A First Year Lesson In Gender Equality

10/10/2016

GABBY VERHAGEN & JACOB RODRIGO
MICHAEL SABLJAK & VIRGINIA HOLDESON
Volume 10, Issue 11
At last Thursday’s MULSS AGM, the resolution to pass a gender equality provision for the First Year Representatives (“FYRs”) failed. De Minimis has decided to publish side-by-side a couple of voices from each side of the debate. The proposed amendment was to insert the following sentence into the MULSS Constitution:
“Where possible the three First Year Representatives must not all identify as the same gender.”

Gabby Verhagen & Jacob Rodrigo
As previous FYRs who were supportive of the motion, we wish to respond to some of the key arguments against that arose in the AGM.

It would undermine the role
A lot of arguments were posed under this umbrella: if only one person identifying as a certain gender runs then they won’t put effort in their campaign, people will stack voting towards the gender where more people are running, it is not democratic to impose the policy on gender etcetera. We have three responses:

Firstly: FYRs exist to represent the first-year cohort. First years don’t know the wider LSS: to them the FYRs are their committee. Their fundamental, and perhaps only role, is representation—and this change reinforces that role.

Secondly: very rarely do people running for FYR have any substantive policies. As noted in discussions at the AGM, campaigning for the role is mainly about having the confidence to win over acquaintances and to stand up and lecture bash. At its heart, FYR is a popularity contest, not a policy debate: the changes won’t negatively impact the quality of campaigns.

Thirdly: The proposed system is not any more open to abuse than the existing one. It is no more ‘stackable’ than the Women’s Officer and 2nd and 3rd Year Representatives honour-based voting system.

Fourthly, this change is not novel. As reiterated by the LSS’ representatives at the meeting numerous times, gender quotas are commonplace in the real world: boards on companies, Parliament, UMSU, employment recruiting, etcetera. All of which have been improved by them.

It is not necessary
People at the AGM brought up that in 2015 there were 3 female representatives, and that the 2 years all males were elected was based on that year level. Recency bias is the phenomenon of a person most easily remembering something that has happened recently, impacting their current perspective. All male representatives were elected in 2014 and 2016, and the motion was put forward this year. But, the provision is about gender equality generally, and would have the same effect if three males were elected.

Furthermore, the policy is drafted in gender neutral terms: when the patriarchy falls it’ll even ensure that (we) men get a spot!

Diversity is more than gender
We completely agree. More should be done to address this. We believe that this provision is the first step in recognising that. One person raised the issue of disability, working towards having a representative for such students in the future would be a great initiative.

What about the alternatives?
Someone suggested the alternative of appointing a Women’s FYR. As noted above the changes addresses balance for all genders—including non-binary gender identities.

The ‘M-Word’: Merit
The strongest against voice that was raised was that if we guarantee certain genders get in then the process is not based on merit. We believe this argument fails to recognise structural discrimination—within the law school and our broader society. In a year level where around 60% of students are women it is ridiculous to suggest that there is not a woman with equal or more merit who would have run and won—had they had the encouragement necessary to do so.

Gender can be a barrier to those considering running. I (Gabby) was very hesitant to run and the only reason I did was someone on the LSS approached me and said the majority of people she spoke to were men, and she really wanted a woman in the running. I was really put off at first running against people who were more confident and socially connected than me, particularly when everyone at the info session was male, and I don’t think I would have been as hesitant if there were a provision in the Constitution that encouraged participation.

Conclusion
These changes are needed, commonplace and were soundly drafted. Perhaps the strong opposition was a uniquely JD reaction: at the undergrad level, UMSU’s affirmative action policies are much stronger, extending to Women’s spaces, committees and collectives.

If the intention or proposed implementation was unclear, hopefully next year through a forum and consultation process we can pass something most of us agree on. Because the push won’t stop here.

Gabrielle Verhagen was a First Year Representative in 2015. Jacob Rodrigo was a First Year Representative in 2016 and originally proposed the motion discussed herein. The authors both write in their personal capacity and not as representatives of the MULSS.

Michael Sabljak & Virginia Holdeson
Thanks to a brave few who were willing to ask some difficult questions, this ambiguous sentence will not be a part of the LSS Constitution.

The process that mercifully concluded on Thursday is the antithesis of reasoned constitutional change. From the beginning, the concerns of students who disagreed with the proposed amendment were never taken seriously. At both meetings the motion was defeated and proponents could not address valid questions. In the wake of a second defeat at the LSS AGM, here are some observations from those who voted ‘no.’

