The Absence of Outrage

Week 8, Semester 2

By Jimi Muirhead

De Minimis has been the forum for many a tantalising tantrum over my three years at MLS. From safe spaces to racism, from collusion to quotas and last semester’s discussion of content warnings. I, for one, have loved every minute of it. Nothing excites me more than seeing some spicy content within the pages of this magazine. But, alas, this semester has seen a woeful absence of outrage. For seven weeks I have waited hungrily for the next spicy development in the pages of De Minimis, yet sadly, have been left wanting. Over half a semester has gone by without any real DM drama.

The MLS cohort has a healthy culture of complaint, both within and outside the pages of De Minimis. While I find De Minimis debates extremely entertaining, I’ve also been surprised at the degree to which they have (sometimes) become a legitimate forum for progress at MLS. Since Tess McGuire, just last semester, expressed her concerns about the discussion of sensitive content in certain subjects, we’ve seen active work on these concerns in Criminal Law. And let’s not forget the collusion saga, which sent faculty into a meltdown resulting in an ‘audit’ of take-home assessments.

The same goes for the Law Students’ Society. In the past, this magazine has taken cracks at law ball pricing, gender representation, corporate obsession and the overall approachability of the MULSS. I must say that I am a little disappointed that in my year as Vice-President no serious jabs have been made towards us. Whether previous criticisms have been valid or not, they imbue in the committee a forced moment of self-reflection and assessment. I can only hope the same feelings are felt by faculty.

In reality, this magazine is watched by law school faculty with meerkat-like intensity. It’s always important to know where the next attack is coming from. Most teachers I speak to read DM regularly. I’ve heard comments made in DM articles brought up in faculty meetings. While it’s amusing to think of the traction some trolls in here can get, this attention demonstrates something important. The law school wants to hear our issues with the JD. Whether they actually look to improve on these issues is another thing altogether (see: the impending rejection to this latest lecture recording push) but they are listening.
    
It’s pretty impressive to see just how much a few pissed off law students can achieve. If there is something about this JD experience that objectively sucks, it’s important we make it known to the people who should do something about it (including the LSS).


So, I hope we see a bit more spice in the weeks to come! That’s the real power of this magazine as a public forum. If not for the betterment of the JD experience, then at least for us to vent on the issues that bother us most.