RSS FeedOCI Fever
I decided to write a note because there is a lot of tension going around Macdonald Hall and elsewhere. Apparently OCI fever is rampant and has taken many victims. My purpose in writing this is fourfold: I want to congratulate people; encourage others; express some concern; and finally, I want to challenge everyone with a few thoughts. This was originally just going to be a facebook note, so bear with me.
1. Amazing
If you have gotten emails about OCI interviews, that is great! I am really happy for you. You’ve worked hard and the work is now paying off. You should be proud of yourself and you should be happy. But remember, your peers are also bright, hard-working students and they will end up being your colleagues. Treat them with respect and keep in mind that because a firm wants to interview you does not mean you are inherently better than anyone else. I’m not saying that to take away from your accomplishment, just a reminder to stay humble (not an easy task, I know from experience). Life has a way of keeping us humble when we start to think too much of ourselves. We’ve heard about more than one student that had 17 interviews, and many in-firms and ended up jobless last summer. But again – I’m proud of you and excited that you’ve got this great opportunity in front of you – enjoy it.
2. Depressing
IT SUCKS! I’ve already gotten 3 rejection emails, *BUT* I’m not going to go around law school moping. I realize that it’s disappointing (I’m disappointed), but it’s NOT the end of the world! Rejection is difficult to stomach and your feelings are legitimate, but remind yourself of the broader perspective. You are a successful student – getting into law school is not easy. Did you know that most people in law school are in the 98+ percentile of intelligence? You have been blessed with brains, wits and a solid work ethic, not to mention all the other things you have like money, a good education, a supportive family/community, good friends, health, a great country, etc. You will eventually get a job. It might not be the one you thought you wanted, but there is something out there for you that you will LOVE. Don’t give up on that hope, and don’t break down because it’s not easy to get there. You’re in law school, you’re not a quitter!! Don’t let things that are entirely out of your control make you go off the deep end! You can still do this.
3. Ridiculous
You are NOT what you do. Why are you making your worth contingent on how many firms want to interview you? Let me tell you a story:
Once upon a time there was a law student who grew up extremely poor and who had gotten into law school on a whim with no undergraduate degree. He applied to all the Wall Street firms and was one of two students from Harvard left without a job. But he joined a couple of his friends as an associate and they started a firm. They took any work they could get and started into an area of law that was untouched by the big Wall Street firms, and they hit on something big. Do you know who that lawyer is? It’s Joe Flom – and his partners were Marshall Skadden and Leslie Arps – perhaps you’ve heard of them?
OK, that’s a nice story, but what’s the point? Life won’t always make you a big star, but maybe being a star isn’t the point. WHY ARE YOU VALUABLE? This is a question you need to find the answer to. If you’re going to base your value on your job, your salary, your age, your looks, your pro bono efforts, your fame, your athletic abilities – then you need to face the fact that at some point in the future you will lose that thing and you will be left without definition. You will be like a Michael Jordan unable to compete in the NBA, or a washed up movie star, and it will break you. You HAVE to find something outside of this earthly place to stake your identity on, or it – like everything else in this world has a habit of doing – will die.
Michael Jordan’s life isn’t valuable because he can play basketball, and YOUR value is not related to your interview count. It’s not about what you do, it’s about who you ARE. Life is about so much more than Bay Street. We all know this, but we seem to have forgotten.
4. Challenge
Those of you in the first category – I realize you’re thrilled, and that’s great. But if you were at a funeral, would you go up to the family of the deceased and tell them exciting news? Probably not.
Those of you in the second category – if you received some horrible news, would you think the best time to tell your friend would be their birthday party? Might be a bit of a buzzkill.
We essentially live together, and we all need other people to help us when things are rough and to celebrate when times are good. Let’s ALL be a little more sensitive to other peoples’ feelings – whether happy or sad – and be encouraging no matter what the circumstances. Let’s be excited for those with interviews, and let’s comfort those who are going through disappointment. Let’s stop making inappropriate value judgements and maybe talk about something else? I can suggest a few topics if that’s an issue…
~ Joy
A Legal Student – Then and Now
It’s a lot of tuition, and even more hard work. But the journey to be a lawyer in Canada just might be worth it.
In my column of this week’s Lawyers Weekly I ask the question, “What’s a lawyer worth these days?,” discussing the B.C. S.C. ruling in Danicek v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang.