This amendment’s operation was never understood. Its proponents could not explain basic questions about how the provision would operate. As law students we should shudder at ambiguity and uncertainty in governing documents. The fact remains that no one could ever explain what the term ‘where possible’ meant or how it would be applied. For example, did ‘where possible’ mean that if three males were elected, the female with the next most votes would be elevated? Or did it mean if no females ran then one could be installed after the voting process? An accompanying PDF purportedly explained how such situations would be managed. However, the fact remains that any legal challenge (through s 67 of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012 (Vic)) to the provision would be resolved by first going to the text of the provision. The text was thoroughly ambiguous and failed to address a raft of possible complications. Explanatory PDFs with no official standing cannot substitute for well drafted provisions. Shockingly, proponents could not even provide a clear outline of how the delicate question of an individual’s ‘gender’ would be judged. Like most difficulties that accompanied this constitutional change, the question was thrown into the ‘too hard’ basket.

The most jaw dropping response to concerns at last Thursday’s meeting was that the amendment could be repealed if unforeseen problems arose. We had a different view. If proponents could not explain how a provision would operate before adoption, it should not be entrenched in our Constitution. In contrast to the careful drafting required of constitutional change, this process was a knee jerk reaction without consideration of alternatives. The concern that students would change their ‘up-ballot’ voting preferences to adjust for the provision was also dismissed. Another student rightly observed that if this quota were applied across all LSS positions female representation would decrease. In the end a substantial minority of LSS Members felt that too much uncertainty loomed over the proposed change. The number of unanswered questions were too great.

At Melbourne Law School the majority of the student body identify as females. All women whether feminists or not, value the significant barriers pioneering women overcame. It is of grave concern that three women, elected on merit, would not all be able to serve as FYRs. What a slap in the face to women who received the required number of votes, to be replaced “where possible” by an unelected male.

The argument that female students would not feel comfortable approaching male FYRs is either a straw man, or a cover for serious problems with the operation of the LSS. If female students really feel this way, the issue ought not be that FYRs are male. Such a state of affairs brings into question why students are not aware of the various avenues to discuss one’s grievances, whether it be with their Pathfinders, the MLS Welfare, Women’s or Equality Officers.

Lastly, we should not be so blind as to only see FYRs through the lens of gender. As a student body we should be considerate of students’ sexuality, identification as a person of colour, international student background, mature age status and the like. All of these characteristics affect our identity. How could we exclude a person based on gender alone?

This was a crudely drafted provision that failed to take a holistic approach to equality of opportunity at the Law School. In the future, cooler heads should prevail. This provision could have disadvantaged other minorities due to a failure to listen to our concerns. Thankfully it did not pass. The student body deserves better from future constitutional amendments.

Michael Sabljak is a second-year JD student. Virginia Holdenson is a first-year JD student.

The rest of this week’s issue of De Minimis:

Because I have nothing better to do at 3am

11/10/2016 03:19:14 am

Of course it's all over bar the shouting (for this year) but I'll offer another reason against the change.

If it is a question over 'representation' then I ask why three males or three females cannot 'represent' all students regardless of their gender. Can a male not represent a female and can a female not represent a male?

Would I as a male justified in saying that a female FYR does not 'represent' me because she does not share my gender? Would I also always be justified in voting for a male over a female based on that reasoning? The argument does appear to suggest that women 'lack representation' on this basis.

The very concept of democratic 'representation' is just to select a small number of people from within a host to make decisions on the host's behalf in the interests of efficiency. Thinking of it in terms of giving differing sectarian interests a seat at the bargaining table is reductive.

On the question of representation...

11/10/2016 11:27:12 pm

Actually, I don't think it's predominantly a question of representation at all. Having different people with different perspectives on committee is important. However, I think it's more appropriate to say this is about having an equal bite of the apple.

I ask you: In all elections, but particularly our first year rep elections, where people cast their vote long before most people have a chance to get to know many (or all) of the candidates, what are we voting on?

Are you judging them on their policies? Unlikely. No one really knows what they want out of the LSS in the early weeks of first semester.

Their presentations? Perhaps.

But I would suggest that these form a smokescreen for what many of us are really voting on, which is our inherent biases.

If you do not think it is harder to get elected as a woman, you are wrong. People might describe a man as 'presidential', never a woman. Ask someone to draw a 'politician', and I bet you they draw a man in a suit.

I viewed the proposal as a way to remove the obstacles facing women as they vie for leadership positions which men do not face. Affirmative action provisions like this one are here to make it an even playing field.

And I strongly support that.

Because I have nothing better to do at 1.46am

12/10/2016 01:46:11 am

Do your claims that it is harder to get elected as a woman really line up with reality though? It's already been stated that 2015 had three female reps and that women outnumber men in the LSS as a whole. I'll assume those statements from the authors are correct.

Indeed if the purpose of affirmative action is to overcome disadvantage, I suggest it would have no operation here because there is no compelling evidence of disadvantage as far as the LSS is concerned.

I would be interested in what the longer term trend has been with the gender balance for first year reps but I don't know where that information would be available.

Again, on the question

12/10/2016 10:02:23 am

As a matter of fact, that is incorrect. In 2015 the first year reps were Rucha Sohani, Gabrielle Verhagen and Matt Caldow. To my knowledge there has never been three female first year reps. There certainly hasn't in the last 4 years, when we have had 3 men twice.

