in accordance with that view. Not everyone's a lazy sheep.

Edited by realpseudonym
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's the trouble. I don't really see anything we're talking about as "debatable". Systemic racism is real. In Canada, "higher education" (among many other systems) is not financially accessible for many people. Oppression is a real and important issue, and there are ways to help alleviate it through working in law. 

 

I am honestly not trying to be disagreeable, I just don't see where the argument is unless someone is truly ill-informed. It seems like people are just digging for an argument where there isn't one and meanwhile asserting the importance of "seeing other perspectives"—I see you, I hear you, these are the same narratives steeped throughout any neoliberal society. 

 

 

Are you familiar with government student loans and professional lines of credit from banks?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I deeply resent the presumption both that (a) minorities aren't making any effort / believe that there's no point in making an effort and that (b) because a view is constantly propounded, minorities will necessarily act in accordance with that view. Not everyone's a lazy sheep.

 

If from childhood you are told non-stop that society is set up for you to fail then you end up failing. There are some who don't buy into this rubbish but, unfortunately, many people do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rape exceptionalism means there is something "special" or "different" about sexual assault as distinct from other crimes and traumatic experiences.  You can only think that if you think women and their sexuality are delicate little flowers who get forever soiled and broken by a rape.... kind of like Zuker was saying - "it murders their souls." I mean, WTF?  I still have a soul, asshole!

 

I know Zuker was in law school long before that - that's my point.  He didn't learn about consent, so he doesn't really understand it.  Nor does Justice Camp on the other side of things. Why would using an old white guy not help my point?  They are most of the judges.  If we are trying to raise a new generation that is more aware, then we have to give them better tools than those guys had, or we'll get more of the same from equally ill-informed but well-meaning people.

 

 

Look, I highly respect people who have the strength to recover from traumatic events. There are women who kill themselves after being assaulted, there are women who bounce back quickly, and a lot of women in between. Right now, the sympathy of society has been tuned for those who need the most help recovering, and I think that's fine. It's better to be care too much than not enough imo. If some women don't need the assistance or accommodation, then more power to them. I don't think anyone does, and certainly no one should, view rape survivors as weak or broken, but rather as tough in their ability to persevere and overcome. In the same way that nobody looks contemptuously at vets who suffer PTSD/depression. 

 

And I think all old white guys are bad examples because you're arguing that we're giving victims too much leeway in society and in school. I think the end result, even if consent was not explicitly taught, will not be students who graduate with Zuker's perspective on women. If anything, you would probably have legal minds tilting in the other direction, thinking of women as "delicate flowers" that need accommodation and coddling, as you declared above. Plus Zuker sucked so much because understood consent the way he originally learned it (or not) and never updated his perspective. If someone were not to learn about consent in law school today, but then had to do something criminal related, like being a criminal judge, they would still be required to learn the current law and not the 1950's version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If from childhood you are told non-stop that society is set up for you to fail then you end up failing. There are some who don't buy into this rubbish but, unfortunately, many people do.

 

It is not well-meaning but under-educated, misguided people that send the message to marginalized people that they are set up to fail.  They learn that from society - from their experiences in school, at work, with police, wherever.  They see their parents' difficulties and learn that those will become their problems too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I highly respect people who have the strength to recover from traumatic events. There are women who kill themselves after being assaulted, there are women who bounce back quickly, and a lot of women in between. Right now, the sympathy of society has been tuned for those who need the most help recovering, and I think that's fine. It's better to be care too much than not enough imo. If some women don't need the assistance or accommodation, then more power to them. I don't think anyone does, and certainly no one should, view rape survivors as weak or broken, but rather as tough in their ability to persevere and overcome. In the same way that nobody looks contemptuously at vets who suffer PTSD/depression. 

 

And I think all old white guys are bad examples because you're arguing that we're giving victims too much leeway in society and in school. I think the end result, even if consent was not explicitly taught, will not be students who graduate with Zuker's perspective on women. If anything, you would probably have legal minds tilting in the other direction, thinking of women as "delicate flowers" that need accommodation and coddling, as you declared above. Plus Zuker sucked so much because understood consent the way he originally learned it (or not) and never updated his perspective. If someone were not to learn about consent in law school today, but then had to do something criminal related, like being a criminal judge, they would still be required to learn the current law and not the 1950's version. 

