IS CONSIDERATE, INFORMED DISCUSSION TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR?

15/5/2018

Issue 11, Semester 1

By Tess McGuire

Content warning: sexual assault, rape, intimate partner violence, prejudice against bisexuality, and incarceration of Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It may be confronting for some readers.

Nausea flowed over me like a wave that crashes on you when you least expect it. ‘She was raped behind a nightclub’, my Evidence and Proof professor explained on Tuesday afternoon as he launched into a description of R v Lazarus, the case acquitting Luke Lazarus of the rape of Saxon Mullins.

(This warning extends to today's moderated comment section)

Nausea flowed over me like a wave that crashes on you when you least expect it. ‘She was raped behind a nightclub’, my Evidence and Proof professor explained on Tuesday afternoon as he launched into a description of R v Lazarus, the case acquitting Luke Lazarus of the rape of Saxon Mullins.

It was not a case in the course material, but had featured on Four Corners the night before. Almost instantly, a friend messaged me saying, “The lack of content warning at the start of this class about discussing rape/consent absolutely astounds me!!!”. Only a few minutes later another girl messaged, “I’m furious about no content warning and how flippantly he talked about that rape case”.

We were all sitting there frazzled and caught off guard. We messaged each other words of comfort, checking to see if we were okay, but we weren’t.

It was each for our own reasons. One had been a character witness in a rape trial.
And I was sexually assaulted only a few months ago.

I’d done a good job of suppressing the memory, but it was suddenly all a bit much.

I sat there for the next three hours thinking I was either going to vomit or burst into tears.

A content warning is not difficult to articulate. It is truly a low bar to meet when navigating discussions on highly charged and triggering topics. The statistic is well-known; one in five women has experienced sexual violence.

All I wanted was to understand the Evidence Act for my exam that was in a few weeks. But flashbacks of being pushed up against the wall of a car park basement bubbled to the surface of my consciousness.

He brought up the example to highlight how the justice system can fail women, and I appreciate his intentions. The execution however, lacked the awareness that there was going to be at least a handful of people in the class who found the unexpected discussion of a rape trial - where the perpetrator walked free - to be beyond confronting.

As I sat there, I became more infuriated thinking about all the glaring faults of the course. The case you focus on in Evidence is one where a woman is found dead at the bottom of the staircase and the husband is tried for murder. It clearly lends itself to an academic discussion about the gendered nature of the circumstances, and the fact the leading preventable cause of death and illness for women aged 18 to 44 is intimate partner violence.

We spent a week discussing whether evidence that the accused was bisexual would be prejudicial. Respectful class debate was encouraged, but we weren’t given any resources or articles on how bisexual or LGBTIQ+ people have different experiences encountering the justice system.

We glossed over the provisions in the Evidence Act that mention how Indigenous culture is treated. Considering the disgustingly disproportionate incarceration of Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples, this was an issue that deserved more than a mere gloss.
In contrast, we had a reading by Jorge Luis Borges, a Spanish philosopher, who we spent over an hour discussing.

Fortuitously, the professor asked for our reflections on the course at the end of the class. Lydia Holt responded by perfectly articulating why it was ironic that a subject that holds itself out to be innovative and challenging wasn’t even meeting some of the basic requirements of depth, engagement and awareness.

He was taken aback. He asked for further responses and I raised up my hand. I tried to reinforce and emphasise what Lydia had said so that the class knew she wasn’t alone. My voice started to break and all I could think was “omg Tess if you let one damn tear fall it will actually be the end”. I pushed through trying to explain why our lack of content warning wasn’t good enough and point out the issues I’ve now better articulated here.

He responded, “so I think we should move on”, but invited us and others who felt concerned about this to see him after class. Seven people stayed back and we had a 35-minute discussion about the course. At first, the professor was a bit defensive in response to our critique, but he listened and absorbed what was clearly a strongly held sentiment among some students. All we asked from him is that he reflect on what we had said and see how the course (which has not been updated for years) could be improved. He seemed like he was going to do so.

Hopefully, this will lead to some change. It is important for teachers to understand that not everyone responds to content in the same way. A comprehensive education should include discussion of difficult and confronting topics, but it can be managed in a way that gives students the tools to have informed debate, and ensure each person feels safe and respected.

It doesn’t seem like too much to ask for.

In response to this, the LSS Women’s Directors, in coordination with the Queer, Indigenous, Equality & Social Justice and Environment portfolios are receiving submissions on introducing content warnings. You can email a submission to lss-womens@unimelb.edu.au

Please speak up, your voice on this issue matters and could prevent other students going through this in the future.

Tess McGuire is a third year JD student.