This information is available from mulss.com. You are welcome to look it up. I was also present for those years, so perhaps you can take my word for it.

When I say it is harder to get elected as a woman, I mean it. In 2014, for example, half of the candidates for first year rep were women. Not one of them got up. Was it because none of them were as deserving? If you believe the process is truly based on merit then you will believe that. But that campaign included Morgan Koegel, currently working as an ambassador for girls' education in poverty-stricken countries, and all round cool lady, and our future President, Anna Belgiorno-Nettis. These are meritorious women. (I would note here that when Anna won her campaign in 2015 she in part campaigned on the platform that there had not been another female president in TEN YEARS).

MLS is no better or worse than anywhere else. In general, in our society, it just happens that women are viewed as less deserving, or less intelligent, or somehow less worthy of positions of leadership. We are all effected by this undercurrent of social bias, myself included, when we step up to the ballot box.

Jimi Miirhead said it best when he said "you don't win first year rep based on merit". How can you, when most candidates have yet to prove themselves? This is not to detract from our past reps, they've been pretty great. A lot of people at MLS are. But there are a lot of people who'd do well in this role, and it's certain that not all of them are men. Ultimately, I think we should trust our reps when they say that there is something wrong with the process. *They* are the ones who think the system needs to change. To say their own election was unfair? That's huge! We need to listen to what they and 80 other people told us at that AGM, and be thinking of ways to change it.

As a final point, I think it's interesting that you bring up the fact there are so many women are on the LSS this year. I believe this to be a flow on effect of having 2 female reps the year before - voters found it easier to imagine women in the roles. Many people below have debated the provision in the context of needing women's voices on the LSS. I would suggest that higher representation is actually related to having two women in first year rep positions.

In conclusion, in the spirit of fairness, we need a provision like this one so that women aren't starting from behind in our first year elections.

Thank you for your time.

On the question (third time's a charm)

12/10/2016 10:10:11 am

Apologies, one* other woman president in the last ten years (2007).

Cheers

NAME (REQUIRED)

12/10/2016 03:03:55 pm

The MULSS Website shows that over the last 30 years there have been almost equal numbers of women and men as LSS President; 15 Women and 16 Men.

I conclude from this that there is no compelling evidence that it is harder for a woman to get elected at least to the position of President, which is afterall the most sought-after role on the committee.

The just-elected LSS committee comprises 10 Men and 13 Women. I'll let that speak for itself.

There doesn't appear to be long term information for positions other than that of president.

True Dat

12/10/2016 04:08:58 pm

@Name (Required) thank-you for doing the research and bringing some reason to this debate. Unless the other elected positions over the past 30 years reveal information against this trend, it is clear to see that women have without AA provisions successfully been elected, I would presume because they are meritorious!
If this hadn't been the case then maybe we could have a conversation about AA provisions on the LSS but it seems unnecessary given these statistics and trends.

Just another Rad Fem

11/10/2016 08:43:53 am

@BECAUSE I HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO AT 3AM the provision does not imply that Women cannot represent Men and vice versa. The point is that there are some topics for people within FR that they would not feel comfortable approaching Men about, last years Womens Space debate is just an example of that.

Also the LSS explained the nature of the provision over and over again in the AGM, perhaps people could not hear over their misguided moral outrage. "Where possible" meant that if all Women or all Men ran, they would obviously not force someone identifying of a different gender to run, that was the point of the qualifier. It was also widely drafted in case it needed adapting over time, like a real Constitution. As time progresses gender identification and types are becoming more diverse.

To say the provision "failed" and was "crudely drafted" when it lost the first time by 1% and the second time by 0.5%, is a "slap in the face" for those who worked hard an advocated for the amendment, rather than gathering proxies to vote. The fact that you use the female/male binary instead of Women/Men is indicative enough that Women's rights issues are not considered to their full extent.

kill me

11/10/2016 10:54:10 am

"The fact that you use the female/male binary instead of Women/Men is indicative enough that Women's rights issues are not considered to their full extent."

kill me

Seriously?

11/10/2016 11:32:13 am

Female/male = your sex i.e. the biological differences of your sex organs/ hormones/chromosomes etc. It is a biological fact that you are female/male.

Women/men/non-binary gender identity = your gender i.e. what you actually identify as. This is considered more inclusive because it allows the inclusion of non-binary identifiers and trans people. It recognises that personal identity can be transient and fluid, and that ideas of 'femininity' and 'masculinity' are social constructs.

This has been an accepted difference for a long time both in social movements and the scientific and medical communities.

You might not agree with it, but there's no need to be rude.

Seriously.

11/10/2016 11:59:55 am

I'm aware of the difference between biological sex and gender. It's presumptuous to think that someone doesn't just because they interchangeably used the words male and female, or that they're against "women's rights" just because of this. Focusing on this does a bigger disservice to feminism, by placing a ridiculous beyond-parody focus on language rather than substantive disadvantage and concerns.

