What MLS has Taught Me, or, Neutrality is Not Always a Good Thing

26/10/2016

TERESA GRAY
Volume 10, Issue 12
I didn’t come to Melbourne Law School with unrealistic dreams about what a law degree could offer me. I had an Arts degree, and I’d worked a bit previously; I wanted better employment prospects, and the chance to do something more practical with my time.

What I wanted from MLS changed over the three years I spent here. I wanted to feel involved, to have a sense of community, because I didn’t think I’d get through otherwise, and I did find that, after a little while. I wanted law to not define me as a person, wholly, and I think I managed that, though I have to introduce myself as a law student first and foremost now, and doing the JD has changed the way I think. I wanted to avoid feeling like a statistic in a bureaucratic machine that would give me some analytical skills and a piece of paper, and over time I managed that too. I had opportunities for brilliant experiences and encounters with brilliant people, in my cohort and in the faculty, and I took as many of those opportunities as I could while trying to maintain a healthy amount of time outside of the building.

I also wanted the complacency of many people in this institution to be blown apart, and it was, in certain moments that were very revealing of what lies beneath the neutral facade of this place.

Neutrality is often analogous with conservatism, and I don’t think I will be making a controversial point when I say that the law is conservative. That’s its hallmark, after all - decisions are made based on what’s been decided before, because there is a virtue, we agree, in certainty, in following precedent, in avoiding capricious and arbitrary decision-making. Radical change remains possible, but it’s rare. This knowledge about the law influences the way many think about the law school; we can be complacent, those of us with privilege, arriving in this hallowed grey building, safe in thinking that things which have benefited us in the past, and which we understand, will continue on in the same way.

But there is a point at which precedent should not be followed, when change is a moral imperative, and I am suspicious of those who shoot down suggestions for change which are based on the lived experiences of their colleagues.

In the law school as in broader society, neutrality can mask disadvantage and inequality. Bringing these things to light - as, for example, the debate about a women’s space did last year - often causes a backlash. It’s in the backlash that you learn some stark truths.

With the women’s space example, it might seem like I’m bringing up something which has long been forgotten, and should only be a punchline to a joke about law students caring too much during swotvac. But to me it’s very much a live issue, which was never resolved, not least because there remains no evidence of the debate on my year level’s Facebook page. The fallout solidified my community, but I learned that the concerns of minorities are sometimes more likely to be silenced here than listened to respectfully.

But it was enlightening, and that’s the point I want to make. Though the only public result was backlash, the response made me angry in a way I hadn’t been before, and I found that to be productive.

The same might be true for those who tried to implement the recent gender-diversity mechanism for first-year LSS representatives.

The frustration of seeing the backlash against my friends who were trying to change a policy based on legitimate concerns has set me up well for my career, I think. There is value in listening to others and noticing when the situation as it currently stands is inadequate, and there is bravery in attempting to change it.

I think these are skills which those about to join the legal profession must have. We must question the status quo, or at least remain open to the questioning of others. We must listen to each other with respect, and approach each other and those who come to us for assistance as equals, while recognising that we are not all the same. We have an obligation to listen when told that a policy or a law which seems neutral actually has a negative effect on a subsection of the community; to look beyond express purpose to effect; to not accept institutional explanations at face value, however much we might respect the institution in question. Believe in the rule of law or the concept of the public interest, but know what is being done in the name of these ideas.

We have an obligation to look beneath the surface of things, to critique, to be aware. We already have privilege, and a lot of us will probably have power, and we should care about what we do with it and how it impacts on those around us.

So if you’re angry, hold onto that anger. I think that it will serve you well. And remain open to possibility – sometimes there is a crack in the façade.

Teresa Gray is a third-year JD student

The rest of this issue(!):

More articles like this:

69 Comments

Henry HL

26/10/2016 07:20:17 pm

Fantastic piece

Finn Douglas

26/10/2016 08:00:29 pm

This is just so well written and a wonderful message. You're a legend Teresa.

Mr. Snrub

26/10/2016 08:02:29 pm

"must question the status quo, or at least remain open to the questioning of others"

"We have an obligation to look beneath the surface of things, to critique, to be aware."

The tone of this piece is one of questioning neutral slash conservative institutions but I wonder if you have considered that a great many of our societal institutions, both formal and informal, have a liberal-left lean to them.

So does your advice to question, critique and scratch the surface extend to questioning this liberal order? Or is that an exercise reserved for not so 'progressive' targets?

It could easily be said that the backlash against the march of so-called progressive policies regrading the issues of a women's spaces and gender quotas was simply an exercise of your suggestions; to question and scratch the surface.

a non e mouse

26/10/2016 09:46:49 pm

Yet another article promulgating the leftist lean of MLS.....

Hamish W.

26/10/2016 10:11:24 pm

@A Non E Mouse

"Yet another article promulgating the leftist lean of MLS..."

Egad, if only De Minimis willingly published articles by all MLS students! Then you could write an elegant conservative rejoinder rather than resorting to snarky anonymous comments.

