Equity Uncle
Volume 3, Issue 9, (Originally Published on Monday 6 May 2013)
 
Dear Equity Uncle,
 
We’re all high achievers, but playing a zero sum game. How do I celebrate with friends when I get the RA position/clerkship/associateship/job/journal editor they wanted? What happens when they get what I wanted? Is it possible to have real friends at law school?
 
Anxious Achiever
 
Dear AA,
 
Like life, law is only a zero sum game if you measure achievement by reference to other people. Equity cherishes other people. Equity adores the Joneses. Equity is a communist.
 
If you get that RA position your friend wanted, it is not yours alone. Equity requires that you hold that position on trust for everyone. Your achievement in life is everyone’s achievement in Equity.
 
Equity likes neither zero sum games nor game theory itself. Equity has not seen A Beautiful Mind, because Equity does not like Russell Crowe. Competition is neither good nor productive, and it shouldn’t come at the expense of friendship. Celebrate your friends’ achievements because they are also yours. Buy them a drink! And get two straws.
 
Equity Uncle
 
 
Equity Uncle

Thomas Ho
Volume 3, Issue 9, (Originally Published on Monday 6 May 2013)
 
The silence of God is just one of those points of discussion that won’t go away, especially in literature. For proof, one thinks of Shakespeare’s King Lear (and how King Lear itself also won’t go away), with perhaps the most infamously and indiscriminately silent (albeit pagan) gods ever put into a play.
 
Silence is set in 17th century Japan. The protagonist is a Portuguese Jesuit missionary by the name of Rodrigues who travels to Japan to investigate the persecution of Christians and the apostasy of his mentor, who is Cristóvão Ferreira. The novel is written in the 3rd person, but also epistolary in parts. We follow Rodrigues as he witnesses torture, endurance and apostasy. These events form a prism from which Rodrigues contemplates the eponymous silence of God, not least in the face of suffering. The questions that Silence poses are confronting, and it is easy to put oneself in the shoes of its vividly human characters; when Rodrigues questions and struggles to make sense of his world, one feels that he does so on behalf of all of us too.
 
Shusaku Endo does not offer us any easy answers or solutions in his beautiful novel, nor does he teach us how to approach silence. This novel is not a prescriptive piece of writing. What Endo does offer is a delicate and touching analysis of silence not as a void, but as an object or message on its own. Read this one feelingly. 9/10
 
Thomas Ho

Jess Sykes
Volume 3, Issue 9, (Originally Published on Monday 6 May 2013)
 
People fill your ears with all kinds of wisdom when it comes to coping strategies in stressful periods. Advice offered for Uni, for exam periods, for the inevitable personal breakdowns we all have occasionally. If, like me, you greeted week nine by looking up aneurism to check if you just had one, then it might be time to try some alternative methods of stress management.
 
Advice to exercise, eat healthily and not drink alcohol or caffeine is all well and good, but as someone who is currently unsure if they’re shivering from the cold or the DTs, it may not be overly realistic. And anyone who has ever tried to take coffee from a law student has probably not lived to tell the tale. That said, do your best, but maybe supplement with these additions:
 
At all costs try to avoid conversing with ‘study braggers’. I don’t want to be overly dramatic, but I’m fairly certain they have the potential to destroy entire civilisations with their swiping ego/word vomit combo. Obviously everyone should be able to discuss their successes and feel proud of their achievements, but when you’re using your skin primarily to stop your nerves exploding, you need reassuring friends.
 
Perhaps consider indulging in a nervous habit or two. I’m biting my lip as I type this, and have developed a charming eye twitch, which has the surprising result of causing a gentleman in the library to think I’m flirting with him.
 
Who knows, maybe I am.
 
Just do one thing at a time. And then look at some pictures of cats. Unless you’re someone who prefers to work in big chunks of time, in which case do one thing at a time, followed by other one things for a concentrated period, then look at some cats, eat some sweet treats and go for a walk. Repeat.
 
Remember all the times you thought you’d ruined your life by spending mass amounts of time in your underwear watching TV instead of studying/working, and how it actually was completely fine in the end. Obviously this should show you that you could probably have Doogie Houser’d this law business if you’d just kept your pants on and stopped procrastinating, but you’re fine.
 
And when that seemingly pointless topic is hurting your brainbox, think of David Sedaris’s wise words that regardless of the subject, the knowledge will come in handy once you hit middle age and start working crossword puzzles in order to stave off the terrible loneliness.
 