Curmudgeonly old gender binaryist

11/10/2016 03:17:19 pm

"This has been an accepted difference for a long time both in social movements and the scientific and medical communities. "

You speak of the seperability of gender and sex as though it is empirical fact but it's really just an ideological view.

I also think you greatly overestimate the degree to which this view is accepted, especially among the 'scientific and medical communities'. Many of us view it with great bewilderment.

If accepting the view though, it does raise the question of whether, if the amendment had been accepted, a male or female could simply elect to change their gender at a moment's notice to comply with the provision. We could have three biologically male individuals as representatives, two of which identify as 'men' and the third identifying as a racing car, and the provision would still have been satisfied

anon

11/10/2016 06:33:49 pm

Please don't pretend like the whole world is as "progressive" as you are - the vast majority of us don't accept your ideological views about gender as a construct.

Thirding "seriously?"

11/10/2016 09:35:18 pm

Radical gender theory diverging from the mainstream of consensus and physical fact, and that is the subject of much dispute, should not be passed off so casually as the truth. It's when heated, emotional opinions like that get involved in drafting constitutional provisions that you get the shabby, flimsy stuff from the AGM.

Anon

13/10/2016 02:42:28 pm

@Killme

You committed the cardinal crime of daring to use language in a manner contrary to the Rad-Fems' rules. There's no coming back from this, you may as well be Hitler (or Trump).

The Statistics

11/10/2016 09:40:53 pm

I urge you to understand how the counting of "abstention" votes worked in both the SGM and AGM - if done in accordance with appropriate vote counting mechanisms an abstention vote as for example adopted by UMSU and corporations, abstentions would have counted towards a "NO" vote as it is not a "YES" therefore an explicit decision not to endorse the proposed amendment - if such procedures had been followed - and they would have had to have been if on the face of it the NOs had not achieved greater than 25% - the margin would have been greater in favour of against the amendment.

Furthermore I note proxies were employed as a mechanism by both sides of the debate to boost votes. Proxies should not be discredited as you have attempted to do by claiming they were "gathered" in what I assume you propose was a stacking mechanism - proxies are the legitimate votes of students who could not attend the AGM - when giving someone your proxy you entrust them to to vote in accordance with your wishes.
Hence your attempt to delegitimise the proxy process is saddening as they are the real votes of actual students at our law school being counted.

Hi statistics

12/10/2016 11:08:27 am

There were very, very few abstentions. The margin would not have been substantially affected at all.

I agree that proxy votes are legitimate.

13/10/2016 02:38:52 pm

"The point is that there are some topics for people within FR that they would not feel comfortable approaching Men about, last years Womens Space debate is just an example of that."

So basically 'I've introduced arbitrary criteria about why I don't like some (male) representatives, therefore I want the LSS constitution to reflect my views/wants' This is the antithesis of democratic representation.

A student

11/10/2016 11:19:09 am

Michael and Virginia, thanks for your cogent and sophisticated analysis of this issue. Great piece.

Another student.

12/10/2016 12:28:22 am

I agree.

13/10/2016 02:44:56 pm

Beyond the hyperbole over the merits of gender quotas and affirmative action, your focus on the legal operation of the clause was commendable. For far too long the LSS has been underperforming in its consideration of legal consequences. Something rather ironic from a bunch of law students.

Was on the fence

11/10/2016 11:57:23 am

Yeah, I didn't attend the AGM because I had mixed feelings either way about this topic, but Michael and Virginia's analysis has convinced me to be against it. Great article.

Oh really

11/10/2016 11:42:12 pm

Really? Did you *really* not attend? Think carefully.

13/10/2016 07:18:09 am

Yeah fam didn't go

Soup

11/10/2016 04:59:16 pm

Michael and Virginia have done pretty good here

it's a secret

11/10/2016 06:34:51 pm

u r so hot xx

Anonymous commenting is an important part of the process

11/10/2016 06:39:01 pm

Love that the 'three' responses from those supporting the change include a 'fourthly'. Looks like the contribution was considered as closely as their proposed alteration.

U wot m8

11/10/2016 07:28:09 pm

Safe spaces and the breaking down of self evident norms have no place in an institution that prides itself on academic enquiry and bravery. Virginia and Michael whoever you are make good points the demarcation of these issues is damaging let merit reign!!

a.a

11/10/2016 11:48:48 pm

Ugh

Eugene Twomey

11/10/2016 09:52:22 pm

Michael and Virginia raise an interesting question about first years not being made sufficiently aware of existing avenues to express concerns they might not feel comfortable discussing with a FYR of a different gender (or, by extension, a different sexuality or background).

Given that this amendment hasn't passed, is this something the LSS should be looking to address in other ways? Gabby and Jacob make the point that first years don't know the wider LSS, including the women's, queer and equality officers - could greater outreach during LMR and first semester help change that?

11/10/2016 09:54:15 pm

Seconded!