26/10/2016 10:18:15 pm

Also, I believe that's an incorrect use of 'promulgating'. It's synonymous with 'promoting' or 'publicising', not with 'demonstrating' or 'contributing to'.

Sorry to be a pedant, but that was going to bother me all night if I didn't point it out.

Farewell, and tata

26/10/2016 10:50:07 pm

Ironically, your piece is a facade - hiding behind this eloquent and thoughtful discussion is a shoddy attempt at bringing the women-only-MLS room debate back into the spotlight. And it fails completely.

We are sick of feminists like you, Teresa. Sick of feminists who believe they are entitled to whatever their wild imaginations can concoct. Sick of feminists who demand attention and curb criticism, freely using labels 'misogynist', 'back-ward thinking' and other derogatory terms to silence their opposition.

Let me destroy the MLS Women-Only Room debate with a few rhetoric questions, and that will be the end of it. I understand you wish to implement a women's only room in a predominantly-female institution that is MLS - what are you going to do when (IF) you start work at a law firm...are you going to demand a women-only work room there too? Or, will you push to get an entire women's floor to yourself? Are you going to hide inside your sanctuary, for fear that one of the male staff will wink suggestively at you as he walks by?

You may get support from your deluded modern-feminist 'community', and I sincerely hope that you find happiness and a sense of belonging within it. Because whatever you do, please don't try and taint the rest of us with your toxic garbage.

If you feel that you want to get more educated on this topic, I refer you to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Zz3IzU8AE. I encourage you to watch this video in your entirety and reflect on its meaning, and not dismiss it as a 'misogynist' and 'backwards' speech.

It has been my pleasure not knowing you these last 3 years, and I hope that continues.

Another MRA

26/10/2016 11:30:13 pm

So true. Get back into the kitchen, Gray.

Anon.

27/10/2016 08:21:14 am

Don't be a fuckwit.

26/10/2016 11:33:29 pm

So because valuable demands won't be met in some sectors we shouldn't meet them in others?

Sorry to substitute actual analysis with a rhetorical question but you kinda set yourself up for that one eh

Kim Crow

27/10/2016 12:14:02 am

The comment is puerile, but putting that aside, I wouldn't agree that it is a valuable demand to have women's spaces in places of employment.

If things had to be taken that far then we might as well go the rest of the way and implement full gender segregation in the rest of society where men and women each have their own seperate spaces and spheres. Saudi Arabia springs to mind as a model.

27/10/2016 10:54:09 am

Also, I feel like you're somewhat trivialising the horrors of both a misogynistic theocracy (through your comment) and segregation (through your moniker) by comparing them to a goddamn room that women can opt in to visiting.

27/10/2016 11:00:06 am

Like, support for a limited, opt-in space for women to be free from what can be an intimidating and unsafe general environment doesn't (I can't believe I have to write this) entail support for a fascistic misogynistic theocracy.

Like I really don't see why "if things had to be taken that far then we might as well go the rest of the way and implement full gender segregation in the rest of society where men and women each have their own seperate spaces and spheres. Saudi Arabia springs to mind as a model."

Like, I don't think anyone was suggesting that. And also just what? Are you actually suggesting that there are no cases where both a) a women's room would be appropriate b) imposing full and mandatory gender segragation wouldn't be? Really?

27/10/2016 11:09:05 am

I just pointing out a potential path that this line of thinking might lead to. Gender segregation in certain societies is often justified on a need to protect women from the bestial instincts of men.

But I will concede that I'd be more than happy for there to be a women's only room if there was a correspond men's only room. And don't try and pull that 'the rest of the school is the men's room' crap; women are a clear majority at MLS among students and staff.

27/10/2016 11:52:59 am

I don't think we should construct policy on the basis of the worst case slippery slope that it might lead to. That's a mode of analysis that leaves us paralysed, unable to take any action to change a flawed status quo.

The reason why a women's room is justified, while a men's room is not, is that men ( i think) generally don't feel harassed or oppressed because of their gender by people of the opposite gender at law school. This is why there were repeated calls for a women's room in the law school as a good thing in itself, while only reason people tend to call for a men's room is out of a desire to have some kind of formal equality.

Numbers don't prove all that much here. Majority groups can be less privileged/powerful than minorities -- think the 99% vs the 1%, colonised vs coloniser, high vs lower caste etc. To be clear, I'm not equating any of these systems to gender hierarchy at MLS, just making the limited point that numbers don't always equal power.

27/10/2016 12:01:24 pm

tbh I think a men's room could be useful if it were done the right way, ie a designated place to open up and seek support in a way that men are discouraged from doing in an everyday context.

My concern is that it would become the sort of exclusive mens-only networking club type thing (ala the Melbourne Club etc etc etc) that so many men's-only spaces are, the existence of which is a large part of why women are disadvantaged in the legal profession.