Update on Wednesday night from Tess:

This is just a quick note to let students know that this afternoon Associate Dean Anna Chapman invited me to meet with her, Associate Dean Matthew Harding and Dean Jenny Morgan. We ended up having an incredibly productive 40-minute discussion about the issues I raised in my article. We spoke about both how content warnings can be carried out and the powerful impact they can have, and the concerns I raised about the Evidence course and how it can be improved. Jenny is speaking at an all-staff seminar in a few weeks that will discuss the use of content warnings, and said that she would be using the insights I gave on their importance. I want to thank all of the people who have sent me messages of support and all those who have been brave enough to share with me how this empowered them because of their similar past experiences. I stand in solidarity with you and hope this gives you strength if you are confronted with these issues in the future. In response to the critique of going about raising these issues in a public way - I don't believe that I have been hostile, disingenuous, ambushing or on a witch-hunt in my approach. I have a voice and I used it, and this has sparked a wider discussion and push for change. I also understand that people have different opinions and never expected for mine to be universally embraced, so I thank you for the engagement on the issues (where it was respectful). In the meeting I was also able to reject the narrative that my approach is adversarial towards the professor. I believe that as I have articulated; he has listened, absorbed and been respectful in taking on board my criticism in a proactive way by using a well thought out and nuanced content warning in this weeks class before the break as afterwards we were going to launch into a very heavy evidence brief used in a previous exam. He also encouraged students to reflect on the seriousness of the issues that were going to be discussed and to be respectful. I pointed out I thought this was best practice and that he was thanked for this at the break. It's also worth noting that I was able to bring up some examples that occurred in Criminal law by different professors last year, to show that this most certainly wasn't an isolated case and that this is an issue that the broader academic staff should reflect upon. Hopefully the upcoming seminar will lead to this being taken on board. The faculty are taking this issue seriously and were overall thankful that I chose to speak up about this. Now we shall see what it leads to. - Tess

Jacinta

15/5/2018 09:21:14 pm

Tess, thank you! This is such a poignant example of why we must always strive to consider the perspectives and experiences of others (something that we can never presume to understand). It is fantastic that the course coordinator was willing to listen and has taken these concerns seriously. I'm so sorry that you had this experience.

honest question (pardon my naivete)

15/5/2018 09:41:30 pm

For those asking for these content warnings to be mandatory and find such material triggering, would you actually leave the room when such a warning is given? Or is it more about "being prepared" for the material so it doesn't come as a sudden unprepared shock?

I understand the point is both and the provide agency for students to, knowing such material is forthcoming, decide their approach. This doesn't affect my view on whether content warnings should be mandatory, but I would still like to better understand their purpose here and the anticipated response.

Lydia

15/5/2018 10:02:09 pm

Hi Honest,

Thanks for wanting to learn more about how this is affecting students! There's a lot out there about content warnings, and I'm sure a lot of people within these classes think they have a different role to play, so I'll keep this comment a complement the issues Tess has raised.

1. Warning

A content warning does provide a warning to students that there will be distressing and confronting topics. This may mean students don't attend, or, if they know when the content will be brought up, miss this part (eg coming to class a little late). The direct goal isn't to have students leave, as getting up in front of a class and 'outing' yourself as affected is also very scary, but it helps affected students manage their interaction with class.

2. Notice

These warnings can also function as a call to consciousness for the rest of the class. If people in the class have not been affected by these issues, or do not immediately become distressed or think the material is confronting (and I sincerely hope that this is most students) it acts as a reminder that some students may be negatively affected by the material, so to keep discussion academic and respectful. This hopefully means people can still productively engage in debate, but avoids well meaning students from inadvertently hurting others.

3. Context

The other point Tess raises goes slightly further that we should also engage more critically with the wider content this material appears in. Again, without this, class discussion can descend into areas which can be really hurtful to students, even if unintentionally. For example, in this class we discuss the defence's reasoning that Mr Peterson didn't murder his wife because he loved her. We don't, however, engage with the fact that one woman each week is murdered by a current or former intimate partner. If we think that a man loving his wife is a reason why he wouldn't hurt her, this ignores the very real experience of domestic violence and intimate partner abuse. Without this, conversations which can discuss how legitimate this defence is might ignore that the problem is actually very common and should be given more thought than excusing this behaviour because the abuser loves their victim.

If you would like to talk more please let me know :)

Henry

15/5/2018 09:50:42 pm

Always leave a place better than you found it - this is an incredibly brave piece of writing Tess, it will hoepfully make this course (and others) safer spaces, up-to-date and more intellectually engaging.
Future students at MLS will be better off thanks to you (Lydia and others!).

Mitch

15/5/2018 10:04:58 pm

Fantastic piece, Tess. I find that whilst the themes touched on in the classes are relevant for many criminal trials, they are not handled in the appropriate manner.

Teaching staff should have a greater awareness of the way themes discussed may affect students' wellbeing and act accordingly.

I hope the Evidence teaching staff (and MLS staff more broadly) acknowledge the push for change here.

Devil's Advocate

15/5/2018 10:59:09 pm

Content Warning: Disagreement.

The only justification for content warnings is that without them people may be offended and mental health may be negatively influenced.

I'm sorry but I just don't think this is good enough

In fact I think content warnings will leave students ill equipped and with false expectations of the real world. Life, Client's and Cases don't come with content warnings.
The sooner people learn to deal with issues that they're sensitive too, rather than demanding warnings to prepare or so they can exit the situation, the better for everyone, including that person -there's been psych research into this, I'll see if I can find it.

The world is full of terrible things - as adults we should be aware and able to deal with this without warnings

Sarah

15/5/2018 11:34:09 pm

People who have triggers understand perfectly, and often better than many, that the world is imperfect, cruel, and terrible. All that they are asking is that one facet of their life that is meant to be committed to respect and education prioritise those values. It really isn’t for the greater good or better for the student involved if they can’t learn because they’re trying to fight off panic.