Loulou Willis

11/10/2016 10:06:05 pm

I had a bit of difficulty with the original argument from Michael and Virginia on this point.

If a student has a concern that relates specifically to first years, but they don't feel comfortable approaching their FYRs to take the matter to the LSS, recourse to women's officers, or queer and equality officers seems like a poor substitute. They're not the best placed to agitate on first year issues - they're accountable to the wider student body.

It seems preferable to ensure that FYRs hear all first year issues, rather than have these concerns filter through from various offices

11/10/2016 10:07:47 pm

But I agree fully where the issue is not specifically related to the first year experience!

11/10/2016 10:25:34 pm

Thanks to all four writers for having a public voice on the matter.

Dan Sing

11/10/2016 10:27:22 pm

Michael and Virginia = the Ken Bone of our law school.

SUM TING WONG

11/10/2016 10:33:13 pm

Not the heroes that we deserve, but the heroes we need

Anon2

11/10/2016 11:17:24 pm

I actually think you're both wrong.

lee

11/10/2016 11:51:42 pm

are you fucking kidding?

and i'm not talking about your bullshit batman reference

mate

Henry HL

11/10/2016 10:43:23 pm

@Michael & Virginia

I think it is a very, very long bow you're drawing there regarding the ambiguity of the section there. The we clearly enough institutional agreement as to how to apply this provision in practice.

The idea that a student Aa'd out by this provision would spend the considerable time and money challenging this in the courts over a 1St year rep position is a bit ridiculous, especially as doing so would likely ruin their relations with the LSS, the improvement of which is the predominant reason people run for first year rep (ie as a boost to future positions).

It's true that of this were applied across the LSS women's representation would go down, but this wasn't being applied across the whole LSS. I can't see how this is relevant as an objection.

I would be sad if a women were denied a position because of this quota, and would have preferred an asymetrical one (ie, "that not all FYRs should identify as a man"). That is still a better outcome than all FYRs being men though, and that is the comparison we have to draw here. This is because better women's representation can exist in the former than the latter. It is a price that is worth paying, though it is obviously one that could have been abided completely.

The question of how to determine someone's gender wasn't 'thrown into the too hard basket'. It was understood that institutions shouldn't engage in the practice of questioning their member's professed gender identities. Again, this is an 'ambiguity' that never actually raises issues in practice, where gender identification is used in gifts of student societies without contraversy.

Your complaint that "The argument that female students would not feel comfortable approaching male FYRs is either a straw man, or a cover for serious problems with the operation of the LSS" is itself suspiciously straw-like. No one says that FYRs men couldn't represent women at all, nor that they couldn't do so better with better knowledge of LSS grievance procedures. The point is that in either world, all else being equal, a FYR woman is likely to be more approachable and more understanding on many issues.

Lastly, of course there are other representational changes that could be made. The list you gave us a worthy one. That's not an argument against increasing that represensation at all though. More representation is better than the flawed status quo, even if perfect representation is perhaps unattainable. We shouldn't let the best stand in the way of the better.

The no's concerns are either storms in teacups or completely miss the point. This vote should never have failed. Hopefully this motion doesn't go the way of the Women's room and become a valuable policy abandoned in the face of manufactured outrage.

I look forward to seeing it pass next year.

Anonymous First Year

11/10/2016 11:11:18 pm

@Henry I am a first year female who did not follow much of this debate but voted against it because I vehemently believe in merit when it comes to elected positions, particularly in an environment where women are in the majority of the student cohort and the LSS Committee more broadly.

For you to dismiss mine and the concerns of other NOs as "either storms in a teacup or completely missing the point" is why I find it very difficult to have open reasoned debate at the law school and hence why so many of those who don't subscribe to the populist arguement of the day feel the need to post anonymously on these threads.

rosie francis

11/10/2016 11:44:02 pm

@Anonymous FY - it's a lovely thing, isn't it, having your legitimate opinions and concerns being characterised so dismissively?
Thank goodness for democratic process and special resolutions.

12/10/2016 12:02:18 am

Hi Anonymous First Year,

Have you ever unpacked this concept of ‘merit’ that you so vehemently support?

In relation to this issue of FYR specifically, the role is one of representation. The ‘merit’ that you refer to would apply here to mean the ‘merit’ one has to offer in relation to representing the cohort. Given that a majority of the first-year cohort is female, I think it is clear that female candidates would have at least the same amount of ‘merit’ to offer as male candidates in relation to representation the female majority. Also, I do believe that in relation to representation, a female rep is more likely to adequately represent the females of the cohort as a lived-in experience has more ‘merit' (see, eg, standpoint theory).

Second, a more general point on ‘merit’: your vehement support of it demonstrates a lack of understanding as to the role privilege (or more importantly, a lack thereof) has played in shaping ‘merit’. While I don’t mean to take someone's achievements away from them, it is important to recognise the contribution privilege has made. More importantly, it is necessary to have provisions such as this in place to combat the differing cards and starting points that life has dealt us.