27/10/2016 12:27:13 pm

"The reason why a women's room is justified, while a men's room is not, is that men ( i think) generally don't feel harassed or oppressed because of their gender by people of the opposite gender at law school"

The idea that there is any 'oppression' going on at MLS is laughable and makes a mockery of the term and of all those who actually live or have lived under genuinely oppressive regimes.

As to harassment, I might concede the point if there was hard evidence that genuine sex-based harassment was prevalent at MLS. Certain women's space advocates seem to treat this as self-evident but some of us require a higher standard of evidence to be convinced.

And yes it's true that numbers don't tell the whole story, a majority may be less well off than a majority, but nobody has thus far been able to prove that women at MLS presently suffer any disadvantage compared to make students by virtue of their gender.

27/10/2016 04:11:17 pm

I commented this below, but it applies equally here

"Why don't you trust the women who say that these problems exist, and think that a room that you could opt-in to (not "be segregated into") might be a good way of ameliorating these problems? Why do you think that the few minutes you've spent thinking about these problems gives you the understanding to dismiss out of hand people who live these problems every day?

Are they lying? Are you just that much smarter than them? Do you think they just get a kick out of being called names on the internet?

I'm actually interested in your answer"

27/10/2016 04:38:10 pm

Let me pose you a question which might answer the ones you posed me.

If I told you that MLS had a persistent problem of sexual harassment from women towards men, and a men's only room that one could opt into was required to ameliorate that problem, would you believe me and accede to that request?

I suspect the answer is no. I suspect you would demand a greater degree of evidence that such a problem existed than simply the word of one or even a handful of people that the problem did exist.

So what is the threshold of evidence that is satisfactory? I don't know, but I do know that whatever it is, it is not satisfied simply by saying 'take my word for it'.

27/10/2016 05:11:32 pm

This isn't a goddamn hypo mate. My question was why you saw fit to privilege your own back-of-the-envelope guestimates about sexual harassment over those of the people actually complaining about it. Real, actual people, with no incentive to lie.

To answer your question though, I would be puzzled by such a deluge of complaints, given that sexual harassment is overwhelmingly perpetuated by men against women. But no, I wouldn't 'demand a greater degree of evidence', because that would be fucked up.

Why is such a great degree of evidence being demanded anyway? The creation of a women's room doesn't negatively impact men -- it just creates one single room, within a building of hundreds of rooms, that you can't enter. Where is the great deprivation of rights here? And if there is none, why demand such exact proof?

There is a limit to what can be proved to the 'objective' level you demand. At some level you have to make an empathic leap, and trust the people that are calling for your help and support. Trust that they have experiences that you do not have. Concede that your experience is a limited one. Admit that the conclusions you can draw from that limited experience are going to be similarly limited. Listen to the ways that you can help.

Without making that leap, even the smartest of people are doomed to petty, narrow-minded positions like your own.

27/10/2016 05:25:35 pm

Like, maybe the reason why so many women complain about sexual harassment is, I don't know, that they're being sexually harassed.

That you would respond to those complaints with continuous demands for objective proof, with scepticism rather than empathy, is a fucking concern.

These are people's lives, not a high school debate.

27/10/2016 08:00:35 pm

"But no, I wouldn't 'demand a greater degree of evidence', because that would be fucked up. "

Very well then. I am now explicitly claiming that there is a serious problem of sexual harassment from women towards men at MLS, and that a men's only room is required to ameliorate this problem. Based on your own words I expect you now to be in full support of a mens only room at MLS

"Why is such a great degree of evidence being demanded anyway? The creation of a women's room doesn't negatively impact men -- it just creates one single room, within a building of hundreds of rooms, that you can't enter. Where is the great deprivation of rights here? And if there is none, why demand such exact proof?"

Very well. I submit that there should be a whites only room at MLS. Nobody who is not white may enter. By your own logical the creation of a whites only room does not negatively impact non-whites -- it just creates one single room, within a building of hundreds of rooms, that non-whites can't enter. Where is the great deprivation of rights here? And if there is none, why demand such exact proof that one is needed?

"At some level you have to make an empathic leap, and trust the people that are calling for your help and support. Trust that they have experiences that you do not have. Concede that your experience is a limited one. Admit that the conclusions you can draw from that limited experience are going to be similarly limited. Listen to the ways that you can help."

No you don't. I sincerely hope you never become a judge, or serve on a jury.

"Like, maybe the reason why so many women complain about sexual harassment is, I don't know, that they're being sexually harassed."

Well this is the heart of the problem isn't it. How many women at MLS are complaining about sexual harassment at this law school, and is it of a degree that indicates there is a serious problem here? I don't have the answers to that question. Do you?

27/10/2016 10:15:33 pm

Wow.

27/10/2016 10:23:21 pm

Jesus Christ mate

27/10/2016 10:36:42 pm

This really is just a conversational game to you, isn't it?

I'm disappointed, and hope that one day you gain enough perspective to look back on these words with regret.

27/10/2016 11:05:43 pm

Do you have anything of substance to say?