Michelle Danicek, a recent UBC Law graduate, was injured days before the bar at a law firm event. She had a motor vehicle collision soon after that. The judge assessed her promising career as a corporate lawyer with a particular knack for working with clients and awarded nearly $6 million dollars.
Not everyone will be a legal superstar the way Michelle Danicek was expected to be.
But that wasn’t really the point of my article. I also cite Alan Watson and Khaled Abou El Fadel, in Fox Hunting, Pheasant Shooting, and Comparative Law, 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 1 (2000), who suggest that there may have been traditionally more to being a lawyer than just making money or winning cases.
Although jurists were men of the world, aware of social, political and economic realities, they also reveled in the very practice of interpreting the law. Legal interpretation was a sport. Yes, it was actually fun to analyze the law.
A Two-Year Law Career
The Globe has a story of Chris Graham, a Canadian who ended up on Wall Street doing corporate law, and then quit the law – at the age of 26.
Even more mind-boggling is that Graham left his firm to go back to school – for an undergraduate degree in history in politics,
Just over a year ago I quit my job as a corporate attorney in Manhattan. Four years of business school, three years of law school, two years of practice and retired at 26. From my class of roughly 100 associates, I was among the first to leave the firm and may be the only associate, ever, to leave in pursuit of another bachelor’s degree.
The long road to call to the Ontario Bar
Guest post by Linelle S. Mogado, Esq.
Linelle Mogado
Welcome to the beginning of your law career in Canada! I am pleased to provide you with this guide to the process I went through to obtain my license to practice in Ontario.
Let me be clear: I’m a U.S. law grad from Toronto, and spent a few years in practice in California. This description is specific to my experience. Many of you will have years of experience in other countries, or will be fresh graduates from schools in the U.K., New Zealand, and other fine places in the Commonwealth and beyond. There are constant changes happening in this process as well, so you’re wise to get the latest and greatest info out there. I share this info in the spirit of sharing our collective knowledge so that we can reduce the pain for our international colleagues who follow!
I attended law school in Boston, at Northeastern University School of Law and graduated in 2004. I was “admitted to the California Bar” in 2005. I will be “called to the bar” in Ontario in January 2011. All in all, it will have taken me two (did I mention long?) years and over $6,000 (and that’s on the cheap!) to get admitted to practice in the Ontario Bar.
So get ready! You will have to become familiar with another alphabet soup that will become important in your life: FLSC, NCA, and LSUC.
Be prepared for lots of waiting! And find creative, productive ways to fill your time (and brain) while you wait.
The Donkey and the Carrot: Why Law May Not Be So “Cool” After All
For the class of 2013 (or 2014 in my case), the end of summer signals the beginning of law school. Buoyed by hopes of success and spurred by the prospect of good paying jobs at the end of it all (or the metaphorical carrot on a stick), many of us are getting ready to settle in and start what will no doubt be a challenging but personally fulfilling year. In the same spirit, I eagerly packed my bags and headed to Montreal propelled by the well wishes of friends and family members. “You’ll do great,” they said. “There’s a B curve at McGill.” I replied. “Don’t worry about it,” they said. For months I had been complaining about paying tuition (side note: I know McGill’s Faculty of Law has one of the lowest tuitions in Canada. Don’t stone me…), and I was saddled with my own fears and apprehensions. But my friends and family reassured me: “It’ll all be worth it in the end.” “Go out and make those big bucks,” they said. So I pranced off to law school.
Shortly upon my arrival, I was in the McGill bookstore looking for my law textbooks when I randomly ran into and finally met fellow Law is Cool contributor Siena Anstis. We lamented over the dollars that we would inevitably have to shell out in the next few weeks, but Sienna reminded me that, “It will all pay off in the end. That’s what I keep telling myself anyway…”
A few days later, I went back to the bookstore to purchase my first set of law textbooks (yes, they are so heavy that I will have to buy them in instalments). There, I bumped into another fellow 1L. Although we exchanged no words, our countenances did the talking as we exchanged depressed glances, and I made my way to the cashier to pay for my textbooks. At the cash, I let out a heavy sigh, still decrying the amount of money that these textbooks were going to cost me. The cashier replied, “Don’t worry. You’ll make it all back by the end of [law school].”
If I had a dollar for the number of times I was told that…
Most of us are going to law school with the ulterior motive of making some “good money” (admit it…) at the end of it all. No one pays upwards of $60 000 for the heck of it. After all, many of us go to law school desperately hoping that the stereotype rings true: “lawyers are stinking rich, or at least can live comfortably” and “job prospects abound for those with a law degree.” However, as if to add insult to injury, the following excerpt from a blog post puts the stereotype into question:
The Real Value of a Legal Education
By John Farmer Jr.