PS. I realise you’ve said that you are female. My second point is referring to privilege more generally and encompasses privilege in all its forms.

missing the point again

12/10/2016 12:03:21 am

@Anonymous First Year and @Rosie Francis, Henry has listed above the concerns raised by the NO's and responded to them. He hasn't summarily 'dismissed' your concerns - he's responded to them. Just like the FYR's did in the article. That's democracy at play.

You and your peers (with names like 'Sum Ting Wong'), on the other hand, could do with actually adding to the discussion with logical arguments.

And please, don't dismiss the 72% of us who respectfully think you're very, very wrong.

Santa

12/10/2016 12:14:10 am

@anonymousfirstyear
Do you honestly find it hard to have open reasoned debate about issues like this at the law school because of comments such as 'storm in a teacup' or 'completely missing the point'?
i wish you the best of luck in your future career as a lawyer

sfdfgh

12/10/2016 12:19:06 am

Santa :D

Anon First Year

12/10/2016 12:27:42 am

@Anon you seem to miss the premise of my point regarding merit.

Merit is something as you correctly indicate is what one has to offer the cohort. The question of how much merit a male versus female student was not called into question, we are all meritorious and have different skills to offer our fellow first year colleagues.

When students voted this year they did so voting for "the package" the candidates put forward. A particular candidates gender is just one factor that identifies them. The fact that when 60% of the cohort are females and females ran for the FY position - female students and male alike obviously voted through this democratic process in such a manner that the people they chose to represent them were all females.
Without going an asking each student why they voted they way they did I posit that gender was not an overwhelming determinative factor when casting ones vote, that is to say the arguement that "females better represent females" was not reflected in the voting choices of students.

Regarding your point on privilege, I think the authors for the 'no' articulated this well, privilege and the cards someone is dealt is not their only their gender, it is their socioeconomic background, educational, English language, minority status and the more - to combat privilege we can't just assume that if you are of a particular gender you therefore have "privilege" and can be replaced from a role you were elected into.

Santa's Helper

12/10/2016 12:36:06 am

@Santa: your comment is better than Christmas

12/10/2016 12:36:45 am

@santa don't worry I won't have any qualms expressing my opinion once I have left this law school. For in my experience MLS is not a space space for those who have differing views and are denied a fair debate and completely disregarded.

As I said initially I did not follow much of the pre debate discussion of this, but attending the AGM where the Chair of the meeting was actively campaigning one way and had automatic right of reply to the views expressed by those 'no' voters shows just how prejudicially weighted law school forums are.

I have a lot of respect for those who put their name to this article for the no because it is brave to speak up against any body of power such as the LSS.

Rosie Francis

12/10/2016 09:14:55 am

@Missing the point -
Thank you for pointing out the content of Henry's comment. Luckily I can read.
Being equipped with this skill meant that I read and understood Henry's responses to the no voters. Given I also understood the chronology of Henry's comment, I see that he did not 'off the bat' (or as you say, 'summarily') characterise our opinions. I am struggling to see how my comment gave you some temporal indication to grasp onto, which appears to be your reading of it (note that I said 'characterised so dismissively' NOT 'dismissed', not even 'dismissed at the outset').
'You and your peers' - no, no, no. A quick stab but to no effect, sorry. I have no idea who many people on this thread are so neither of us can definitively say who's a peer and who isn't, or who's just outright taking the piss.
As for adding to the discussion with logical arguments (which I see you have failed to do yourself, at least under this pseudonym), you will have read my own separate comment below that outlined some issues I had with the provision. If you jumped the gun on that one, it's still there so take a look.
Lastly, as to your suggestion that @Anon FY and I dismissed the feelings of those of you (74.5%, wasn't it?) who agreed with the motion, again, I'm struggling to see where either of us has done this. It seems like you are making the same call that you so quickly judged me for making (which I didn't). Ironic, no?

13/10/2016 03:10:32 pm

You're the best present I could have wished for Santa.

13/10/2016 03:36:24 pm

Santa you're the best present I could have every wished for.

Steph

12/10/2016 12:11:57 am

I look forward to seeing it pass too, HH

MegaBaes

12/10/2016 12:13:46 am

Unnecessary to answer

12/10/2016 04:18:50 pm

I wish to respond only to the first two paragraphs of Henry's post.

If, in your view, there is clear "institutional agreement" about how this provision ought to be applied, you should seek the codification of that "institutional agreement" by proposing it at the general meeting as part of the text of the amendment. It is no answer to point to a free-standing "agreement" and say that the text need not be made clearer. This is for two reasons.

(1) Although you say it is tendentious to argue that the provision is ambiguous, your own answer demonstrates the ambiguity. You instinctively reached not for the text of the provision, but for some undefined "institutional agreement". And neither the original contribution by Gabby and Jacob nor your comment even makes clear what the content of that "institutional agreement" is. What is it?

(2) Assuming there really is a clear "institutional agreement" about how the provision is intended to operate, that agreement ought to be codified in the Constitution. That is for two reasons.