 

Zuker does think of women as delicate flowers that need accommodation and coddling, so you're making my point.  And by putting that in a judgment, he handed the accused an appeal and quite possibly, the complainant will have to come back and testify again, so how does that serve her?

 

Assistance and accommodation are fine, but not at the cost of properly teaching a class.  The assistance and accommodation needs to happen before law school, not during.

 

I didn't say anything about victims getting too much leeway.  There are times when it is appropriate to focus on victims and times when it is not, as with most things.

Edited by providence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My example didn't change a whit. My hypothetical woman was always homeless, self-harming, schizophrenic, and generally didn't look like the typical rich, privileged white person who gets into law school despite being so cognitively limited that they have to "study for the LSAT". And of course she didn't "write the LSAT" and "do up a competitive application package" (or attend university, for that matter). These are things you can only do if you're incredibly privileged. 

 

So, okay. Rich white man who has been able to jump through the hoops ("study for the LSAT" because he's too dumb to read a simple passage and answer some simple questions about it without months and months of preparation; pay hundreds of dollars to write the LSAT; pay tens of thousands of dollars to get a BA; always attend class and complete assignments because his health allowed him to) vs. a person who has been unable to do any of those things due to illness. That's what my example always was, and it's reflective of your privilege that you made the hilarious assumption that the black woman would have prepared a competitive application. Which of these people gets into law school? Obviously the one who jumped through the hoops. And I'm not even saying that's inherently terrible. There do have to be hoops. But there's no arguing that many people cannot access higher education due to personal circumstances, and that law school is thus inaccessible to them. The fact that you seem to not even be able to imagine those people---the fact that I say, "imagine a black woman with schizophrenia" and you imagine that she has a BA and an LSAT score in hand---is just a failure on your part to comprehend anything outside your own privilege.

 

In response to the bolded bits, firstly, for your sake I honestly hope your're trolling. You seriously think you don't need to study for the LSAT? I have a friend who shared the same view and he ended up scoring in the 140s on his first try. This is just so stupid I don't know where to begin. This is a testament to your ignorance. 

 

Secondly, "the hilarious assumption that the black woman would have prepared a competitive application". That quote right there could have been taken from a discussion on stormfront. Just because someone is black does not mean that they are a basket case. I can't beleive I just had to say that. Sameway, just because someone is white does not mean that they've had everything handed to them on a silver platter. I know many white people who work two jobs in the summer and even work through school. For christ's sake, stop being a racial determinist. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not well-meaning but under-educated, misguided people that send the message to marginalized people that they are set up to fail.  They learn that from society - from their experiences in school, at work, with police, wherever.  They see their parents' difficulties and learn that those will become their problems too.  

 

I know many black people in Canada who are doing extremely well. Neither them nor their parents have ever had issues "in school, at work, with police". They're also all african immigrants rather than native born blacks so perhaps that explains it. The left has had more time to brainwash the native blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know many black people in Canada who are doing extremely well. Neither them nor their parents have ever had issues "in school, at work, with police". They're also all african immigrants rather than native born blacks so perhaps that explains it. The left has had more time to brainwash the native blacks.

 

OMG.  There are "African immigrants" doing well and "African immigrants" not doing well.  There are "native blacks" doing well and "native blacks" not doing well.

 

This doesn't negate the issue of police brutality or racial profiling - obviously, not every single black person gets profiled - or the fact that black people as a whole face racism and lesser outcomes, though many individual blacks are successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuker does think of women as delicate flowers that need accommodation and coddling, so you're making my point.  And by putting that in a judgment, he handed the accused an appeal and quite possibly, the complainant will have to come back and testify again, so how does that serve her?

 

Assistance and accommodation are fine, but not at the cost of properly teaching a class.  The assistance and accommodation needs to happen before law school, not during.

