Let us in

28/4/2014

MELISSA PEACH

Spotted: two law students who refused to let me into the law building 20 minutes before it opened during the break. ‘Sorry,’ they simpered through the glass. ‘The building opens at 10:00.’

Seething inwardly, I couldn’t help but wonder who these parvenus thought they were, why they wouldn’t just let me in only minutes before opening hours, and why they were able to tauntingly study in plain view of the plebes outside. I then realised that they must belong to a law student committee or journal, thus affording them the privilege to avoid the rules imposed on the rest of us.

The fact that only those on certain student committees and journals get 24-hour access to the law building is ludicrous. This policy feeds into the elitism and entitlement that already runs rampant throughout the law school.

What is it exactly that makes this elite group of students better than the rest of us? Are other law students not worthy enough to come and go as they please?

Is it because committee and journal members have much more important work to do than other law students? Doubtful. This assumes that the students with unfettered access to the law building have a higher volume of work, and that this work is more important.

However, many law students uninvolved in the law journals or committees juggle other (impressive) time-consuming extracurriculars and part-time jobs outside the law school bubble. Furthermore, some of this ‘important’ work consists of trivial tasks that could easily be accomplished by trained apes.

Do these law school nobles even use their 24-hour access to work on committee matters, or do they use it to study? I find it highly unlikely that anyone with this privilege would only use it to work on matters pertaining to their student groups and not also take advantage of the silent law building to catch up on schoolwork.

And what of regular law students, reduced in the eyes of the law school to commerce student status? If we dare stay after the building has closed, we will promptly be ushered out by the law school security guards, as I know all too well.

Are we a safety hazard, not trustworthy enough to enjoy the privilege of after-hours access? When I asked one of the security guards, who asked not to be named, whether he thought all law students should be allowed after-hours access, he stated ‘I don’t make the rules, I just enforce them.’ Upon further questioning, he said ‘Wait, are you interviewing me?’

In any case, I fail to see the problem with granting this privilege to all law students. Aren’t all those who swipe in accounted for anyway?

For those of you screeching about the merits of work-life balance and how limited hours for the ‘common’ law student encourages this, then you’re in the wrong profession. If you’re so adamant about having work-life balance, then have one. Just don’t impose this fantasy on the rest of us.

All law students should have 24-hour access to the law building, regardless of whether or not they’re in some self-entitled committee. The current policy is elitist and unfair. Let us in.

William Stephenson

28/4/2014 02:00:43 pm

I have some serious problems with this article. I am usually a fan of De Minimis but this is little more than a rant, and a poorly constructed one at that. Just some of the problems;

"I then realised that they must belong to a law student committee or journal, thus affording them the privilege to avoid the rules imposed on the rest of us."

Well this just isn't correct. People who have full access to the law school include all staff (including RAs), higher research degree students (PHDs, MLMs and other RHDs) as well as those in journals and the like. One of the reasons RHDs are treated differently is because they are doing a different degree. In any case, anyone who lets a student in is essentially taking responsibility for the person they let in, so they are quite entitled to refuse others entry. But I'll focus on your main thrust, that being journals and committee members.

"Furthermore, some of this ‘important’ work consists of trivial tasks that could easily be accomplished by trained apes."

Now this is just offensive. Seriously, lift your game. This is not a gossip column. Taking cheap shots at the people who are working hard (voluntarily) for committees and journals is low and not an acceptable standard of journalism.

"Are we a safety hazard, not trustworthy enough to enjoy the privilege of after-hours access? When I asked one of the security guards, who asked not to be named, whether he thought all law students should be allowed after-hours access, he stated ‘I don’t make the rules, I just enforce them.’ Upon further questioning, he said ‘Wait, are you interviewing me""

I am not sure what the second sentence adds here at all. If its a cheap shot at the security guards, or an attempt to get a laugh at their expense, I am pretty unimpressed. In any case, the caricature of the security guards you are drawing here is disrespectful.

"For those of you screeching about the merits of work-life balance and how limited hours for the ‘common’ law student encourages this, then you’re in the wrong profession. If you’re so adamant about having work-life balance, then have one. Just don’t impose this fantasy on the rest of us."

Again, I have some serious issues with the phrasing here. Mental health is a huge issue in the legal fraternity and in law schools generally. A strong case can be made that the law school owes a duty to its students with respect to mental health, which enforcing people to go home is helping to discharge. Labeling people (like myself) who care about this issue as "screeching about work-life balance" mistakes abuse for argument. As for the comment "you are in the wrong profession", and that those people are living in a "fantasy" - what utter crap. Working in the law is not just about working in a top tier firm nor does working in a top tier firm mean that you can't have a work life balance. Stop abusing and denigrating those people who care about other things than the law, and portraying them in such a light. Quite frankly, for someone arguing against elitism, such a position is hypocritical in the extreme.

