You Cannot Be Pro Brain and Pro De Minimis

9/9/2021

Dear reader,

Through the course of my JD so far, De Minimis has been plagued by submissions which incite racism, sexism, and perhaps worst of all, the big-brained centrist “think”-piece that was “The Woke Oblivion.”

It is a testimony to the privilege of some at this law school that they see nothing wrong with speaking first on topics they know little about. This became obvious to me with “You Cannot Be Pro Choice and Pro Vaccine Mandate,” which couldn’t have had stronger “cis male speaking out of turn” energy if its author used the piece to announce their running for elected office with the Liberal Party.

The issue here is the prevalence of works which do little to promote constructive thought. We see too many articles which betray privilege; treating major issues as mere semantic curiosities, rather than considering the experiences of real people.

Before we proceed, yes, I have one of those privileged standpoints. If you’ve ever managed to peer through the blinding glare of my pale skin, you’d know that. I’m another cis white man with something to say. But the purpose of this article isn’t to play saviour or speak for anyone else. It’s to reflect on the state of this publication. We need more of the student body to bring forward their experiences and perspectives. We need more thought-provoking pieces, more witty zingers and satire, more high-quality discussions and debate in this publication. Don’t get me wrong. There’s plenty of articles published by this masthead that I’ve loved reading, and that they have published works polemic enough to inspire this chronically lazy student to write something is to the editorial team’s credit. Still, I don’t think the dogged “neutrality” claimed by them in publishing certain submissions, to the point of having to endure external probes into racial discrimination, is actually very neutral at all.

So what are we, the incensed law school public, to do about this state of affairs? It seems to me that we represent the overwhelming majority. Should the LSAT test what it’s supposed to, we are supposed to be rationally minded, intelligent people, and rationally minded, intelligent people tend to be upset when their law school, or an aspect thereof, represents values misaligned with their own. Furthermore, rationally minded, intelligent people tend not to propagate values such as vaccine scepticism, racism, or “anti-political correctness” (which, as far as I can tell, really means being anti making others feel comfortable, and anti allowing those who have not enjoyed as easy a life as you to join your elite spaces).

I don’t have much in the way of solutions. As evidenced by this article, I’m a much better complainer than anything else. But I have one suggestion. Drown it out. I have read tripe from uninformed people speaking out of turn during my degree. However, the far more memorable aspect of my degree has been the overwhelming number of passionate, intelligent, insightful, witty, funny, and attractive members of this law school. Yes, I’m talking to you, dear reader. The fit you wore in our last D&E tute? Mwah. No notes. Divine.

Where was I? Yeah, drown it out. It seems to me the editorial team of De Min won’t take responsibility for articles they tacitly support by publishing. Cowardice is their right. At least, if this article is published, they are somewhat consistent. So given that cowardice is the right of the editorial team, and given you and I, dear reader, are not members of said editorial team, nor of the Very Special Clique of Private School Lads Who Haven’t Matured a Day Since Their Last Regatta, that leaves only the passionate, intelligent, et cetera people I mentioned earlier. I know you can produce high quality works. I know you have unique and fascinating stories to tell. I know I would enjoy reading your stories far more than the aforementioned works.

I can’t force anybody to write anything. Nor should they feel like they have to. In an ideal world, the editorial team would recognise that they’re aspiring lawyers, not journalists. Their masthead’s name means “trifling matters” or some such. Few things should be more effective reminders that it is not, and need not be, a bastion of “journalistic freedom.” For that reason, their version of “editorial neutrality” is disingenuous. All the same, I think the best way for this law school to enjoy an enriching unofficial newsletter is for people to write good content and submit it. You, dear reader, have the power to produce something more entertaining and thought-provoking than “I’ve never experienced a single hardship and I am very smart and everyone else in my law school is very stinky and stupid.”

With love,

James Wilkinson, who doesn’t need a pseudonym.

The views in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of De Minimis or its Editors.

So scary!!!

9/9/2021 09:02:42 am

people can’t handle a different opinion…inciting bigotry? What a joke.

‘I don’t like it, therefore it’s racism and sexism, therefore let’s censor it.’