(2A) Institutional memory in the LSS is short. The consensus (if any) that exists now may not survive as the leadership and membership of the organisation changes.

(2B) In practice, provisions of the Constitution are implemented by current office-holders. Reliance on an uncodified extra-constitutional understanding means that the actual effect of the provisions is left at the wide discretion of current office-holders. To the extent that it is useful to speak of an "institutional agreement", the relevant "institution" ought to be the entire LSS, not just its current office-holders. And the prescribed way for the institution to register its "agreement" is through a general meeting.

In conclusion, and speaking for myself, I would kindly suggest that I understand very well what "the point" of the amendment is. What is more, I support that "point". I have not in any way "missed" it. But constitutional amendments – whether of an incorporated association or of a country – require more than a "point". They require a form, and that form must be given effect.

13/10/2016 03:34:59 pm

Henry, whilst I agree from a pragmatic perspective that most aggrieved parties would not bother with the expensive, resource intensive and relationship process of challenging the constitution, forming policy on such an assumption is far from best practice and undermines the argument for the proposed policy.

As a person who didn't attend the meeting or vote, I can see why "no" campaign raised this issue, regardless of the merits discussed regarding *women's representation. All it would take is one determined person with knowledge of the legal process, deep pockets, and perhaps an acrimonious relationship to see it tested.

11/10/2016 11:31:35 pm

Such a great post giving each side room to express their views fully.
As others did too, I had a number of concerns about this provision's effects.
Firstly, I was concerned about the way the provision would undermine the campaign process for FYR nominees - if, say you were the only man running alongside a group of women (or vice versa), there would be no incentive to 'put in the hard yards' because, under this provision (we presume, given its vague drafting) you would get in by default. Does this mean that you could potentially run, receive no votes, but still get in? I'm not sure, but that's what the provision suggests.
I was also mystified by the proposition that this provision provides for FYs who are not comfortable approaching one of three FYRs - I would think that with any representatives voted in by a body of people, there's a good chance one or more (or all 3!) candidates get in that you aren't comfortable approaching, regardless of their gender. Maybe they're really hard to catch or just plain scare you to death.
I concur with the point on different avenues being available - the LSS is not a "one stop shop" for student grievances. As pointed out at the AGM and above, the FYRs are largely voted in by popularity so it would seem that having alternative pathways to seek advice or help - on any matter - is more than appropriate.

Tim Sarder

13/10/2016 07:21:28 am

I'm in agreeance with you entirely, Rosie - specifically the concern re winning by default - candidates who are guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) entry have less of an incentive to campaign hard and make substantive promises

Cotton Wool

11/10/2016 11:42:56 pm

When I so often hear students at MLS complaining that University isn't preparing them for the workplace, it is because of provisions such as this that cotton wool us and don't teach us how to handle the real world.
For many of us going to work in the legal field our bosses, HR reps, managers and work teams will be a mix of male and female, sometimes weighted one way more heavily than the other. You can't just demand a new work team because your manager is male and you don't feel comfortable approaching him (even when avenues to access females such as a female HR Rep exists!). We need to stop characterising gender as a barrier and something to be scared of and start ensuring we are all decent human beings and despite our gender feel comfortable approaching someone for assistance of any gender! We should focus employing our intelligence fighting actual institutional prejudices at the MLS and beyond against minority groups.

12/10/2016 12:01:42 am

Demanding a new work team' is a terrible example. Plenty of workplaces, boards, executive committees have affirmative action provisions. Most student societies have them, for Christ's sake. MLS is lagging well behind.

As a final final note, think about how many people voted for the provisions to *SUCCEED*. You are not in the majority if you think affirmative actions are bullshit. You are not even just a little bit under half. You represent just over a quarter of the vote. So maybe think on that while you crow about this 'victory'.

AA believer

12/10/2016 12:53:12 am

Thank-you @Lee you are right let's have an affirmative action provision to bring our society into line with others, so the entire LSS can address the non-issue of overall female representation on the LSS. Currently on the LSS females are represented almost on par with their representation in the student cohort. Surely our LSS should be a shining example to all - we have representation of females above 50% and even better in line with our representation amongst the entire law student cohort, and we did this without AA policies!! (I am a female student who in my undergrad was involved in implementing AA provisions for a student club so am all for it when it is needed).

Yee

12/10/2016 02:07:05 am

"Most student societies have them, for Christ's sake. MLS is lagging well behind."

Most student societies are cancerous tumours that gave up on their purpose of helping and providing services for students long ago in favour of crusading for whatever is the latest trendy social justice issue du jour. The more MLS 'lags behind' them the better.

Lee

12/10/2016 11:04:06 am

@AA Believer: We did this once. Once, in the 4 years I've been here, we achieved normal gender balance in the LSS.

I believe this year is an anomaly and I want protection for the years that aren't.