27/10/2016 11:25:13 pm

Only to those who would listen. Take the last word if you have to, I'm done here

27/10/2016 12:19:21 am

@Anonymous dick-stain

Can you point to a singular way in which the feminists whom you pillory have attempted to "shut down" this debate?

The key institutional responses to the whole women's room debacle were to (1) delete the Facebook thread in which the matter was debated; and (2) demand the deletion of the “Men’s Room” article, haul in the De Minimis editors, and (quite incorrectly) accuse one of them of having written it. Both of these responses disproportionately affected those *in favour* of establishing such a room, by virtue of shutting down discussion of the matter. On this basis, you can hardly claim that the MLS or LSS are in the thrall of radical feministas.

As for the response of students themselves, they were engaging in precisely the kind of robust public debate which you claim to champion. Yes, that extends to name-calling and foul language. You can’t decry ‘safe spaces’ or ‘trigger warnings’, and then weep that your ideological opponents call you—an anonymous poster—a misogynist or worse. Toughen up, buttercup.

Perhaps *you* should watch the video you posted. Milo Yiannopolous, grubby little narcissist though he is, at least has the decency to opine under his real name.

It seems to me that you're angered that some women have had the temerity to express an opinion, and that a substantial proportion of the MLS community appeared to agree with them. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable finding a safe-space for people who share your views: I’d suggest the Melbourne Club.

Anon

27/10/2016 08:20:04 am

Pull your head in, mate. You can argue your point without reducing it to personsl insults.

Nicholas H Ward

27/10/2016 12:04:14 pm

The fact that you're citing Milo Yiannopoulos for anything other than proof of how terrible human thinking can be shows a deeply misguided thought process

Frankly, I find it hard to believe you've managed to scale the ladder of education as high as we are - and I don't intend that as an ad hominem attack. Your reply shows an utter lack of critical thought, or reflection

To use one of your own lines, please don't try and taint the rest of us with your toxic garbage. Removing this bullshit attitude of persecution you're relying on from this group would make the rest of us a lot happier

Whoever you are, if I have the displeasure of knowing you, let me know who you are. I'd be happy to have some words in real life about your views on this subject

JJ Kim

27/10/2016 05:24:17 pm

What's your name bruh you scared?

James Nunez

28/10/2016 08:45:02 am

Get in the bin, Cro-Magnon.

26/10/2016 11:42:56 pm

I'm just sad that my forthcoming piece 'you're all a bunch of misogynistic red-piller who should wrote articles of you feel so strongly about this shit' will have to wait till next year for publication.

27/10/2016 12:06:57 am

*red-pillers, *write, *if, etc -- don't drink and comment kids!

Elizabeth Flatley

27/10/2016 10:56:16 am

Teresa, this is a FANTASTIC piece!
Thank you so much for putting together something that describes something I have thought to be true for so long, but much more articulately. We are indebted to you.

To: FAREWELL, AND TATA
Go fuck yourself, you cowardly creep. If you really believed what you had to say was of any worth, you would not publish it anonymously.

Jacinta Cox

27/10/2016 11:30:11 am

In response to 'FAREWELL, AND TATA':

Regardless of your stance on the women’s space, your comparison with the male staff member who winks suggestively at a women as she walks past trivialises sexual harassment in the workplace. Undermining the experiences of all too many women who continue to face such harassment as ‘demand[ing] attention’ and ‘deluded’ is harmful in a way that words cannot even begin to express.

This piece is beautifully written, poignant and speaks volumes of the author behind it! Thank you Teresa

big problems

27/10/2016 11:35:18 am

if MLS is so unsafe that women need a special room, then there are substantially bigger problems and a room is probably doing more harm than good by segregating the victims

but i don't buy that there's any harm that a separate room will be addressing

there's more women than men in the law school already!

27/10/2016 12:30:53 pm

Why don't you trust the women who say that these problems exist, and think that a room that you could opt-in to (not "be segregated into") might be a good way of ameliorating these problems? Why do you think that the few minutes you've spent thinking about these problems gives you the understanding to dismiss out of hand people who live these problems every day?

Are they lying? Are you just that much smarter than them? Do you think they just get a kick out of being called names on the internet?

I'm actually interested in your answer

Deeana P

27/10/2016 03:31:06 pm

Wow great response, you've simply and clearly demonstrated the lack of need for a women's room in this mercifully succinct comment.

You don't buy that there is a need so there musn't be any, there are more women in the law school than men so how could they possibly feel unsafe? I have never thought about it this way, thanks for your genius and insightful contribution!

Day in day out I am just amazed at the level of critical analysis the students of the law school seem to be capable of! Your friends and family must be really proud of your achievements :)

If I only had a brain

28/10/2016 12:50:40 am

That was an amazing display of critical analysis you provided there yourself. You gave neither argument nor evidence that women at MLS as a group are suffering some sort of harm that would justify the need for a women's room. Well done!