America’s law schools begin the 2010-2011 academic year facing one of the greatest challenges to legal education since the rise of the modern law school at the end of the 19th century.
On one hand, the job market for law school graduates has rarely been worse than the past two years, and the class of 2011 is facing an equally daunting paucity of opportunities. As The Star-Ledger reported last week, some recent law school alumni who have had a difficult time navigating the job market have become embittered, claiming that the legal academy induced them to borrow large amounts of money by dangling a career prospect that has proven illusory.
On the other hand, interest in legal education has never been higher. Record numbers of qualified college graduates are applying to law schools, which are not hesitating to enroll them. This, in turn, led some members of the bar, meeting recently at the American Bar Association convention in San Francisco, to question the motivation of the law schools. How, they wonder, can they continue to admit thousands of students when their career prospects are so uncertain?
The struggles of recent law school alumni, coupled with the apprehensions of the bar, should give pause to those of us who are involved in educating the next generation of lawyers. …
In the short term, students should embark upon a legal education with their eyes open; the job market is difficult, and likely to remain so. Legal education is not, as the comments of some would suggest, an entitlement program.
…In retrospect, we were spoiled by the prosperity of the large law firms, and the easy career pipeline and high salaries they offered. Tuitions could be raised without fear of compromising the students’ futures; the debt students were forced to incur would be easy to manage with the high salaries recent graduates were commanding. As a consequence, many law schools became “cash cows” supporting programs in their larger university communities. The focus shifted to revenue; economic issues came to dominate.
But the real value of legal education is not, and never has been, primarily economic. It’s not about money; it’s about freedom.
Legal education gives students what 99.9 percent of humanity yearns for but is denied: control over one’s own life….”
I can’t help but wonder, however, how much control one can exert over one’s life when one is broke and thus at the mercy of loans, the leviathan that is the state and the monster that is capitalism. We all know that job prospects for new law grads are not as great as they used to be (to say the least) – after all, there’ve been numerous posts and articles about this subject on numerous law blogs and sites. But what am I to expect as a law graduate in 2014? This year alone was one of the worst for articling students… Can we – should we – expect better in a few years? If so, there are no worries. If not, however, it would behove the class of 2013 to start law school with, not only the end, but reality in mind.
Society? It lied to me. My friends and family? Maybe they were wrong. It is quite possible that law school will not pay off in the end, or at least not without some elbow grease and elapsed time. The reality is that, in some ways, many of us law students will be like donkeys with that illusive (or, depending on how you think of it, elusive) carrot dangling in front of us – motivated to work because of and for the carrot but forever running after something we may never realistically obtain.
Blawg Review #278
Blawg Review is a blog carnival that rotates to a different law site every week, usually emphasizing a specific theme. Last week’s review was by R. David Donoghue.
August 23 is the “International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition,” established in 1997 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) during the 29th session of the General Conference (Volume 1).
The purpose of the day is to examine:
- the historical study of the causes and workings of the transatlantic slave trade,
- the clarification of the consequences and interactions to which it gave rise, and
- the contribution of the project to the establishment of a culture of tolerance and peaceful coexistence between races and peoples.
This year UNESCO has developed a documentary for this day Slave Routes: A Global Vision.
A companion document has has been released with the film, and will be referred to periodically throughout this post.
The Causes and Workings of Transatlantic Slavery
The origins of the Transatlantic slave route go back to the Iberian wars, between the Christian and Muslim kingdoms of Spain and Portugal. Both sides engaged in the enslavement of captives of war. As Slave Routes notes, the institution of slavery existed well before the Transatlantic route, both internally within Africa and to the Near East. But something different began with the European enslavement of Africans from the 15th c. onwards.
The first known African slaves sold in markets of recognizable European states was in Lisbon, Portugal in 1441, obtained from what is now Mauritania. The Portuguese had good reason for attempting to circumvent the Atlas Mountains and raiding the West African coast. In 1086 a black African dynasty originating from this area known as Al-Murabitun (Almoravids in English) provided military support and temporarily halted the expanse of the Christians. Soon after, Pope Alexander II provided the papal standard (vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to the Christians in the conflict in 1063, making it officially a holy war that would culminate centuries later in the Spanish Inquisition.