Jess Sykes

Nicholas Baum
Volume 3, Issue 9, (Originally Published on Monday 6 May 2013)
 
This Thursday, the Victorian Championship Moot is being held at the Federal Court, with third-years Josh Anderson, Lewis Cohen and Alex Maschmedt representing Melbourne Law School against Monash University.
 
Leaving the title of the event aside (a championship moot to which only two of Victoria’s seven law schools were invited), the selection of the team for this inaugural event raised some eyebrows.
 
Anderson and Cohen won the internal mooting competition in 2012, and were obvious selections. However, while Maschmedt has an enviable resume as a member and coach of the Jessup team, and will no doubt be a valuable contributor, no selection process was held for the final position.
 
Keeping on the theme of gender issues emphasised by the recent LSS ‘Pimp My Study’ campaign, this writer can think of a number of talented female mooters who were not considered for the position. Kat Yang, Rachel Macleod, and Sophie Molyneux are all former Jessup contestants, while Sally Buckley, Alex McClure, JK Muckersie, and Stephanie Rowan have all represented the law school at external moots – and this list is far from exhaustive.
 
Given the event in part represents Melbourne Law School to the legal profession, an all-male team is not, perhaps, the best look. Monash University, in much the same vein, is sending Duncan Wallace, Jamie Blaker and Lynton Brooks.
 
Nicholas Baum

Peter Botros
Volume 3, Issue 9, (Originally Published on Monday 6 May 2013)
 
Administrative Law students were left worse for wear this week after the faculty decided to give with one hand and take with the other.
 
Confusion over whether or not headings counted toward the word limit meant that many students found themselves only a few words over the limit. In fact, so many students had been caught in the ambiguity that the Admin staff decided to apply the Code 2 limit more leniently. However, many students were still dismayed with the results of what they felt was a harshly marked paper, the average being 11/20.
 
As students huddled into their groups, pulled out the calculators and re-evaluated their life choices, they were unaware of the looming danger. Prompted by concerns from students and the LSS Education Officers, the faculty was overruled by higher management, and it was decided that the code should be strictly enforced, and the papers remarked.
 
Chaos ensued. Frantic students, many of whom now found themselves with a failing grade, begged their lecturers to reconsider. The powerless lecturers could only offer sympathy, insisting that there was no right of review for this administrative decision.
 
It was clear that the debacle had divided students and faculty alike. Some took to Facebook to express their frustration and anger at what they saw as an intentional attempt to disadvantage them. Many others blamed the Admin staff who had acted beyond their power to begin with.
 
As the dust settled, everyone seemed to be thinking the same thought, one that they have often pondered in Admin Law; why didn’t they just get it right in the first place!
 
In this reporter’s opinion, the code description should be included with the instructions on all assignments and it should be consistently and strictly enforced (we already take this measure with regard to plagiarism). Now, all we can do is lick our wounds and spare a thought for the Student Centre, they had to recount all the papers four times.
 
Peter Botros

Anna Nodrum
Volume 3, Issue 9, (Originally Published on Monday 6 May 2013)
 
Over the last week the media has been abuzz with responses to independent federal MP Tony Windsor’s suggestion that the marriage equality debate be taken out of the hands of ‘you idiots’ (his fellow politicians) and put to the public via a referendum. A quick survey of opinion suggests that it is a bad idea, and here’s why:
 
Firstly, just because it is popular doesn’t mean it would be passed. The requirement of a double majority (majority of states and a majority of voters nationally) means referenda in Australia are difficult to carry. Historically, Australians have been reluctant to vote yes – the success rate is only 8 of 44.
 
Secondly, it would be expensive. The referendum would be an unnecessary expense for the government, but more importantly, would require both sides of the ‘debate’ to fund enormous educational campaigns. For groups advocating marriage equality the task would prove a heavy burden on already limited funds. Conversely, those opposed have a lot more money to spend and may use the opportunity to mount a damaging, homophobic advertising campaign (as they did in some US states).
 
Finally, it seems like a bit of a cop-out (to me at least). Politicians can’t just run a referendum every time they face a challenging decision, and rights and equality should not be made into a popularity contest. As far as I can tell, no one has outlined what the change would be; presumably it would involve amending s 51(xxi) (the marriage power) to include couples of any/all genders and sexes. The thing is, we don’t actually need to do this. Section 51(xxi) is broad enough to give the Commonwealth Parliament the power to amend the Marriage Act without any Constitutional change, and they would have to do this even if a referendum was passed.
 