Jimmy

9/9/2021 09:29:33 am

Hi SO SCARY!!!,

I think you raise a fair point in your response. We SHOULD be vigilant about people falsely accusing others of bigotry and so on when in fact they're just expressing a difference of opinion. It's a malicious and immature tactic. I would hope that what you take away from this article is that informed, good faith debate and disagreement isn't a bad thing. I never once mentioned censorship; the closest I got was alluding to a braver editorial policy - surely you'd agree if you dislike my article so much :))

Have a good day, and remember to stay mad!

Missing the point

9/9/2021 09:36:25 am

I don’t like it BECAUSE it’s racism and sexism.
You need to take a refresher course on logical reasoning.

LAUGHABLE

9/9/2021 09:55:28 am

Perhaps your the one that needs a refresher on logical reasoning given how quickly you seem to brandish opinions as 'racist' and 'sexist'. Making a poor analogy is hardly sexism

wat

9/9/2021 10:18:46 am

No, the point was literally that a lovely crowd of MLS intellectuals love to brandish something as racist or sexist simply because they don't like the view, not because they have substantiated it is actually racist or sexist in some way.

9/9/2021 10:27:36 am

Hi LAUGHABLE and WAT (great names, by the way),

I know quoting myself is very self-indulgent, but earlier I wrote:

"I have read tripe from uninformed people speaking out of turn during my degree."

Fellxs, we're tired of hearing your views because they're banal and unjustified. It's not living in an echo chamber because I only agree with people who are willing to advance arguments in favour of behaving with kindness towards other people and/or allowing them to speak for themselves. That you get so defensive over terms like racism and sexism means you're probably skirting very close to them anyways, and is that really where you wanna be? Stop playing defence and write something justifying your arguments if mine are so wrong.

Smart lad

9/9/2021 10:47:20 am

Jimmy, correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is on the onus of the person accusing another of being sexist/racist to justify that claim, something you haven't done.

How about you justify your argument in the first place? that was literally the point of the first comment, that you haven't done so.

9/9/2021 10:58:29 am

Thanks for playing, SMART LAD,

I'm sorry, but I won't grace this comments section with the best definition of bigotry that I can come up with off the top of my head. Your logic is very sound, that those who make a claim have to justify it, but it is not an original claim on my part that the articles I mention in my own are bigoted in tone: it is one I agree with based on a number of reasons that wouldn't fit well into a comments section. That's why this article is structured as a call to action. If you truly believe racism and sexism are terms that are bandied around unfairly, then I'd be receptive to seeing you argue that out; so too would I love to see someone with first-hand experiences of bigotry explain why the things you might deem not to be racist and sexist, for instance, are.

So, SMART LAD, I won't play defence either. I set the goal posts on this article, and it was intended to start a conversation about edgelords having free reign of De Min. I've achieved that in my eyes.

Oh Jimbo

9/9/2021 10:58:35 am

'That you get so defensive over terms like racism and sexism means you're probably skirting very close to them anyways',

incredible that a law student at the worlds #1 law school can have such terrible reasoning...while i can't speak for 'laughable' and 'wat', the issue i have is with the tendency of certain MLS students to label opinions as 'racist' and 'sexist', merely because they don't agree with them. it takes away from ACTUAL racism and sexism.

and what exactly do you mean by informed? what are these relevant experiences that one must have before they speak on an issue? who is the arbitrator? who decides who is informed enough? is it you, oh benevolent jimbo? am i not informed enough for you? because unlike you, i am both an ethnic minority and a woman. i have actually faced racism and sexism, and i am sick and tired of your ilk trying to control the discourse and labelling things as 'racist' and 'sexist' so liberally. truth is, you are in an echo chamber, no matter how hard you try to deny it

9/9/2021 11:03:31 am

Hi OH JIMBO,

You raise excellent questions, and I totally agree. I certainly shouldn't be the arbitrator, I'm sure we can both agree on that. And as I mentioned earlier, people SHOULD be vigilant about disingenuous allegations of bigotry. Recall that my article was about getting more diverse voices involved: not because it's tokenistic or would soothe my conscience, but because it makes for better content and a more informed law school public.

Threw up a bit

9/9/2021 09:21:55 am

What a brilliantly patronising article...and your throwaway line of self-flagellation did little to tone the moral superiority and self-sanctimony. 'We need more of the student body to bring forward their experiences', but only experiences that you agree with, isn't that right James?