The motivation for European slavery of Africans was therefore initially military, as an extension of the Western Crusades known as La Reconquista, or the reconquest of the Iberian peninsula by the Christians. In reality this term was probably too broad and an exaggeration, as many of the diverse peoples in the Muslim kingdoms of Spain and Portugal included native Iberians who had adopted the Islamic faith.
A permanent Portuguese fort was established at Arguin in 1448, and the 1452 Dum Diversas papal bull of Pope Nicholas V specifically authorized Alfonso V of Portugal,
…full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be… and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.
This established the basis for a racialized slavery, hereby unknown to Africa or any region engaging in African slave trade. As the motivations for slavery shifted from military goals to economic incentives, sheer greed resulted in a complete and utter destruction of African civilization and society. This is what made the Transatlantic slavery exceptionally devastating and worthy of particular scrutiny.
Web resources on the subject are expanding, archiving historic documents for amateur historians looking to deepen their knowledge on the subject. J.L. Bell has a post on Boston 1775 announcing American Slavery Debate, a new database of primary source documents.
Marco Randazza thinks slavery would be a pretty good alternative to some judicial punishments out there.
In some ways we’re all a slave to something. Those of us starting out in our legal careers are often a slave to the billable hour, or a slave to making partner. Norm Pattis is eying some of the pro bono work big firms are doing and wondering if they can spare him a partnership. Ronda Muir gives some tips to young lawyers on how to be a better lawyer by improving specific behaviours. Social media might boost a career, but Adrian Dayton cautions on a guest post at Above the Law that it takes time and dedication to get true returns.
If we don’t make it seems like we’re all likely to move back in with our parents. Stephanie West-Allen discusses these millennials on IdeaLawg. Scott Greenfield just sort of bashes them. Jordan Furlong thinks law firms should pay more attention to a workplace trend:
…a daydream about the courage to quit a job that treats you with less respect than you deserve… As Daniel Gross explains in a Newsweek commentary, “the poor labour market and workers’ antagonism toward employers and customers are actually connected”
Slavery means different things to different people. James T. Harris quotes Alan Keyes, who describes the experience of slavery as a guarantee of shelter, clothing and a job. “Socialism,” and Obama, is a form of slavery, if you buy the Keyes line that government-dominated largess is an infringement on freedom. Blunt Politics gives us more black Republicans who claim that real freedom comes through independence from the state, which they liken to the slave plantation,
This is not the land of guarantee, it’s the land of opportunity… but when you say racism is the problem, you put the power for your future in someone else’s hand.
My take is that the modern descendants of slaves are more likely to find guaranteed food, shelter and clothing in prison. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and African-Americans are disproportionately affected for a variety of reasons. I always wonder why Keyes doesn’t talk more about that, because it seems like race is the problem. Or part of it, at least. If nothing else it makes confidence and belief in the system difficult for minorities in the U.S. Abdul Hakim-Shabazz has his own doubts about police on the Indiana Law Blog after the David Bisard case, where an intoxicated on-duty officer struck and killed a biker and somehow had the charges dropped.
Law enforcement is not always right. James Morton thinks Col. Patrick Parrish is wrong about Omar Khadr. Confessions are only valid if they are free and voluntary. Threats of gang rape in prison usually vitiate that consent.
Eric Lipman reminds us about Terry Nichols in prison, not notable for being African-American, but rather for his role in the Oklahoma City bombing. Seems he’s not too happy with his food in prison due to the lack of insoluble fibre which doesn’t give him regular bowel movements. Seems the judge doesn’t give a…
Consequences and Interactions of Transatlantic Slavery
The most immediate consequence of the Transatlantic slavery was the dominance of European powers in the world. Western civilization as we know it today would not be possible without the hundreds of years of free labour, and the continued exploitation of natural and human resources. Operation Black Vote said,
The UK reaped huge profits for the despicable trade financing the developments associated with the industrial revolution. Britain made unprecedented profits and benefited enormously for the bloody trade. The legacy of racism remains with us some 400 years later.
Transatlantic slavery also created a system of oppression that places people of European ancestry on a higher level in a hierarchy maintained by what Slave Routes refers to as europhilia, ethnophobia and endophobia. It resulted in a far greater polarization of cultures in the world, as those attempting to restructure this hierarchy or seeking independence through an anti-colonial stance invariably adopted a counter-European philosophy. We see this pattern not just across Africa, but all of the colonized world, including the Middle East, across Asia, and Latin America.