Mary Michele

27/10/2016 03:50:07 pm

Like my second year colleagues Elizabeth and Jacinta and unlike many of the third year posters (except of course Henry HL and Hamish) I am also using my real name and would like to thank the author for her honest opinion piece in response to the lessons she has learned from her experience at MLS.

All I can hope for is that my year and subsequent years can do a better job of listening to each other and respecting each others' opinions. Some of the response posts are so completely vile that it is clear the real problem is not whether or not there should be a woman's room or related problems around feminist ideology, it is that there are law students - future lawyers - at this institute who propagate abusive and hateful ideas, and that is a problem.

Jacob D

27/10/2016 04:34:17 pm

Well said Mary. Couldn't agree more.

Tam C

27/10/2016 04:53:40 pm

Hear hear, Mary!

Scott colvin (real name)

27/10/2016 04:57:06 pm

Menimists — it has been over a year now, and you have yet to put forth a decent argument for your position.

You keep saying over and over that there is no problem in MLS with assault, intimidation and other gender-related abuse. But have you actually spoken to the women around you? You'll perhaps be surprised to hear that women have, in fact, genuinely felt unsafe either at the law school or around law students, and some have even had experiences that may amount to sexual assault or harassment.

You've relied only on slippery-slope arguments ('when (IF) you start work at a law firm...are you going to demand a women-only work room there too? Or, will you push to get an entire women's floor to yourself?') and other logical fallacies. Put forward an argument that stands up to scrutiny. No one here is advocating for a Saudi Arabia-style segregation. That's silly.

De Minimis will publish anything, and anonymously if you wish. None of you have put the argument forward.

Henry HL (Head Troll Hunter) has actually offered the only reasonable argument from your position, by suggesting a men's room as an open space for men to discuss pressures that may be felt more strongly by men, or as a place for men in general to open up.

Teresa Gray has put together a wonderful article on being critical, which only barely touched on the women's room. You should take this as a good example.

Teresa is welcome in my 'community' anytime.

Kim Cattrall

27/10/2016 09:33:35 pm

"But have you actually spoken to the women around you?"

I do wonder, have you?

And by that I mean, have you taken a survey, or preferably a census, of the female population of Melbourne Law School, with appropriate quality controls and reliable methodology, that indicates there is a problem of sexual harassment, and one of sufficient prevelance that would justify the existence of a women's room to ameliorate the problem?

Or have you simply 'spoken to women around you' in the sense of hearing a number of anecdotes, from which you have baselessy extrapolated that there does in fact exist a prevelant and ingrained problem of sexual harassment at MLS?

I am infact speaking from a position of total ignorance here. Does there in fact exist evidence that sexual harassment from men towards women is a prevalent problem at MLS? If so, would anyone be so kind as to direct me towards it?

scott colvin

28/10/2016 09:19:01 am

Kim Cattrall, you've raised a relevant question about evidence, and I think it's worth making a few points. Essentially your question comes down to what level of evidence is sufficient to justify a women's room.

We both know a survey with a reliable methodology and quality controls is unrealistic. All of the evidence we have suggests how likely it is that women will be afraid to speak out against offenders, and the small cohort size is only going to exacerbate that. MLS and the University would never agree to it, and they are the only ones who could make it happen.

But I'm not sure that such a study is necessary here, and if anything, sets a deliberately unachievable level of evidence.

This touches on the wider issue of the relative usefulness of anecdotal ('lived experience') evidence compared with generalised evidence. It seems like we would probably agree: you can't draw generalisations from anecdotal evidence, just as you can't make specific inferences from generalisations. But that's not the concern here: this is about a specific solution to problems faced by individuals, and I think anecdotal evidence is appropriate.

You see, I didn't 'baselessly extrapolate'. I didn't need to. Anecdotal evidence suggested that those individuals felt concerned, and I think that's sufficient. There doesn't need to be a thorough investigation of the prevalence of sexual harassment at MLS to justify their concerns.

Your proposition and the evidence you would seek to justify it don't align. We don't need a full-scale investigation to conclude that some (or any) individuals have been harassed. We need their word for it, and we should take that as enough.

It's a room in a large building for people who, at times, may feel more comfortable studying in it. I think if a few individuals are concerned enough to advocate for it, that should be sufficient. There is no need for a comprehensive empirical study — that sets the bar insurmountably high.

Kim Cattral.

28/10/2016 10:23:47 am

If I can try to sum up your proposition, it seems to be this; Although there is no evidence that sexual harassment is prevalant at MLS, some female students have given anecdotes of sexual harassment, and a women's room is justified at the very least to address the problem faced by these individuals. That a few individuals have a need for it and advocate for it is sufficient.

On that basis, would you also be in support of a men's only room, based on the anecdotes of a few male individuals, or even just one, of sexual harassment from women towards men? If only a few men had need for it and advocated it, would you consider that sufficient?

I suspect that to be consistent, your answer would have to be yes.

Scott

28/10/2016 10:39:40 am

Yes and yes.