As Australia falls further and further behind in the move towards Marriage Equality, it is easy to see why people are looking for alternatives to political lobbying – especially in the current climate of political uncertainty. And yes, a successful referendum would be a tremendous statement of public support for marriage equality, but it’s probably not worth the risk, expense and damage that might be caused – especially given there is a cheap and efficient alternative that just required a bit of political courage.
 
If you’re interested in this and other issues related to gender, sexuality and the law, come along to ‘Sex Talk: Bodies, Identity, and the Law’ on Tuesday, May 14 in room 920 for panel discussions and individual presentations by MLS students. Topics include, but are in no means limited to, marriage equity, prostitution and sex trafficking, and the legal recognition of ‘alternative genders’.
 
Light refreshments will be provided.
 
Anna Nodrum

Nicholas Baum
Volume 3, Issue 9, (Originally Published on Monday 6 May 2013)
 
The Law Students’ Society’s women’s officers have launched ‘PMS: Pimp My Study’, a monthly mental health and wellbeing initiative, to both acclaim and outrage.
 
The event, which provided students with lollies and ‘a selection of things we hope will make you smile’, was intended to help relieve stress and anxiety in light of the well-publicised rates of law student depression.
 
While generally students appreciated the gratuitous provision of sugar, some were critical of the promotion’s name and description.
 
“Comparing irrational crazy hormonal women to stressed and anxious students, playing on a supposed weakness of women to create amusement – these things only reinforce gender stereo-
types,” said third-year Sasha Ponniah.
 
“Not to mention trying to drum up sympathy for men tolerating ‘PMS’ in their female friends, lovers and girlfriends. This is disappointing, coming from the very people who are supposed to be supporting and promoting the interests of the female student body.”
 
Women’s Officers Brigitte Wise and Jess Stojkovski apologised for any offence caused, insisting this was not their intention, and announced that they would be removing references to ‘PMS’ from the event name.
 
“We would like to reiterate that this event was about providing study aids for all students, men and women,” Wise said last Sunday. “We do feel that providing study-aids to students for free is a worthwhile event and one that we have received many thanks from the student body for organising,” she continued, adding that they appreciated the feedback.
 
Meanwhile, as application season kicks off in earnest, the LSS 2013 careers program has begun with a number of evening practice area events, and formally launched last Wednesday with their seasonal clerkship guide and feedback event. The new evening format partially replaces the lunchtime seminars that were previously a May staple, and has been well-received, in particular from firm representatives.
 
Some MLS students found the candid clerkship feedback event to be a laudable addition to the assistance the LSS provides to students considering applying for a legal internship. “It was great to hear what the experience is like from students themselves,” said second-year Doug Porteous. “How many applications to submit, how to approach making a good impression in interviews, what sort of questions we’ll be asked, and perhaps brutally, what we can expect from our marks – these were all really useful things to know.”
 
However, some students have noted, with only a little puzzlement, that the session featured four female speakers. “Were the situation reversed, I can’t help but think that the lack of diversity would have been a real issue,” said one student, who wished to remain anonymous. Careers Director Ken Kour said the panel was selected on a gender-blind basis, with a focus on finding students with diverse experiences.
 
Nicholas Baum

Doug Porteous
Volume 3, Issue 9, (Originally Published on Monday 6 May 2013)
 
On Monday, 29 April the GLSA held a lunchtime discussion with Professor James Hathaway, international refugee and human rights lawyer and former Dean of the Melbourne Law School.
 
The discussion covered legal aspects of refugee and human rights law, including non-refoulement, non-discrimination and process obligations, as well as the Australian approach to ‘boat people’.
 
Professor Hathaway outlined his proposal to handle asylum-seekers: a burden (cost) and responsibility sharing arrangement amongst states that more fairly balances refugee intakes across the developed and developing world.
 
He also presented a compelling view of a progressive kind of conservatism in international law – that the best way of securing rights in international law is to argue gradually from ‘hard’ law rather than from a highly-stated humanitarianism.
 
As the chief instigator of the Melbourne JD model, Professor Hathaway was also interested to hear from students about their experience of the course – Was the postgraduate model worth the wait? Was it fun? Sitting at a heavy-set conference table on the 10th floor with free food and an international law heavyweight, attendees agreed the JD wasn’t all bad.
 
The GLSA’s next event is on Wednesday, 8 May, from 1 – 2 pm, in Room G08. Lieutenant Colonel Dan Mori (Ret.) will present a lecture, ‘Reflections on the War on Terror and the Mainstreaming of Executive Directed Killings’, followed by light refreshments.
 
Doug Porteous