August 23 was selected by UNESCO because it corresponded with the Haitian revolution, a major landmark in the resistance against colonialism and slavery. Slave Routes points out,
In the United States, the North America historian, Herbert Aptheker, has estimated that approximately 250 acts of sedition in all were organized by Afro-Americans to free themselves from slavery during the history of that “particular institution” in that country.
These revolts existed throughout the Caribbean and the Americas, and were a far more compelling reason for abolitionism than any humanitarian or compassionate grounds. For more on the Haitian revolution and slave revolts, see Blawg Review #249.
Although the direct domination of the developed world by European powers has largely ceased, the exploitative relationship continues to this day and is a major source of civil unrest and political tensions in the world today.
I came across this poster the other day on Queen Street West stating that “Slavery wasn’t abolished in 1834,”
It’s an advertisement from The Body Shop, who have raised over a million dollars to fight sex trafficking through partnerships with ECPAT USA (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking) and The Somaly Mam Foundation. The greatest consumers of modern sex trafficking continues to be wealthy European and North American citizens.
The Morning Quickie shares a review of Not Natasha, a photo book documenting the lives of survivors of sexual slavery in Moldova.
The key thesis behind Siddarth Kara and Devin T Stewart’s Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery is not that different from the Transatlantic slavery,
…the enormity and pervasiveness of global sex trafficking is driven by the ability to generate immense profits at almost no real risk.
They suggest the most effective way to address the profitability of modern slavery is to elevate the risk.
Not For Sale | Cambodia from Not For Sale Campaign on Vimeo.
Michael Platzer of the U.N.’s Center for International Crime Prevention said,
…200 million people are victims of contemporary forms of slavery. Most aren’t prostitutes, of course, but children in sweatshops, domestic workers, migrants. During four centuries, 12 million people were believed to be involved in the slave trade between Africa and the New World. The 200 million — and many of course are women who are trafficked for sex — is a current figure. It’s happening now. Today.
The Not for Sale Campaign has a slavery map tracking incidents near you revealed largely through law enforcement. The campaign focuses on more than just sexual slavery, and in their 2010 “Stop Paying for Slavery Tour” uses supply chain monitoring programs and looks at various forms of exploitation and economic dependence that result in a de facto rather than de juris forms of slavery.
Or as Jason Mustian recently put it,
Ron Soodalter at the Huffington Post talks about The Slave Next Door, and reaffirms that slavery is alive and well today. He’s calling for California to pass the Transparency in Supply Chains Act. A Heart for Justice reviews the same book.
Bruce Reilly visits the Modern Slavery Museum focusing on agricultural workers. Actually, the museum visited him, because it’s on wheels,
Farmworkers in this country have been the most exploited group of folks since the Abolition in slavery in 1865. As one farm owner puts it, “Before, we used to own the workers. Now we just rent ‘em.”
Faces of Slavery from David Hepburn on Vimeo.
Those interested in learning more might want to attend the Global Forum on Human Trafficking in Yorba Linda, CA on Oct. 14-15, or a number of workshops being held in the UK by UCL.
My Fight Planet gives us an edited version of highlights from “Fight Traffic,” a Mixed Marital Arts (MMA) event raising funds to abolish slavery and human trafficking. Maybe we can do something like that over here, because MMA fights are coming to Ontario.
Not all sports are so philanthropic. Tom Kirkendall is following the Roger Clemens case. Meanwhile, Howard Wasserman is cheering speech at the Sports Law Blog. Lilian Edwards comments on the case of the anonymous star of BBC’s racing show Top Gear trying to reveal his true name to cash in on an autobiography. (Sorry, no hockey here this time).
A Culture of Tolerance and Peaceful Coexistence between Races and Peoples
Michael Lynk, one of my former profs at UWO and currently Associate Dean, has the 2009 Rand Memorial Lecture on SSRN, Labour Law and the New Inequality. The premise behind the paper is that poor labour practices that stem from global inequity leads to instability and civil strife, limiting both social capabilities economic potential of these communities. UNESCO is currently mobilizing a response for the Pakistan floods, an issue of global concern to avoid radicalization, militancy and religious extremism in the region.
An obvious prerequisite for the horrors of Transatlantic slavery was the development of racial ideology. Slave Routes notes one of the major obstacles to political independence in Latin America was persistent and divisive racial ideologies. The Human Genome Project and countless scientific studies in recent years indicate the biological impossibility of human “races,” yet the resurgence of eugenics around the world is quite disturbing.
