|
Issue 7, Semester 1, 2019 CONCERNED CITIZEN J*, burgeoning baby lawyer, was today shaken by a particularly controversial aspect of the law. Seeking the support of a fellow first-year, equally as ploughed with outrage, they proceeded to whisper in what a bystander described as what can only be called ‘a misapplication of the concept of stage whispers, given that the participants were neither on stage nor particularly interesting’. Their animated repartee further inconvenienced a fellow Juris Doctor Candidate at Melbourne Law School (according to LinkedIn), who sedulously commandeers a rare non-communal study desk for the purposes of undertaking an empirical study into how many pins they can hear drop in the silence of the space. “My work here is ruined”, they mimed exasperatedly to our undercover reporter. “I must now restart this JD experiment for the third time to ensure reliability and accuracy of my data”, noting that “this frivolity is uncalled for” and “why can’t people just shut the [REDACTED] up?”. Bound by the inflexibility of the library’s peremptory norm of maintaining dangerously low decibels, many attempted, in futility, to convey their abject dismay and disgust over furtive looks and scowls directed at the haplessly verbose conversationalists.  While the innate selfishness of the human race has, of course, been subject to much scrutiny and debate by philosophy majors as far back as humans can remember, reaching no definitive stance, colleagues of these two rascals ask that, at a bare minimum, MLS re-consider its admissions policy. “The least they can do is contact LSAC and ensure that, each year, at least three questions in the Logical Reasoning section be devoted to the pressing issue of silence in silent library spaces, with of course the only correct answer being the one that supports the most silence, and that incorrect responses to these questions result in immediate refusal of admission. I honestly don’t think these criminal, disgraceful humans belong here”, noted an enraged fourth-year. “They are imposters with a farcical understanding of the requirements of the legal profession”.
De Minimis has reached out (quietly) to these incorrigible rogues for comment. Concerned Citizen is Third Year JD Student, Anisha Thomas (Editor in Chief of De Minimis). Other articles in this issue:
Andrew
16/4/2019 04:44:57 pm
Honestly, this is the most relevant thing DM has published in a while.
Unconcerned lawful non resident
16/4/2019 06:48:49 pm
It’s a slippery slope, standards must be maintained. Today it is whispering, tomorrow it is having a fully fledged conversation about the bachelor. Where will it end? Cats and dogs living together in sin in the Law Library.
Lily
16/4/2019 10:29:03 pm
As an avid shoosher I feel very attacked!! It truly is a thankless duty Comments are closed.
|
Archives
October 2022
|