Moving on from and battling through trauma and mental illness isn’t about suffering through a certain amount of panic or anxiety attacks or ticking off hours of discomfort, and then hey, it’ll get easier. It’s not about face time. You’re assuming that the only way to deal with trauma or mental health is to get thrown face first into it and confront it. That may work for some people. For others, or even for those same people at a certain point in their lives, it’s entirely unproductive. I have had various points, quite recently, where I have gone through days and days of constant anxiety. Experiencing them really doesn’t make them any easier to deal with, and I’d really rather not. This has been happening for many years. I cope better now, but because I know what it is, and because I have a therapist, not because I somehow just barged my way through it.

No one is asking for or expecting content warnings in every aspect of life. Like you said, there are always unpleasant people and nasty surprises. But if would be nice if somewhere that is meant to dignified and respectful is just that. And it’s not exactly a huge ask that there just be a single sentence at the front of a reading.

The devil doesn't need an advocate

15/5/2018 11:40:03 pm

Firstly, that "mental health may be negatively influenced" is a pretty big reason, particularly considering the disproportionate rates of depression and other mental health issues among law students.

A few comments above three key points are raised regarding their utility - warning, notice and context. Please have a read.

Also, it doesn't take much - a mere sentence or two - but can have a big impact on those that the content has the potential to affect.

16/5/2018 12:42:33 am

please note the origins of the term 'devils advocate'

Louisa

17/5/2018 08:28:12 pm

Hi Devil's Advocate,

"The sooner people learn to deal with issues that they're sensitive too, rather than demanding warnings to prepare or so they can exit the situation, the better for everyone, including that person -there's been psych research into this, I'll see if I can find it."

What you are referring to here is graded exposure therapy. It's an excellent way to treat anxiety disorders. However, it's called graded for a reason! You sit down with your psychiatrist/psychologist and make a fear hierarchy based on all the situations that make you anxious, starting from least anxiety provoking to most anxiety provoking. You force yourself to be exposed to those situations slowly, bringing in with you various tools your therapist has equipped you with, such as deep breathing and mindfulness. You keep forcing yourself to face that situation until you feel zero anxiety when you have to face it. Then, you move up the ladder and tackle the scarier stuff.

So, as a result, for someone whose anxiety response is triggered by say, for example, content regarding rape - just randomly being exposed to it, when they haven't had the opportunity to develop the skills to deal with their anxiety (or are having a bad mental health day) would be a terrible idea! When you keep exposing yourself to situations that provoke anxiety without being ready to deal with them, it actually makes your anxiety worse - you are constantly exposing yourself to a situation which provokes your anxiety response without being able to deal with it, with the result that your brain just reinforces that situation with anxiety even more.

So, content warnings are actually a great way of helping individuals in their ability to get better and cope with what they have been through - they can make a choice about whether (if ever) they are mentally ready to face this content.

Some concerns

15/5/2018 11:12:17 pm

Okay, I’m going to be the first to disagree on the way and extent this was asserted. When these concerns were brought up, granted they had merit, it was only natural I think that the lecturer appeared defensive. I would ask those who expressed themselves, why, if they had such intense concern, they did not feel the need to contact him by email or after class immediately afterwards so that he could discuss it and possibly remedy it. Rather, to the eyes of many, it seemed the first speaker had simply waited and gathered an endless list of infractions which the lecturer had committed and ambushed him in front of the entire class. If the point to be made is about insensitivity, surely active or inadvertent public humiliation qualifies under this umbrella. Please correct me if this timeline is wrong.

Secondly, content warnings and contextual readings, discussion (etc) have limited purpose, at least in the context of a class about criminal cases. I agree that discussing brutal or disturbing material is not always easy and we should be told what kind of material we will face before being exposed to it. But demanding a conversation about gender or race in every instance they become relevant is, at the least, not pragmatic. Nothing would get done in a class primarily on criminal law if this was done. Several other subjects are devoted to these issues, and you have every right to choose them. Furthermore, part of learning to practice law is surely understanding that, in the real world, hard facts will not be mediated or softened. If you were Michael Peterson’s lawyer, or planned to do anything in law around these topics, that would become crystal clear. Perhaps you don’t want to practice criminal law and perhaps criminal/evidence should be optional electives (and that is a fair argument) but that is not what was argued here.

I say this not because the subject was taught perfectly, but just to suggest that good intentions do not always give rise to good solutions, and that even where they are good, it is hypocritical to assert them with hostility under the agenda of providing a safe environment for other people.

Tess

16/5/2018 12:16:02 am

Was it 'public humiliation' of the lecturer or public acknowledgement of the issues? The alternative methods you raise - emailing him directly or speaking to him after class - would mean that only he hears those concerns raised and they are not brought to the attention of the wider cohort. In saying that, this was Lydia's initial response; that she was going to speak to him after class, but he invited public comment on the course.

I think it's an important aspect of this reflection that as women we are so often self-censoring. We don't always raise our hand to voice concerns or sometimes even ask a question we might have. As a woman, to refuse to be silent is sometimes a rebellious act.

I don't think that by two women raising their concerns in a public way - after they were invited to comment - that the professor was ambushed or publicly humiliated. I detailed what his response was and I don't think that I was unfair; "he listened and absorbed". You assert my approach was 'hostile'. That is your perspective. I'm not going to apologise for using my voice.

In terms of your critique of content warnings - I agree that they are limited, but they are something. It is a simple and very easy task that can have carry a positive impact.