General evidence of the prevalence of sexual harassment at MLS would be great, but too difficult for me to get. In the absence, if individuals are sufficiently concerned, give them a room.

....

28/10/2016 05:01:27 pm

what individuals are concerned? if its such a small problem that most of us have never heard about it, maybe individual cases should be dealt with as they arise

Sarah Moorhead

27/10/2016 05:17:52 pm

Teresa, this is as awesome a piece now as it was when you did me the honour of asking me to proof it; if anything, merely made more poignant, relevant and strong by the reaction its received from the MRA m8s of MLS. Thanks <3

@Farewell, And Tata, I wish I could say I have cherished not knowing you, but the problem is I can't be sure - hiding behind anonymity forces me to question whether I might be doling out pleasant smiles in the MLS hallways a scumbucket such as yourself does not deserve.
A big part of what made #womensgate so awful for the people (women especially) who supported the idea was that it, ironically perhaps, revealed the level of unthinking, reactionary sexism present in the MLS cohort - a cohort in which we should feel challenged, yes, but always safe.
Thanks a bunch for reminding us, yet again, that sexist fuckwits are pretty much inescapable.

Shakti Nambiar

27/10/2016 11:33:17 pm

Teresa, this is a great article.

Unnamed commenters, your arguments are basically making Teresa's point for her- which is unnecessary, because she has made it so well. Also, fuck off.

DE MINIMIS

28/10/2016 12:04:12 am

De Minimis encourages comments under articles, but will be forced to remove those that are 'defamatory, grossly offensive, or discriminatory'.

Clearly those words leave a lot of grey area, so please do not treat this as an exercise in statutory interpretation. Instead, simply refrain from personal attacks and insulting language when conversing on the DM website.

Tim (Online Editor)

Jasmine Ali

28/10/2016 08:58:54 am

Great article Teresa!

I think (from memory) the demand for the women's space fell off the map/disappeared from our year too. These issues, discussions of sexism, racism, homophobia and queer/trans rights and the law/law school seem to stay as debates online. There's some timidity about more collective and public activism at MLS.

It also makes me think: what the hell are the LSS doing? This is supposed to be a leading body that advocates for students. From what I remember the LSS' response was to create a policy about online comments in the FB group our year. They never actually touched the substantive issues of the women's space that had been raised publicly or took a public position. The LSS' faux neutrality is also part of the problem, and one that maintains the conservative status quo which most people are totally sick of.

We need more resources to discuss, promote and campaign about these issues at MLS. We need collectives to push and fight for these changes. The LSS should be giving us these resources so we can spend more of our time agitating for this kind of change and less time arguing with ultra-conservatives who love the online arena.

I have been reading what the students at Harvard Law School are doing on issues of race/racism and the law school and it is miles, I mean MILES, ahead of anything at MLS. The climate is conservative at MLS but I don't think that's because students don't want change- it's incredibly difficult be among the first ones to challenge the status quo- particular around issues such as oppression. But each time an article comes out there is so much overwhelming support, but it seems to go no further.

Maybe we need to start a group "Reclaim MLS" (similar to Reclaim Harvard) to discuss these things and organise for greater change at MLS. The way our core units are taught in my experience has been completely ignorant of wider social/political issues: feminist theory or critical race theory (and more!) and all just a black letter bore, focussed on training for future professionals, in the most socially unaware way.

Maybe reclaim MLS is something we can start pushing next year!

I will make the flyers....

Please stay in touch!

Jasmine

Ultra conservative black letter bore

28/10/2016 09:39:27 am

" The LSS' faux neutrality is also part of the problem, and one that maintains the conservative status quo which most people are totally sick of."

Don't presume to speak for what "most people" think, unless you have some sort of polling data that supports your assertion.

"We need more resources to discuss, promote and campaign about these issues at MLS. We need collectives to push and fight for these changes. The LSS should be giving us these resources so we can spend more of our time agitating for this kind of change"

The LSS is not a vehicle for agitating political causes, it is a vehicle for providing support and services to law students. Nor is MLS a vehicle for agitating political causes, it is an institution that trains people to be lawyers. If you want to use that training to push a political cause then that's fine but it's not the place of the law school to agitate for them. If resources were being provided to support leftist causes then there would also need to be equal resources available for those opposing such causes, or the law school would rightly be described as a biased institution.

"The way our core units are taught in my experience has been completely ignorant of wider social/political issues: feminist theory or critical race theory (and more!)"

Perhaps it is because these issues are completely irrelevant outside of subjects like legal theory or legal research. How do you expect to study feminist theory or critical race theory in say, remedies, or constitutional law, when there is no, or no relevant case law about it? Perhaps you should be doing a gender studies degree rather than a law degree.

Ultra Conservative Black Letter Bore

28/10/2016 10:05:59 am

"it's incredibly difficult be among the first ones to challenge the status quo- particular around issues such as oppression"

Further to this, you are not 'oppressed'. Nobody as Melbourne Law School is 'oppressed'. Attending this institution makes you one of the most privileged people in the nation. That anybody here here would still be trying to compete in the oppression olympics, is lamentable.