@Yee: Thank you for that well-reasoned response. Suggesting that students societies in general are 'cancerous tumours' certainly contributed to this discussion. I appreciate your bravery.

13/10/2016 03:42:05 pm

Appealing to authority via that practices of other organisations is fraught with danger. If there is a strong argument for the proposal it should stand on its own merits, without the need to point externally.

Similarly, if many people 'believe' AA is good, this does not necessarily mean it is. If many people can show it is good through reason and argument then it's hard to see how it would fail.

12/10/2016 09:04:45 am

I look forward to seeing this terrible motion dismissed and discarded left to rot and gather dust. Absolute garbage policy. The fact that people are advocating for it is what is wrong with modern "feminism" and society generally today.
Great piece by Michael and Virginia.

is c short for cunt

12/10/2016 09:03:00 pm

Manners

12/10/2016 10:13:44 pm

@IsCShortFor - just wow - based on your evident disrespect I would assume you don't agree with @C and you thereby support the motion, however your use of "the C word" means you evidently lack an appreciation for be actual struggles of women over the centuries where "the C word" has been used to demean and disparage us.

Further this is just a low blow shock jock move to provoke someone you don't agree with - because the more likely fact of the scenario is C is the initial of their first name. If we want motions such as this to succeed people actually need to engage in meaningful debate.

13/10/2016 03:44:58 pm

This isn't Trades Hall, mate. Keep the gutter talk back where it belongs.

Sick of Law School

12/10/2016 10:03:11 am

The argument about merit is ridiculous! There is no such thing as a pure meritocracy.

The law school selects for people who are able to take on a $100,000+ debt. We are already a community of people who are here because they're wealthy (majority), they're disadvantaged enough to get CSP or genius enough to get CSP. Yes, all of us are intelligent and have some reason other than our rich parents, poor parents and even our genius to be here, so please don't feel like I'm attacking or essentialising you. You're all great individuals who have meaningful lives (what I tell myself at night).
But look at our community for gods sake - it is so bloody middle class and white. You can't tell me that's because middle class, white people are the smartest and hardest workers and that's why they are at law school. Obviously middle class, white girls are smarter and work harder than middle class, white boys because that is why we have more women than men at the law school - that's as far as merit goes. But when we come to elections we still see those middle class, white girls as less than those jokers and refreshingly laid back lads or even better a conscientious, sensitive, neatly dressed bloke. So rare is a conscientious and sensitive man we will hail him a king and the women will swoon.

Those who are not in the middle class, white category have even less of a shot - not to do with merit but because of the inherent bias in our community! That comes from who we are, as selected for by the wonderful University of Melbourne - good job, really pushing boundaries not in it for a quick buck at all. Thought leader for sure!

Merit is an argument for people who won't admit their privilege or aren't willing to admit others' privilege. So give it a rest and look around the 'seminar' room - we're not as great as we think we are. We're mostly bloody lucky.

I agree with Henry's comments and see this as storm in a tea cup. It should have passed. We need AA or whatever policies to stop us becoming more bland than we already are. To make sure people leading us/represent us, if that is what the LSS does, actually represent who we are not what we want to be, which is probably someone who has had everything he has handed to him on a silver platter - sounds ace, don't know why I would bother with law school personally would probably go into advertising.

Michael

12/10/2016 12:16:50 pm

"Obviously middle class, white girls are smarter and work harder than middle class, white boys because that is why we have more women than men at the law school - that's as far as merit goes."

Lol.

Kek

12/10/2016 02:35:26 pm

Lol indeed. People talk about being blinded by their own privilege, and I suggest this author who is so keen to reprimand other people for their privilege, is unable to see her own.

Of course all women are here on merit! There couldn't possibly be any favourable socio-economic conditions that result in this! You see It's only all those privileged men (and white men in particular) who probably don't deserve their place!

Ban

12/10/2016 05:26:26 pm

It's about time we removed privileged white males from Law School. They need to check their privilege and realise they aren't here on merit. Do us all a favour and withdraw from the course.

Monika

12/10/2016 05:05:37 pm

Works in Iceland. The arguments on ambiguity of the provisions are very Law Student.

At least you didn't argue that it would "open the floodgates" to something or other.

It's not a founding document for a country guys.

We're talking just talking about embedding the aspiration of balanced gender representation. What's gotta be wrong with that?

12/10/2016 10:01:12 pm

The precision required here is not that of a country. Most student societies have constitutions that are borderline nonsensical. Things trundle along fine. That is because a student society is a small group that can easily pass on institutional practices and understandings, and one that is devoid high-powered barristers deliberately crafting ambiguity in favour of their clients.

Besides, if that was really the concern you could have passed it now, then slightly amended the wording to make it absolutely crystal clear next year. Instead, the motion was outright denied, and we have to go through the arduous process of building up the numbers to pass a substantive provision next year, rather than the far easier job of making a minor technical amendment to a provision already in place.

Seems like a strange strategy if minor verbal ambiguities were really all there was at stake here.

Comments are closed.