Regarding your mischaracterisation of my call to have some more academic resources to be able to navigate issues of gender, race and sexuality that are inherent in Evidence law - I do not ask for a conversation 'every instance they become relevant', as I agree, that would not be pragmatic (they are relevant so often). But we have a three hour class every week for 11 weeks. I think there is time to have at least one informed discussion on the topics. Further, I think there would be resources out there that are pertinent to understanding the legislation; to help us understand how probative value vs prejudicial effect is weighed when the evidence involves those issues. I don't think it would be token or in the abstract at all.

Yes!

16/5/2018 06:41:53 am

Brilliant comment by Some Concerns. I think content warnings are courteous but shouldn't be required.

Gans and lecturers aren't responsible for the hurt experienced by students. It is nice if he is mindful of it, but the witch-hunt Tess presents here is pretty silly. The narrative of OMG we were messaging each other throughout the lecture about how we were outraged that an experienced lecturer didn't include something that has only come into vogue recently (let's admit it - like I said above I'm not opposed to trigger/content warnings but they are in vogue as a millennial trend) and self righteously ganging up on him after class, doesn't sound like a helpful dialogue.

This article is dishonest in what it asks for. It claims to desire something modest (content warnings, which I don't think should be mandatory, but understand the argument for them and don't care too much if they are mandated) but also highlights broadly other criticisms about the supposedly gendered nature of the course (which are hogwash and don't have to be accepted even if you do want content warnings).

It is stated that a thoughtful discussion is expected, but it isn't. In putting forward personal experiences here to make a point, it's using them as an argument that then doesn't allow any other students/lecturers to disagree. I find this disingenuous.

Yes and no

16/5/2018 09:27:13 am

I agree with SOME of Some Concerns’ concerns, and with many Tess’ also.

This article is in some respects not a true reflection of most of our experiences in that class that day. It unfairly ignores how receptive the lecturer was, how he agreed with many points, and stated that he too would love to have the time to address more complex issues, however this subject relates cheifly to the legality of admitting evidence, not the underlying causes of crime. It’s misleading to pretend he simply dismissed you and said “let’s move on” when in actual fact he paused the class and engaged in discussion for a period before offering to stay behind prior to deciding to move on for everyone else’s benefit.

Inaccuracies aside, I do agree with the overall sentiment of this article and reject Some Concerns’ contention. As a woman I too have been affected by a lack of content warnings pertaining to sexual assault. It’s small sacrifice to make for a huge benefit. As for not having them in real life? Of course. But that’s why I choose to work in corporate not criminal. We can and do activity manage our triggers by our choices. An email the night before flagging that we are addressing sensitive topics would be adequate. I have experienced a panic attack in criminal law before and it was horrible.

A simple solution I think would be to 1. Introduce content warnings or emails before deciding to import sentive issues which are not in the reading guide; 2. Include resources in the further readings which touch on the intersection of evidence law with DV, Indigenous law, etc etc and flag during class that these are available and acknowledge that the discussion in class in not sufficient.

Thanks for writing this Tess.

16/5/2018 10:56:44 am

Thanks for your comment 'Yes and No'.

I'm sorry to hear that you've also been affected by a lack of content warnings surrounding discussion of sexual assault. I think you raise some great, simple solutions and I hope you feel compelled to write a submission to the Women's Directors.

Just to quickly pick up on your first few points - I understand your critique regarding my discussion of the response of the professor but it is not inaccurate to say that 'he responded “so I think we should move on”, but invited us and others who felt concerned about this to see him after class'. That is just factually what happened after I spoke, but due to word limit constraints I could not fully go into the professors response. Just to clarify, he was very respectful and listened carefully to our criticism after class. He did not perceive us as adversaries, nor were we trying to make it as if it were so. We chatted about what could be improved in the course, and for the most part he agreed. On the whole, the lecturer was very receptive and I have felt very encouraged by the way he has handled the issue.

To expand on this, it's worthwhile noting that yesterday afternoon, before launching into the Bassaine brief he took a moment to do a content warning and listed the many confronting aspects of the evidence that we were about to launch into - including intimate partner violence and self-harm - and he encouraged the class to treat those issues with the seriousness they deserve. It really set the tone for an engaged and considered discussion, and it allowed us to just prepare ourselves for those topics to come up. He was thanked for this at the break, and I'll be noting in my submission what a difference this made.

Anti-idealogue

16/5/2018 12:48:42 am

Terrific piece and terrific dialogue in the comments section.

Whilst supporters of content warnings are (often) ideologues who are resistant to criticism, scepticism or rational discussion, this seems like a wonderfully thoughtful, reasoned proposal in light of students' experiences.

However, whilst making these steps forward, let the school (and broader university) not be held hostage to ANY dogmatic ideology. I do not wish to say that such an ideology is at play here. But I'm aware that such proposed improvements could either be co-opted by dogmatists, or be seen, by those who oppose progress, as dogmatic. Let a careful course be charted into this better future.

The school needs to take on these proposals whilst remaining vigilant against the introduction of potentially harmful 'safe spaces', the dangers to free speech and academic freedom, and the possibility that lecturers may feel threatened by the prospect of student retaliation.

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE: anybody who says words to the effect of 'this is what you'll face in the real world', STFU. MLS is not a corporate law firm (you're not there yet bigshot). We're a place of learning. People are currently obligated to take E&P; they are not obligated to pursue a career in criminal law and expose themselves to these experiences in the future.