28/10/2016 10:35:28 am

@Ultra Conservative Black Letter Bore

The law frequently intersects with social issues, so there's plenty of relevant case law to be discussed. Teachers have tried to touch on issues but this has not been systemic, quite dependent on the interests of the teacher, and upon timetabling.

Just thinking off the top of my head...

Contracts: Louth v Diprose
Trusts: how constructive trusts effect women (thinking of Lisa Sarmas' excellent article that discusses various case law through feminist theory)
Admin: critical race theory discussed in the context of Tickner v Chapman (Kristen Rundle was excellent at encouraging a more thoughtful and holistic discussion of this)
Torts: Brad Jessup did a good job of encouraging discussion in the intensive (I remember talking about disability, the environment).
Corps: capitalism vs socialism (or some other alternative) through the debate on CSR
Property: what about Native Title? This could be expanded upon since we aren't tested on this for hypos

I recall in Legal Theory discussing how legal education should be undertaken, and how the historical perspective was for a more substantive and socially aware education. Maybe it is time to update this for the 21st century understanding of social awareness.

Also - even if you argue for core subjects having less of an emphasis on how the law intersects with social issues, what about elective subjects? 2017 is looking very poor on that front...

28/10/2016 11:05:33 am

Of course all areas of law can be tangentially spun off into social issues and commentary, but it doesn't contribute to an understanding of the letter of the law. Understanding feminist theory doesn't better help you understand the ratio of Louth v Diprose, it's just a sort of general-interest concern.

It seems some people want their law degree to be less of a law degree and more of an Arts 2.0 degree, where they can write essays and contemplate high ideas, rather than learning about what the law says and how to apply it.

There are subjects for that exercise, and thats where that exercise should stay. When I take a corporations law class, I expect to be taught what the law is in relation to corporations, not engage irrelevant discussions about Captalism and Socialism. When I take a Contracts class, I expect to learn about contract law, not to engage in some crypto-political discussion about women's rights to make me more 'socially aware'.

28/10/2016 12:49:28 pm

Social issues are not irrelevant to the law, they in fact help us understand the law! Think of Mabo – without an understanding how terra nullius and the oppression of Indigenous Australians, it is difficult to understand 1) why Mabo is such a fundamentally important case (both socially and LEGALLY) and 2) the ongoing ramifications Mabo has in Australian property law. As for Louth v Diprose, the feminist theory helps people understand how Louth v Diprose is shaky and incompatible with the underpinning theory of undue influence. I would say that contributes to understanding the letter of the law.

It is not that every case can or should be discussed with an eye on social issues and commentary. It is that the letter of the law includes theory, and that different theoretical perspectives can enrich students’ understandings of the law. It can also better prepare students for when they are in practice – statute changes, but understanding theory means that you create stronger arguments. Stronger because they are consistent with the underlying rationale of the law. Part of the role of a judge is looking at the rationale of the law and responding to case with greater coherency and consistency.

If that were not the case, then what are we doing in Remedies (for e.g.)? What is the point of discussing fusion theory, since that is not the strictest letter of the law?

Each subject does not need to be primarily focused on developing a student’s social awareness. However, in many of the core subjects, there will be opportunities where a student’s understanding of the law can be heightened by drawing upon theory (whether that be feminist theory, critical race theory, or even capitalism vs socialism). Indeed, almost every core subject has essays in the exam that are focused on the wider theories and themes of that subject.

I am sure some people do want to write essays and contemplate high ideas. That is what elective subjects, like the Philosophical Foundations of the Law, are aimed at. Disappointingly, though, the law school has not provided other elective opportunities (e.g. the lack of electives on Indigenous Australians and the law in 2017).

28/10/2016 12:52:20 pm

If we only learn and think about what the law is, and not what it can/should be, we'd never see any change at all- a state of affairs that is thankfully not mirrored in real life, although it may be so in your one-dimensional, atemporal reading of the law. Also, are you REALLY saying that constitutional law is not suited to a discussion of oppression/disadvantage? REALLY? Did you do ANY of the readings?

its not u its me

28/10/2016 05:02:55 pm

i really think you would be happier doing an arts masters

28/10/2016 09:51:17 pm

The suggestion that considerations of the law in context (what you label "social issues") do not factor into legal reasoning, and cannot contribute to an understanding and development of legal doctrine, is absurd. A number of legal doctrines have been acknowledged to develop in alignment with value judgments, and more still are being recognised by courts in the modern age as obscuring power differentials and in need of reform/replacements (which Tam C has touched on)

The suggestion that the law curriculum should be devoted to teaching black letter legal principles without discussion of their normative content is disturbing. Many of us will enter legal practice where they may be of little assistance in the short-term (at least slaving away in the M&A basement), but equally many of us will enter jobs in policy and law reform where a critical understanding of these issues is essential.