MLS students could do with having their views challenged a bit and hearing from different perspectives. Does James honestly think that he will be shielded by his middle class MLS echo chamber forever? Does he not realise that in his future career as a lawyer he will have to deal with people of widely divergent opinions? Better get used to it now.

Hear everyone

9/9/2021 09:33:53 am

Yup!! Everyone should absolutely hear about my experience on how I hate a certain race group at MLS and think they should be boycotted, and how abortion, something that has no effects on anyone but the person getting one, to be equated with getting vaccinated against a highly contagious virus!!

LSS

9/9/2021 10:08:37 am

Hi HEAR EVERYONE,

Boycotting a particular race?

Sounds like the LSS's inaugural people of colour lunch.

AKA - The No-Whites Lunch

Regards,
a coloured folk!

RE:LSS

9/9/2021 11:34:12 am

Sorry, did you want everyone in the law school invited to every Queer, Womens, Indigenous, and Disability event too? In the spirit of inclusivity?

Get a grip. No one's being discriminated against by being left out of spaces that aren't for them.

try harder

9/9/2021 11:45:24 am

Oh no, I'm sorry, you're right.

I'll just go ahead and make my lunch for everyone but asians. That's cool, right?

In all seriousness, the difference is, this is exclusionary. It's literally, everyone but one type of person is invited. It's not a space 'for disabled people', for example.

There is no justifiable reason to completely and solely exclude a single race from a space. Try harder to justify your racism.

9/9/2021 09:35:54 am

Hi THREW UP A BIT,

I'm under no illusion that not everybody agrees with me. Nor should they. What I'm actually in favour of is well-justified arguments, especially from those who have relevant experiences when it comes to the topic matter at hand. That is what I have seen a decided lack of throughout my degree, and that is what I welcome.

Also joke's on you, I'm high class as hell xoxo

Whip for your own back

9/9/2021 04:28:53 pm

Hi James, If what you're in favour of is a "braver" editorial policy that rejects submissions that aren't well justified, I'm sure you would be in favour of this piece being binned.

So in your world, you accuse writers of racism and sexism, and you don't have to substantiate your claims because "it is not an original claim on my part that the articles I mention in my own are bigoted in tone."
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a conclusive determination on behalf of the student body that these pieces were bigoted which absolves you of your obligation to justify your accusation that some of your fellow students are inciting racism and sexism. Or maybe its the echo chamber you deny you inhibit which has implanted this impression in your mind.

There is a lot of laughably shallow bravery in your quip about not needing a pseudonym, for a piece so blatantly sycophantic to the vocal elements of the cohort.

truth

9/9/2021 04:35:37 pm

Ice cold.

9/9/2021 05:05:01 pm

Hi WHIP FOR YOUR OWN BACK,

I think you might have missed the point a little bit. The point of my piece was not to justify why I think certain others should be held to a higher standard: there were a number of extremely eloquent articles written by others in defence of that position, to the point that I don't deem it necessary to duplicate that work for your benefit.

If it really makes you feel better, substitute "racism," "sexism," and "bigotry" in my article for "being a fuckwit," since people can't seem to find genuine issues besides semantic curiosities.

9/9/2021 05:26:47 pm

Oh I see now how I missed your logic James.

From: "it is not an original claim on my part that the articles I mention in my own are bigoted in tone" so that I can accuse fellow students of racism and sexism without justifying it.

To: "there were extremely eloquent articles by others" that they are racist and sexist, so that I can accuse fellow students of racism and sexism without justifying it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Substitute "being a fuckwit": I would never talk that way about you James, I'll leave it at disillusioned.

Jokes aside, don't waver now big man, your fellow students have incited racism and sexism, and you absolutely don't have have to substantiate this accusation, because some other students said they were, and they were right because you think they are right.

9/9/2021 05:31:34 pm

Actually, that about sums it up, yeah! Thank you for clarifying my position. I DO think my colleagues who made insightful points on their own are right, and I do think that case is closed.

Also, just for free, you can call me what you like.

9/9/2021 06:06:00 pm

Well then justice Wilkinson,

Thank you for your insightful ruling: "this is who is right and the ratio is obvious."

STINKY AND STUPID

9/9/2021 09:24:39 am

Fantastic way to encourage insightful discussion. By saying absolutely nothing of substance.