The MLS administration needs regular reminding that the school is an educational, and not a workplace, environment; and that their role is NOT to be a resistant HR department.

Someone else with some concerns

16/5/2018 08:48:01 am

While I think wanting content warnings in a reasonable request, I think the manner in which you have gone about it through this article is questionable.

I was not in the class where this interaction with the teacher took place, but I did hear from several friends about it. They raised it without me asking, and their comments were universal. They thought the comments came out of no where and were unnecessarily adversarial. Some of those whom raised this with me were women, so while I won’t deny the truth of your experiences, it cannot be said that whatever the lecturer said was universally admonished or affected everyone (male or female) the same way. At worst it can be stated that this was perhaps a honest oversight in not warning students. This type of mistake does not mandate a public shaming. Whilst I don’t speak for the lecturer, I am certain he would have been receptive to any private feedback.

MLS is not some clandestine corporation that systematically silences vulnerable voices. From my experiences MLS take great effort to listen to students and take their concerns into account. Given this, I don’t understand how writing this article serves any purpose. You are not shedding light on something that MLS has systematically covered up or something that MLS has refused to receive feedback on. As the previous commentator stated, there is great irony in this article about victimisation.

A far more productive use of your time would have been to write an article about the importance of content warnings. As well as seeking feedback from others about their experiences encountering sensitive materials in all subjects and presented this to MLS to make systematic changes. Rather you have taken far less productive route which unfortunately has the potential to impugn the lecturer who, from my own experiences, has been excellent and has dealt with sensitive materials in an appropriate manner (at least what I consider to be appropriate).

Finally, I am at a complete loss as to what the content of the course has anything to do with content warnings. The reason that the lecturer spent an hour discussing a piece by a Spanish philosopher was to help students understand an important concept within the course, not because he thinks that is more important than any of the deficits in the course you outlined. I for one found it very useful and I think your criticism is completely unwarranted and presents a distorted view of what was taught.
If you don’t like what it taught, then let them know. If you think certain aspects of the course are not covered adequately, I’m sure your lecturer would be able to point you to some resources where you can educate yourself on those matters. There is also a reason why they have SES forms.

I think MLS goes to great strengths to give everyone a voice. It is our responsibility as to how and when we use it.

Brilliant comment

16/5/2018 02:40:28 pm

My thoughts exactly, thank you for articulating so well.

Concerned Reader

16/5/2018 09:29:28 am

Content warning: Cultural appropriation

Perhaps your hardships have obscured some facts, and revealed some prejudices. Jorge Luis Borges, although he wrote in the Spanish language, was not Spanish, but rather hailed from Argentina. I understand that this is an easy mistake to make; after all, the language is called Spanish! This said, I would encourage you to examine your own unconscious biases, because this is a case of cultural appropriation, whereby you have (consciously or otherwise) claimed a famous person from one culture for the benefit of another.

16/5/2018 10:16:06 am

The article will be amended, thank you

Liberal exhaustion

16/5/2018 10:18:30 am

Seriously? Obviously this was a factual mistake, but does it really make you a “concerned reader” that one might think a person Spanish than Argentinian? Should I be equally concerned if someone thinks I’m English because I speak it, and finds out I’m Australian? Best to shame them for their horrible prejudice. The scope of liberal concerns of cultural appropriation is at this point, ridiculous.

Yes and No

16/5/2018 10:39:14 am

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of the first part of this article; when discussing matters such as rape/sexual assault/other triggering issues, content warnings are crucial. As someone who has also been sexually assaulted, I can certainly sympathise with how you felt during that particular class. However, I’m not sure the critique offered in the latter half of the article is entirely fair.

Yes, Australia’s domestic violence epidemic is a critical issue. Yes, groups such as the LGBTQ+ community and ATSI individuals, along with other minorities, face discrimination at the hands of our so-called justice system. I have worked with DV survivors for the past three years. I’ve experienced biphobia. The whole reason I decided to study law is so I could help in some way to tackle the systemic violence minority groups face. Saying all this, Evidence and Proof is a subject about the foundations of the laws of evidence. While the issues you’ve flagged are necessary to discuss, I don’t believe they fall within the remit of our core Evidence and Proof subject. In my opinion, a more preferable option would be to have elective subjects dedicated to unpacking each of the societal issues you flagged, rather than a discussion here and there within our Evidence and Proof class (e.g. Law and Indigenous Peoples is a fantastic elective if you haven’t taken it already). I felt that this discussion regarding expanding the curriculum took away from the important message conveyed earlier in the article about the importance of mandating content warnings.

Karri

16/5/2018 10:55:54 am

A beautifully written and incredibly brave piece. Thank you Tess.

I think some people in the thread need to be aware of their privilege, in that this content will effect some people more than others. For people who have not experienced sexual assault, a content warning may be less relevant, but for others this prevents relieving damaging experiences. I have also sat very uncomfortable when sensitive material has not been dealt with in an appropriate way.

Tess has opened up such a productive discussion, which I hope is taken seriously at the law school. Thank you for speaking up and pushing for change!

???

16/5/2018 03:47:22 pm

None of the comments disagreeing with or taking a more nuanced approach to the article are in any way dismissing the experience or hurt suffered by the author or other students. Don't tell people to "check their privilege" , when they have, as a lazy way to dismiss those who have a different view.