But genes can be used in good ways too. The Innocence Project announces that after 30 years DNA evidence has proven a Virginia man is innocent of rape charges due to the pro bono work of lawyers at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Another recent exoneree, Michael Anthony Green, wants to become a paralegal to help others wrongfully accused.
Speaking of wrongfully accused, Christine Corcos reports that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was charged in Sweden for rape and molestation charges. Not so quick though, seems those charges were dropped in a hurry. Other charges of espionage against Assange are contemplated by Kenneth Anderson, but Julian Ku on Opinio Juris says in true spy form that they have to catch him first.
The most effective approach to peaceful coexistence might simply be for people to get to know and understand each other, a variation of the contact hypothesis used in sociology. But sociologists know that contact alone is not enough.
Eugene Volokh thinks Islamophobia is not quite irrational, citing a Time article indicating 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions. Maybe, after several centuries of slavery and colonialism justified through religious practices, to restore some balance or equilibrium in global power. But sometimes, as Simon Fodden points out on Slaw, patience can be just as effective in the face of intolerance.
Volokh does note however that the accommodation laws invoked by many American Muslims today were intended for all religions and have primarily benefited Christians. And although Islamophobia is not a typical form of racism, it does rely on classic Social Darwinism thought.
By the way, Obama is not a Muslim, even though his middle name is Hussein (Can we get over this already?).
Slave Routes rejects the premise that racism is based on xenophobia or ignorance,
Racism can be defined as a process of suppression of the human being, based on socially selected phenotypical traits. This system classifies people according to their external physical characteristics and establishes a hierarchy of groups. In the long run, one of those groups defined as the superior race and the others are placed in inferior positions on the scale. Racism, therefore, is not a product of ignorance, the result of fear or concern over the ‘other’ or a natural phenomenon. [emphasis added]
Racism is more than a word, according to Marco Randazza. One word by a Dr. Schlessinger is what a lot of people are talking about right now. I’ll let you guess the word, but Norm Pattis weighs in too. One of his readers doesn’t agree though,
That someone as smart as yourself would join the oh so ignorant and completely off base “young black men say nigga, why can’t an old white woman say nigger?” team I hope speaks only to a generational divide and a complete lack of understanding of the context in which nigga is used and that it is a different word than nigger.
Where we do typically see racism manifested today is with immigration. Kevin Johnson at the Immigration Prof Blog discusses the 14th Amendment, which gives citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the U.S. Instead of repealing it, the real solution he proposes is immigration reform. Daniel Cubias points out how difficult it is to repeal an Amendment, and the unlikelihood of it happening, while J.E. Robertson considers it an attack on all Americans. Hegemomy notes that repealing the 14th Amendment used to be the talk of the fringe-right, and calls it the rise of the “Old South.” They heavy-handed tactics used in places like Arizona inevitably spill over into the general population, as evidenced by a case presented to us by Scott Greenfield.
What is needed is for group to have meaningful interaction with each other in a shared space and common goals to overcome deeply ingrained stereotypes and prejudices. It’s very difficult to hate others when you have extensive and nuanced encounters with a group that demonstrate the diversity found within them. For example, Martha Minow raises concerns that charter schools in the U.S. have the potential to create self-segregation.
Maybe that’s what the opponents of a new community center in lower Manhattan are really afraid of, that others won’t harbour the same hatred and animosity towards other that they do. Originally Park51 was appropriately called Cordoba House, invoking the city in Spain that was once a Muslim capital of a flowering multicultural and multi-religious literary civilization, extinguished by the same movement that led to the Transatlantic slavery.
Or maybe, as Jon Stewart suggests, Fox News is a terrorist command center (see here in Canada). Randazza doesn’t have much to say about it, aside from invoking through Sam Seder bull-size helpings of Terry Nichols’ favorite prison past-time:
Daniel Luban just calls it “The New Anti-Semitism,”
While activists like Pam Geller have led the anti-mosque campaign and the broader demonization of Muslims that has accompanied it, leaders like Abe Foxman have acquiesced in it. In doing so they risk providing an ugly and ironic illustration of the extent of Jewish assimilation in 21st-century America. We know that Jews can grow up to be senators and Supreme Court justices. Let’s not also discover that they can grow up to incite a pogrom.