Your reductionist assessment does lawyers, and law students, a disservice.

28/10/2016 10:01:14 pm

Discussion about oppression or disadvantage is only of incidental concern to Constitutional law. The purpose of the subject is to teach students what the most important parts of the Constitution are, what they mean, and why they have been held to mean that, the last of those being an exercise in legalism which almost never has anything to say about oppression or disadvantage.

I'll concede some of your points Tam C. A certain degree of knowlege about the theoretical side of legal doctrines is often beneficial, but it is more often than not of much lesser importance. We also only have 12 weeks each semester and discussing more theory is inevitably going to lead to a reduction in teaching of the substance of the law.

The originally mentioned theories, 'feminist theory' and 'critical race theory' are certainly of the most minor relevance to most of our subjects. Trying to shoehorn them in to appease what appears to be the desire of some to use the law school as a platform to launch their political career or the next Ocotber revolution, would not be to the benefit of most students.

28/10/2016 10:07:30 am

To self-identified ultra-conservative black-letter bore:

I think we can safely say that my ideas are far more representative, or at the least, closer to the views of the cohort, than yours, by the very fact that you use a pseudonym and I do not.

I would advise you to undertake some research and wider reading of scholarly work in legal education and law schools. The assumptions in your reply only reveal your ignorance.

Best wishes,

Jasmine

28/10/2016 10:32:19 am

"I think we can safely say that my ideas are far more representative, or at the least, closer to the views of the cohort, than yours, by the very fact that you use a pseudonym and I do not."

This does not logically follow.

Sophia Charles

28/10/2016 10:12:45 am

Great article Teresa! Thanks!

Colleen Chen (real name)

28/10/2016 10:28:34 am

1. 'The LSS is not a vehicle for agitating political causes, it is a vehicle for providing support and services to law students.'

Sure, that is one function of the LSS, but according to the Purpose provision in the LSS Constitution (updated 6 September 2016), you may find the primary objects of the LSS are:
- 'promoting a commitment to social justice and equality, as well as a critical interest in the law and the operation of the law in society' AND
- 'producing publications and materials to assist with the promotion of these purposes'.

Finally: 'The Committee shall endeavour to formulate policy and provide services and activities, not limited to and not inconsistent with the above purposes that most accurately represent to diverse needs and concerns of ALL members.'

2. 'Nor is MLS a vehicle for agitating political causes, it is an institution that trains people to be lawyers. If you want to use that training to push a political cause then that's fine but it's not the place of the law school to agitate for them.'

If you were among those who laughed or cheered at the community effort/campaign that has led to the rebuilding of the Corkman, then you've probably conceded on one level that MLS is an institution that can simultaneously train people to be excellent lawyers as well as being able to push a political cause.

It would be helpful at this point to distinguish political causes from party politics.

28/10/2016 10:45:43 am

Perhaps I should clarify. It is my opinion that the LSS should not be a vehicle through which to agitate for political causes.

The words 'promoting a commitment to social justice and equality, as well as a critical interest in the law and the operation of the law in society' are wide enough to be read in a number of ways, though I would personally prefer most of those words not be there, to better retrict the LSS to what I think should be its proper function as a politically neutral provider of support and services to students.

I personally cheered at the engagement by law students in relation to the Corkman issue. That's entirely consistent with what I said, if students want to use their training to push a political cause then thats all fine and dandy.

It's not my understanding that the law school as an institution was involved at all with anything relating to the Corkman. If it was however, it would be important to note that it was a case of a blatant violation of the law, not some sort of campaign based on normative positions around heritage and planning concerns.

Leo B

29/10/2016 11:29:54 am

I think the priority of effort should be to an administrative response to any instances of harassing behaviour, male to female / male to male / female to male, whatever.

If the LSS were to take a greater role in relation to this issue, I would like to see it collaborate with administration to make this happen.

To be clear - I am not advocating against a women's room. Rather, I think that as an institutional response to unacceptable behaviour, it comes a very distant second place to sending a clear message that such behaviour will not be tolerated and that individuals concerned will face administrative consequences.

This addresses the behaviour head-on, instead of merely providing a safety valve for women when the pressure cooker of rampant sexism (on the reality or degree of which I do not mean to comment) 'out there' becomes too much.

To pre-empt any consequentialist and practical counter-arguments. Properly handled, an administrative response would not necessarily require disciplinary action or the gathering of evidence. A simple conversation with the Dean or her representative would be sufficient to burn the offenders fingers and send a clear message (with scope for escalation as required of course).

I don't think Australia has the kind of political culture that would create backlash that would threaten any of Melbourne University's valuable interests. On the contrary, such a policy could be presented so as to leverage the political sentiment evident above and continue to place MLS in the first rank of Universities.

Alexander Thomas

30/10/2016 08:29:06 pm

Great article - well done.

What MLS has Taught Me, or, Neutrality is Not Always a Good Thing

Leave a Reply.