16/5/2018 05:28:13 pm

Having the ability to attend a class in which sexual assault is discussed, without reliving personal trauma, is a privilege. It's really great that some people are in that position, and it's also great that their concerns as MLS students are still heard. However Karri's point is simply to implore those suggesting that content warnings are not necessary, to consider the experiences of students who would benefit from having trigger warnings in place. Comments indicating that the mental health concerns of a number of students are 'not good enough' to justify an email or warning prior to class are extremely dismissive of the hurt and pain experienced. Other statements have suggested that students should simply learn to deal with such content or else be ill-equipped for the harsh reality of real world (something that victims are all too aware of). These comments dismiss the legitimate desire to learn in a way that doesn't cause students to unnecessarily relive trauma. Other comments suggesting that students should expect such content from law school, display an astounding lack of empathy. If there is any way to minimise the trauma of our fellow students, shouldn't we do all that we can to achieve that? Students don't simply tick a box agreeing to trauma inducing content that covers us for an entire degree.

Ellie

16/5/2018 01:44:55 pm

Thank you for writing such a brave piece, Tess.

Thanks also for taking the time to engage with people in the comments: no small task given how exhausting thinking about your experience/justifying your position must be.

I’m sending lots of solidarity your way, and a very supportive submission to wom*ns officers.

Jared

16/5/2018 02:49:47 pm

@Ellie - "Wom*ns"? Really?

This doesn't seem that complicated. Content warnings may help prepare more vulnerable students for certain materials discussed in class. Seems like a small investment to include them. They wouldn't hurt any indifferent students and, from what people are saying, would likely do a lot of good for at least some portion of the student body. I can't say this issue affects me personally, but it doesn't seem like much of a debate.

Trigger warning: Words

16/5/2018 02:57:51 pm

Does being warned that rape is about to be discussed really have any effect of softening the blow when it is discussed? Wouldn’t those students who wish to leave the room already be triggered by the warning that it is about to be discussed?

Would it not be enough that certain subjects at the start of the printed materials, or perhaps the course as a whole come with a trigger warning that uncomfortable material such as rape and murder are going to arise? I honestly thought such a thing was implicit in undertaking a law degree anyway but I suppose I was mistaken about that.

An overriding subject or course warning would give students a good idea of knowing what they are getting into and give them enough time to prepare mentally or decide if the course/subject is right for them, but would a warning immediately before content is about to be discussed really make any difference?

Another issue is of course what is the scope of things that require a warning. Things like rape and murder seem obvious, but there are people who insist on a whole range of ridiculous esoteric items. Who decides what is in and out and on what basis?

Alana

16/5/2018 04:35:46 pm

I am happy for you that you've lived unaffected by this type of trauma that you haven't required a trigger warning. As you have seen above, this is not the case for many of your peers.

Murder is confronting for people. We were made aware at the start of this subject that we would be dealing with difficult and sensitive content. As such, we expect to see and hear distressing things about murder. We got the time to privately prepare for that such that we could come to class and learn productively for 12 weeks.

Where there is particularly distressing content like rape, where the subject has not involved issues of rape yet, you can perhaps see why a trigger warning is required. A simple email the night before class means that people can self-exclude where necessary. A disclaimer about content discussed after a 5 minute class break means that people can leave discretely if they want to. It means they do not need to confront their trauma surrounded by 60 of their peers in an (obviously!) unsupportive environment. It means they can unravel in the privacy of their own home, or with supportive and informed friends and family.

The authors of this article are not asking for MLS to avoid all discourse surrounding rape and sexual assault, and are not stating that those conversations do not exist in the world or in the law. I do not believe that someone interested in pursuing insolvency law or M&A as a career expects to deal with these issues as they would if they were attracted to family law or criminal law for example. Their choice to work in corporate law may even be informed by their aversion to such content. Setting up the parameters for conversation surrounding domestic violence, rape and sexual assault and how it affects Australians every single day allows for respectful, educational discussion.

One student's education is not more important than another's. Most importantly, I doubt your experience of the subject or this degree would have been diminished by trigger warnings, where required, to preserve the mental health of your peers.

Trigger warning: words

16/5/2018 05:03:52 pm

On what basis do you assume that I have not been affected by these types of trauma? The fact that I express reservation about trigger warnings? Is it inconceivable to you that some people who have suffered trauma do not feel they need such warnings to engage in the content? Please keep your baseless assumptions to yourself, especially if you are attempting to claim the moral high ground as you do in your comment.

16/5/2018 05:22:32 pm

I am really sorry for making assumptions, and I am sorry for what you have experienced. Case in point, people deal with these things differently and that is okay.

Brett

16/5/2018 07:26:13 pm

What options would a student have if they had a personal experience with murder and couldn't face coming to class?

Ex-Student

16/5/2018 03:27:57 pm

An excellent piece. This issue was raised a few years ago when I was studying at Melb Law - when discussing sensitive topics, lecturers sometimes provided no or little warning before launching into confronting details of cases or topical issues, and in a few instances, discussions domestic violence and abortion became offensive (with some students claiming to be 'just pointing it out' or 'playing devils advocate') were not addressed or prevented by lecturers. Either more support needs to be offered to staff to understand and address these kinds of events, or individual staff members frankly need to be reminded that while lawyers are often confronted with harsh realities, we do deserve to have some warning and control over when and how we wish to delve into such cases. There is a reason why some people choose not pursue certain avenues of law, and saying "that's just the way the world is" is a very crude way of demonstrating a total lack of empathy (and perhaps indicating that one should not be dealing with sensitive clients?)...