DM editor from years gone by

9/9/2021 09:54:18 am

Without a doubt the quality of DM has fallen off. That last article equating abortion bans and vaccine mandates was one of the worst articles on here I've seen. As editors, DM should be galvanising the JD cohort to write interesting and engaging pieces (these may be controversial at times, but definitely not all the time). This is a great call to action from the author and I hope that other students are not dissuaded from joining the editorial team and attempting to revitalise the paper next year. Simply, the cohort needs to write and tell a diverse range of stories like DM had in years past and the editorial team needs to ensure that editors do not use the platform as their political soapbox. I hope that this low effort year from DM does not kill this rag off. I would encourage this year's editors to spend the rest of the year republishing good articles from past years so that the new cohort can see what the quality used to be like, and hopefully will be inspired to write like that again. Rant over - please don't let DM die or become a weird haven for right wing libertarians.

9/9/2021 10:04:07 am

Hi DM EDITOR FROM YEARS GONE BY,

Thanks so much for taking the time to read and leave your thoughts, as well as playing a part in making De Min what it can be.

thanks

9/9/2021 01:24:53 pm

well said

Dunno

9/9/2021 03:35:57 pm

Is there evidence that the last was actually written by DM editors though? I don't know how many submissions DM rejects, but if it is not a lot and DM is simply publishing articles sent in by the law student body, I think it is doing a pretty good job at fulfilling its role.
I want to read the views of the people in the cohort irrespective of what they are, certainly not the views of a small group of editors who think they know what people want to read.

I reckon DM does a good job of covering a pretty diverse range of opinions from the student body.

Where else?

9/9/2021 04:07:45 pm

Consider that people with conservative view points don't really have a space to share their views - the anonymity of DM fills this space.

And it is only a fool who thinks it is not a risk taking exercise to share those views with your name attached to it - even the most reasonable views of which, if they don't tow the left line, get lambasted as bigoted in one way or another.

I think the risk that DM becomes a 'political soapbox' for right wing libertarians is most probably the fault of many on the left who would rather insincerely dismiss a challenging idea as bigoted instead of countering it on its merits.

I mean sure, no one wants to publish obscene or genuinely bigoted content, but who is the arbiter of that? A certain demographic of people like to assume that role, and worse of all, make sure EVERYONE ELSE is subject to their concept of obscene/bigoted content.

I am making no comment on the specific articles in question, but a general observation.

Do you need to be spoonfed?

9/9/2021 05:30:32 pm

Stop being a generalist, observing, fence-sitter and actually think critically about the content you are reading. Stop making 'no comment' comments.

Think for a second – the De Min Editorial team has endorsed, and stood by, their publication of a piece that calls for the exclusion of ALL Chinese nationals in Australia on illegitimate and unreasonable grounds, which would frankly be unlawful and discriminatory on the basis of Australian law. This was confirmed by our own professor, as well as a number of other commenters.

There is no gray space on this matter. There is no individual "conception" of whether that is racist or bigoted. There isn't really room for debate. It just IS, based on the definition of "bigotry" and "racism" and "discrimination" - Google it. Sometimes content IS what it is. Don't put it under a lame umbrella label of "conservatism" and legitimise it, as if it deserves a second's thought. It doesn't instigate intelligent discourse and debate, doesn't fulfill any of De Min's objectives or purposes, and doesn't merit a discussion. No one is "insincerely" dismissing it - everyone has read it, weighed up its merits, and felt absolutely disgusted. Scales heavily tilt towards an overall opinion that certain pieces published this year have been absolutely rubbish.

To answer your question on behalf of everyone else who understands what "racism" and "bigotry" is: YES, the onus and responsibility is on the three editors to actually filter out content that is unproductive and hurtful to students in our community. They don't need to assume the role of an "arbiter" to know what does and doesn't cross the line. And as above, the line is often very clearly drawn for them.

look in the mirror

9/9/2021 06:03:40 pm

Yeh, but you see, I never said that anything and everything that has ever been posted here is not bigoted. Just a basic strawman you have pulled.

I am criticising repeated and concentrated efforts by the strong left leaning types to try and pressure the rest of the world into conforming with their world view. In this case, a standard of bigotry that no one in their right mind would accept.

Here is some specificity for you - the vaccine/abortion article is not racist or bigoted, there you go. And the efforts to paint it as such are as weak as the authors reasoning in substantiating their view.

also...