This article could be good. You could have started by asking faculty why they have this policy in place. You could have asked any of the MJIL, MULR, LSS and GLSA editors about their position. You could have done any manner of things to make a reasoned argument. Instead you went down a vitriolic path that is little more than a biased, condescending rant. I don't mind if you want to "hold the LSS to account" as was clearly a focus of your last edition. But at least have some respect to do it in an appropriate, reasoned, way.

John Azzopardi

29/4/2014 11:46:18 am

Well said Bill.

Anonymous MLS

28/4/2014 02:26:04 pm

De Minimis has crossed the line from its eponymous Latin meaning of being 'about minimal things' to essentially become a rag about nothing.

Junk

28/4/2014 03:39:50 pm

Whilst the article is junk, I agree we should all have 24 hour access. Good stuff.

Peter Botros

28/4/2014 04:47:23 pm

Agree? Disagree? want to write about how you feel? or about how you couldn't care less?
Submit your piece to [email protected]

MJIL Monkey

29/4/2014 06:23:44 am

Could you please source some trained apes so I don't have to work in the MJIL office until 2am?

Monkey Service Provider

29/4/2014 10:50:08 am

MJIL Monkey

I can definitely provide some trained apes for you. Basic trained apes cost around $10/hr. Trained apes who are literate and are well versed with AGLC compliance, however, will cost you more - around $20/hr.

Let me know whether this suits you.

bourgeois and proud of it

29/4/2014 12:04:29 pm

'MONKEY SERVICE PROVIDER' IS A CHUMP. I CAN PROVIDE ALL THE AGLC EXPERTISE YOU NEED AND ALL I REQUIRE IS 24HR ACCESS SO I CAN STUDY PPL BY MYSELF ON LEVEL 3

Patrick Easton

29/4/2014 02:48:53 pm

All hours access to the law building has been raised and discussed with faculty on many occasions over the last couple of years. I have been involved in the discussions so, for those interested, these are the challenges of access:

1. Cost and security of whole building. Maintaining security all hours is a significant cost to the university. As there are other all hours library facilities on campus, as well as security escorts available to accompany students between buildings at night, it is seen as unnecessary to maintain an additional all-hours space. The law building is also seen as a particularly expansive space to keep open. The other all-hours libraries and study spaces tend to have a more limited floor space and require less resources to supervise.

2. Risk of theft and damage to property. Without watchful eyes of students and staff, the same ones requested by the library to self-police non-law student access to the sacred Level 3 study space, there is a greater risk of property loss and vandalism. This is particularly relevant to the law school with the immense value of the library collections.

3. Cleaning. The spick and span building you walk into every morning is the result of pretty thorough late night cleaning, particularly of the heavy use areas of Ground Level to Level 3. Having students around as all the floors are washed in particular presents hazards.

2. Duty of care to students. Pretty standard and, in part, linked to points 1 and 3. As Bill mentioned above, the people who access the law building outside of standard hours are largely the staff and doctoral students to whom the university has different obligations to those of students. (I have forgotten the detail of this argument but it sounded very reasonable.)

The faculty have been receptive to requests for additional opening hours and over the last two years additional opening hours and study spaces have been made available around the exam period.

Bottom line, yeah it would be nice to have 24-hour access all semester, but on balance I strongly agree with the faculty decision to maintain restricted hours. Resources can be better spent elsewhere.

29/4/2014 03:36:16 pm

A couple of additional notes:

1. I am yet to come across a major gripe of the student body, like opening hours, which the faculty weren't willing to engage with. Nor has a major gripe been mentioned in my presence which hasn't been already taken to faculty by a student rep or taken up with faculty subsequently.

2. *"4. Duty of care..."

29/4/2014 05:55:13 pm

It's a little disappointing that you felt as though attacking the LSS and other student bodies was the best way to make your point Melissa.

We're elected to represent your interests with Nick, Hannah and myself meeting with faculty regularly. If anything was to be done to change the status quo - your best chance to achieve change would be to work with us - send us an email and let us advocate for you - as we do regularly.

I'm not sure what it is about faculty exercising their right to grant access to certain groups, that justifies you diminishing your peers and the substantial work they do around the Law School.

Pointing at us and saying "they're not even that good!" doesn't really substantiate your argument. Yes, access to the building could be improved - that's certainly a valid point. Why do you need to attack your friends and colleagues to make it?

Comments are closed.

Let us in

Archives