Samantha

16/5/2018 07:48:33 pm

You do not have a right to be protected from offensive speech. Heaven forbid the day comes when, at Australia's best law school, lecturers prevent students from playing devil's advocate or from voicing their opinions more generally.

Amen

22/5/2018 09:57:35 am

Follow up from Tess

16/5/2018 07:12:54 pm

This is just a quick note to let students know that this afternoon Associate Dean Anna Chapman invited me to meet with her, Associate Dean Matthew Harding and Dean Jenny Morgan. We ended up having an incredibly productive 40-minute discussion about the issues I raised in my article.

We spoke about both how content warnings can be carried out and the powerful impact they can have, and the concerns I raised about the Evidence course and how it can be improved. Jenny is speaking at an all-staff seminar in a few weeks that will discuss the use of content warnings, and said that she would be using the insights I gave on their importance.

I want to thank all of the people who have sent me messages of support and all those who have been brave enough to share with me how this empowered them because of their similar past experiences. I stand in solidarity with you and hope this gives you strength if you are confronted with these issues in the future.

In response to the critique of going about raising these issues in a public way - I don't believe that I have been hostile, disingenuous, ambushing or on a witch-hunt in my approach. I have a voice and I used it, and this has sparked a wider discussion and push for change. I also understand that people have different opinions and never expected for mine to be universally embraced, so I thank you for the engagement on the issues (where it was respectful).

In the meeting I was also able to reject the narrative that my approach is adversarial towards the professor. I believe that as I have articulated; he has listened, absorbed and been respectful in taking on board my criticism in a proactive way by using a well thought out and nuanced content warning in this weeks class before the break as afterwards we were going to launch into a very heavy evidence brief used in a previous exam. He also encouraged students to reflect on the seriousness of the issues that were going to be discussed and to be respectful. I pointed out I thought this was best practice and that he was thanked for this at the break.

It's also worth noting that I was able to bring up some examples that occurred in Criminal law by different professors last year, to show that this most certainly wasn't an isolated case and that this is an issue that the broader academic staff should reflect upon. Hopefully the upcoming seminar will lead to this being taken on board.

The faculty are taking this issue seriously and were overall thankful that I chose to speak up about this. Now we shall see what it leads to.
- Tess

Edmond Stewart

16/5/2018 09:16:52 pm

This is excellent news Tess. It's reassuring to see that speaking truth to power has an quick, meaningful and tangible response. You're doing an excellent job advocating for a sensible, compassionate and intelligent policy. Know that for every person not commenting support, countless others also are sitting by nodding their heads.

I'm hopefully that when my (2nd year) cohort commences these subjects the work laid by yourself, Lydia, Alana, Ayu, the womens/ESJ/Queer officers and countless other advocates before them, will result in a more compassionate course that helps guarantee better and more accessible educational outcomes.

Not what I’m paying for

16/5/2018 09:32:06 pm

I’m not sure what the full content of a ‘compassionate course’ would be, but I do know that most of us are here (and are paying to be here) to be taught the law and we don’t wish the quality of the degree to be compromised in pursuit of various social goals held by some.

That is the fear of people who resist moves towards things such as trigger warnings, that it damages the quality of education in some ways, such as contributing to a culture that stifles robust critical discussion of sometimes confronting material as lecturers tip toe around in the name of sensitivity and fear of causing distress or offence.

Whether that fear is well founded or not I don’t know, but I do know that myself and many others would never accept a trade-off of quality for ‘compassion’, whatever that means. The law school should not assume that a vocal minority represents the entire cohort’s opinion on this matter and should sound out a broad array of views before committing to any changes.

Britt

17/5/2018 12:41:10 pm

My first thought upon reading this comment was, ‘I’m pretty sure survivors of sexual assault aren’t “paying” to be retraumatised when a warning would take under a minute.’ But I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to remember that you’re concerned that content warnings will stifle critical thought and harm class discussion. That’s a valid concern. To that concern, I would ask:

Are content warnings really compromising your legal education?

Neither Tess nor Lydia are arguing for a radical rewriting of the course or, say, for rape cases to never be taught or discussed in class - what’s being advocated for is merely a warning that a case contains confronting content. There’s nothing to suggest that the introduction of content warnings is going to stop you from being ‘taught the law’ ... it’s not going to preclude class discussion, either. You’re not going to be less of a lawyer one day because some of your peers were afforded basic decency by a this small procedural change.

Content warnings are a tiny gesture for anyone who hasn’t been sexually assaulted, but they could prevent further damage for others. It would probably take less than sixty seconds to issue a warning. You can opt out if you find the content too distressing, or you can stay. In any case, I fail to see how it threatens YOUR education or diminishes your investment in this degree.

I’m also a little disappointed that you’re not willing to put your name to this discussion - for someone seemingly concerned about standards of frank and open discussion, I would have thought you wouldn’t hide behind a screen.

In contrast, this piece is brave, eloquent and powerful. Thank you,Tess (and Lydia)!

JD Curriculum Review

17/5/2018 01:00:44 am

The approach to curriculum and the pedagogy in the JD at MLS leaves much to be desired. The gist of things:

1. Constitutional Law: Colonialism? What’s that? Never heard of it.

2. Obligations/Contract: Corporate power Capitalism? Class? What’s that? Never heard of it. Don’t get carried away, we have 1 hour dedicated to wives and their loans.