 

I didn't say anything about victims getting too much leeway.  There are times when it is appropriate to focus on victims and times when it is not, as with most things.

 

 

 

Oh my bad, I was thinking about the other old white guy. I have no idea what Zuker's problem is - it seems almost personal for him. In any case, I never said that it shouldn't be taught. Nor do I think that everything should be censored or assumed to trigger people. But in the same way that a warning is given before people on a jury are shown pictures of dead bodies, dead children, graphic images etc. I think it's worth giving a warning when you're about to start a difficult conversation about the nitty gritties of sexual assault. It doesn't necessarily make anyone weak, but it gives them an opportunity to not participate rather than force them to leave (publicly) in the middle of the conversation or sit through it and deal with potential anguish. Sometimes PTSD lasts for many, many years, and lingers. Do we really want to tell people they can't be lawyers at all until they've completely cleared it from their psyches? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this hasn't already been pointed out, but simply being able to take out a loan does not mean you can afford to pay it off. People default on loans all the time.

 

Get good grades and go into biglaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG.  There are "African immigrants" doing well and "African immigrants" not doing well.  There are "native blacks" doing well and "native blacks" not doing well.

 

This doesn't negate the issue of police brutality or racial profiling - obviously, not every single black person gets profiled - or the fact that black people as a whole face racism and lesser outcomes, though many individual blacks are successful.

 

Have you considered the possibility that if a black person is not "doing well" that could be due to their life choices rather than white supremacy?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my bad, I was thinking about the other old white guy. I have no idea what Zuker's problem is - it seems almost personal for him. In any case, I never said that it shouldn't be taught. Nor do I think that everything should be censored or assumed to trigger people. But in the same way that a warning is given before people on a jury are shown pictures of dead bodies, dead children, graphic images etc. I think it's worth giving a warning when you're about to start a difficult conversation about the nitty gritties of sexual assault. It doesn't necessarily make anyone weak, but it gives them an opportunity to not participate rather than force them to leave (publicly) in the middle of the conversation or sit through it and deal with potential anguish. Sometimes PTSD lasts for many, many years, and lingers. Do we really want to tell people they can't be lawyers at all until they've completely cleared it from their psyches? 

 

The jury get told they may see graphic material, but then they can't leave - they have to see it.  So that's different than a trigger warning that lets you leave so you don't see or hear it.  And my point is you should have to learn it - so whether you leave or you stay, you have to tackle the material one way or another.  However long it takes, it takes.  Or maybe law is not for you.  Not everything is for everyone at every time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • I imagine the majority of people don't fill out this section actually (don't quote me on this though cause I could be wrong). Or if they do, a large portion of them really don't have an entirely valid reason for doing so. They simply do it cause it's an option which they think will improve their chances of being admitted. I know for myself anyways, none of the four categories really applied to me, and I wasn't about to make up some poor excuse for why I was "disadvantaged" during my undergrad (although I understand that is not the only reason why someone may fill out Part B). Don't get me wrong though, that's not to say there aren't many cases where people don't have a valid reason! I have heard some pretty crazy situations where the individual has every reason in the world to fill it out.
    • A really big yacht vs a slightly smaller yacht, I think is the main difference in pay.
    • Others with more experience feel free to chime in, but I'd negotiate. They've spent a year vetting your work and offered to hire you back. This means they like you, your work is competent enough, and they've already spent time and money training you to become this competent. In short, they're unlikely to walk away at the first sight of negotiation. You've already found out they're offering you bottom of the ladder pay (though be careful with wide averages and practice types), so you're not being unreasonable with asking for more. Last, negotiation can help bring out certain benefits you'd enjoy in lieu of extra pay, that would be cheaper for the employer. For example, maybe some commission from work you bring in, or insurance benefits, gas expenses (they can write those off as a business expense), etc. So don't be afraid to get creative (within reason).
    • I received two invites in March last year (one on the 12th and the other I don’t remember). I wouldn’t give up yet!
    • I second this advice. Start studying and write the LSAT as soon as you can.

×
×
  • Create New...