9/9/2021 06:05:15 pm

and btw, its not even conservatism, its literally anything that doesn't fit the woke narrative. thats the real problem

DO YOU NEED TO BE SPOONFED?

10/9/2021 03:04:41 pm

Not referring to the vaccine/abortion article specifically. Sharing the same sentiment as the author of this article - commenting on the quality of De Min articles generally this year, under the leadership of the current editorial team. Example article referenced to provide a sample of the type of rubbish that has been published on this website.

I don't think that the vaccine article is racist and never referred to it as such. Please reread this article and my comment again.

Bree (who also doesn't need a pseudonym)

9/9/2021 09:59:04 am

It had to be said. De Minimis has become a living example of Popper's paradox of intolerance: the more the student body continues to tolerate De Minimis' "free speech at all costs" editorial policy the less inclusive the law school becomes for others. And should we not be working towards inclusivity rather than away from it?

Before you get mad and angrily type out a paragraph in response, let me remind you I don't care and won't read it.

Self awareness and self-reflection are virtues, folks.

No skin in the game

9/9/2021 10:38:54 am

It always amazes me how quickly people will jump to defend those who choose to play devils advocate discussing issues that have no significant impact on their lives. The sometimes valid defence of ‘I’m allowed to challenge/confront your views’ can only extend so far. The ability to play devil's advocate on an issue such as abortion is nothing more than a sign of privilege, akin to someone who has never/likely will never experience racism in their lives commenting on ‘pc culture’. Sometimes a person’s opinion on a particular topic is far less relevant than they’d like to believe…

Hear hear

9/9/2021 10:04:21 pm

Hard agree

VALUABLE

9/9/2021 11:02:01 am

Good article. Salute James for putting his name to his opinion.

The main point we should all take to heart: if we want De Min to publish better stuff - we must be the ones to write it.

Well done!

9/9/2021 11:29:14 am

Well done, James! The butt hurt commentators just go to prove exactly what you're saying about the select few of the student body who clearly have a hard time critically thinking about an issue before they go and spew that ignorance onto us.
Hope De Min editors do better. Free Speech is a convenient right to hide behind when you're giving a platform to ill-informed tools.

The world is wider than melbourne's inner suburbs

9/9/2021 11:36:03 am

Why do such privileged people (don't want to make assumptions, but this is MLS) always bring up that other people are from private schools. Such pot calling the kettle black about it.

If most of the people saying that stepped outside of their echo chamber they would be rinsed for for the school they went to/career they're in and in honestly shows a lack of self awareness to act like they have a leg to stand on. It would be laughably hypocritical to talk like that almost anywhere else.

You are breathing some very refined air.

9/9/2021 11:54:07 am

Hi THE WORLD IS MUCH WIDER THAN MELBOURNE'S INNER SUBURBS,

You can rest easy knowing that I AM a hypocrite. I went to an "elite" private school, and it is an experience I am grateful for. You're right in saying that we should all be willing to hold up a mirror to ourselves and identify our hypocrisies. Hope mine gave you a giggle.

THE WORLD IS WIDER THAN MELBOURNE'S INNER SUBURBS

9/9/2021 12:48:01 pm

That is fair, we could all be more aware of our own biases!

A question for Jimmy

9/9/2021 01:48:20 pm

Quick question for Jimmy -

Are you six feet wide, and six feet eight inches long, and a bed?

Because you're a King.

JIMMY'S PASSIONATE LOVER

9/9/2021 02:07:40 pm

Hello,

I can confirm that our beloved Jimmy is six foot and eight inches, but these are separate measurements. He also can in fact be slept with, therefore he is arguably a King, but I might be grumpy if you do.

Thank you for your time.

9/9/2021 02:19:29 pm

Hi A QUESTION FOR JIMMY and JIMMY'S PASSIONATE LOVER,

No one's gonna believe I didn't ghost write both of your comments, are they?

Lots of love!

Inspired

10/9/2021 12:40:37 pm

Reading comments on DM articles always gives me a confidence boost that no matter what I do I won’t be the dullest tool in the MLS shed <3 Thanks for speaking up Jimmy

Comments are closed.

You Cannot Be Pro Brain and Pro De Minimis

Archives