3. Evidence: Black incarceration in WA higher than apartheid South Africa? Elijah murdered. What’s that, never heard of it.

4. Admin: White Australia policy? What’s that? Never heard of it.

5. Property: Colonialism? We know. Here’s an online quiz, don’t get upset, employers use spurious IQ testing too.

Give them an inch and they will take 10 miles

17/5/2018 01:21:01 am

I’m so sorry that the law school isn’t a far leftist re-education camp.

Unconscious Bias

17/5/2018 09:17:55 am

So right! better to pay $100,000, upfront, for years of unconscious bias.

Thanks for your frankness

17/5/2018 07:49:40 pm

Many if not most of us already have politics degrees where we had to endure that leftist claptrap. If you want to learn about colonialism go do a Master of Arts or something else useless. I'd like to learn the law, if that's not too much to ask.

Another ex-student

17/5/2018 09:09:59 pm

I was also disappointed with MLS's approach to content warnings (along with many other "controversial" issues that the law school seemed to refuse to take a position on) during my degree. I'm sad to see that such an easy way of helping students feel safe and valued has still not been implemented.

What I find frustrating about the negative comments above is that they posit sexual violence, indigenous incarceration and other issues raised in Tess's article as political and therefore 1. not really law and 2. not appropriate to discuss at Australia's best law school. Apparently, at Australia's best law school you should be able to buy a degree untainted by any uncomfortable discussion of nasty/boring/irrelevant things like sexual violence, racial profiling, or indigenous incarceration ...

This position is, firstly, mean-spirited towards people for whom these kinds of issues are of critical importance. Sadly for all MLS students, the position also perpetuates a culture where one point of view (the one in which these issues are a boring waste of time) dominates, and continues to be seen as somehow apolitical and purely legal.

But that view is plainly wrong. A subject that just "sticks to the law" isn't apolitical because it actively silences views in which sexual assault, encounters with police, or criminal justice are matters of personal experience. It does this by deeming these events to be the experiences of victims, people of colour, or indigenous people, rather than the experiences of lawyers, law students, or any people concerned with what the law should be. It is extremely naive not to realise that these perspectives can and should overlap.

Tess's article and the comments here alert us to the fact that there are MANY MLS students (I was one of them) who don't feel that their experiences are interesting or important in the MLS world. Tess et al, I hope that putting pressure on faculty and speaking up will allow different perspectives to be heard to create a more discursive and honest MLS where students are better equipped to understand and positively change the law.

Doublethink

17/5/2018 10:20:26 pm

Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me what those of us who resist trigger warnings are worried about is that they will actually discourage uncomfortable discussion of nasty/boring/irrelevant things like sexual violence, racial profiling, or indigenous incarceration, because people who find these things distressing will require constant forewarning that they are about to be mentioned meaning lecturers will just find it easier to not mention them.

The complaints from the trigger warning proponents don’t seem to be aiming for what you suggest. Their aim is not to have these difficult discussions, but rather to shelter certain people from certain distressing material in the interests of their mental health.

Important response

19/5/2018 12:56:46 pm

Thanks for the dignified comment. It's unfortunate that there's comments here about "leftist claptrap" - I am very left wing as I imagine a lot of the commenters not on board with the author's proposal are. There are more nuanced reasons to be concerned about what mandatory content warnings signify than excessive moral panic about "cultural marxism", "Arts Degrees" etc.,

19/5/2018 01:40:58 pm

I didn't attend week 11 class. Where do we collect the hard copy briefs on Friday from?? If any one would be so kind to help.

Good luck with the exam

19/5/2018 07:05:38 pm

Haha - we can pick them up from the Enrichment Centre.

19/5/2018 10:26:52 pm

Thank you. Good luck to you too

Qodratullah Sultani

21/5/2018 12:02:29 am

Great Article Tess. The Law School is secretively very political, it tries to teach us outdated principles of liberal western politics and try to convey it through legislation or old cases by sliding in their opinions into it. The way seminars are conducted is to passively bombard us with the lecturer's opinion without really caring about students. Other than student life, there seems to be this privileged elitist life of few officials who simply spend student money. Who knows a few might comment anonymously each week. There are a lot of people wanting to ban the burqa in real life. But they refuse to identify themselves online!! Such a shame to not identify your real identity and claim to study or work at Australia's no. 1 law school.

Oscar Davies

22/5/2018 10:28:00 am

What if a lecturer has given no content warning before class because there is nothing that warrants it in the content the lecturer plans to discuss and then, during the class, a student innocently says something potentially traumatic? (-->not sure if 'traumatic' is the right word but you get the point)

Also,

If content warnings do become prevalent, is there not a risk that lecturers will content warn at the start of every class, even if there is nothing potentially offensive in the class, just to safeguard themselves from being accused of insensitivity.

In that case warnings will become so commonplace that they lose their effect. What next?

Also in that case, you could say lecturers should be more considerate and not abuse the content warning system, but is that realistic?

I don't intend to demean anyone's opinions here, these are questions coming from a place of sincere interest in the realistic usefulness of some of the suggestions made in achieving the goal of helping people live more comfortably and happily.

Comments are closed.

IS CONSIDERATE, INFORMED DISCUSSION TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR?

Archives