It was through Cordoba that toothpaste and under-arm deodorant were introduced to Western Europe, and where literary works were translated freely between Arabic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek. It was in Cordoba that the Golden Age of Judaism flourished, giving birth to rabbinic scholars such as Maimonides.
Despite being one of the most tolerant and inclusive societies on Earth today, and all the lofty constitutional and human rights ideals, the United States has yet to accomplish the same culture of tolerance and coexistence that once briefly existed – in Cordoba.
Perhaps that’s something though we can all aspire to in Park51, if we’re willing to open our minds to it.
—————–
Charon QC has his own little law review going on, and Jordan Furlong has six for the road. Next week’s Blawg Review is by Mirriam Seddiq, a criminal defence and immigration lawyer who posts on Not Guilty. Blawg Review has information about next week’s host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.
The Glass Ceiling is Breaking! Umm…kind of…
“…[P]robably the most exciting day was the day I found out I became dean. And I remember the person who phoned me said, ‘Are you sitting down?’ And I said, ‘No.’ And the person said, ‘Well, you are about to make history.’ And I was, like, ‘Oh, my God.’ [I]t was scary, of course, but really, really incredible because I was the first woman.” – Dean Mayo Moran
I am encouraged.
Elena Kagan isn’t the only one getting a promotion this year. Recently, Kimberley Brooks and Camille A. Nelson were appointed as deans at the Schulich School of Law (Dalhousie) and Suffolk Law School, respectively.
The last year alone has seen the appointment of quite a few female law scholars to the rank of dean in Canadian law schools, namely the aforementioned Professor Brooks, Jinyan Li, Odette Snow and Lorna Turnbull. In fact, of the fifteen law schools in Canada, a record breaking eight of them (more than half!) were very recently or are currently headed by women:
- Kim Brooks (Schulich – Dalhousie)
- Jinyan Li (Osgoode) Interim dean (2009-2010)
- Mayo Moran (U of T)
- Beth Bilson (Saskatchewan) Acting dean
- Maryann Bobinski (UBC)
- Donna Greschner (Victoria)
- Lorna Turnbull (Manitoba) Acting dean
- Odette Snow (Moncton)
- Marie-France Albert (Moncton)
It is interesting to note, however, that all of the deans of the law schools in Quebec are Caucasian and male. I suppose change is slower in some parts of the country…
Camille Nelson deserves special mention, not only because is she a Canadian appointed as a dean at an American law school (Suffolk School of Law to be exact), but because she is a woman of colour — the first woman and the first person of colour to hold the position of dean in the 104-year history of the law school. Although not recent news, it should also be noted that it is a woman who currently heads one of the top law schools in the States; Martha Minow is currently the dean at Harvard Law School.
Now, this is news. This is ground-breaking. I am so used to reading articles and blogs bemoaning the lack of diversity and upward female mobility in the legal profession, but I write this article on a happier and (slightly) more optimistic note. One can only hope that the trend will continue. I can finally see cracks in the glass ceiling (even if only in academia) and as a female law student and a minority, I am encouraged.
Hip-Hop and the Law: Law as Police
The year is ninety-four, in my trunk is rawIn my rearview mirror is the [expletive] law
- Jay-Z, 99 Problems (2003)
Making [expletive] hate me from a distanceHopping fences in an instant, trying to get away from the long arm of the law- Z-Ro, Get Yo Paper (2002)
By the way they’re runnin’, you would swear the law was comin- Eminem, Run Rabbit Run (2003)
From the above examples we can learn a great deal about the perception of “the law” within hip-hop discourse. For instance, note that the subject in rap music is often on the punitive end of the law, interacting with the law as a mechanism of control that conflicts with the behaviors, actions, and often happiness of the subject. The law, then, is not of the subject, of hip-hop culture, or the individuals and communities that comprise a hip-hop collective; instead, the law is an external agent that enters a community not to serve or protect, but to punish.
Another important observation to glean is that in hip-hop discourse the law is often defined by its frontline enforcers: police officers. That the law can be reduced to police officers in hip-hop discourse indicates a lack of engagement of the law’s other elements: judges, politicians, lawyers, civil
society organizations, lobbyists, and others. To many communities, police officers are the only representatives of the law that are seen and heard directly.
So for individuals and communities that are reflected by or even produce hip-hop discourse, the law is experienced in a way that does not always lend itself to thinking of the law as an academic field, a source of employment, a malleable tool of protecting and bettering society, or an arena through which society is guided and driven, or the multiple other manifestations of the law distinct from police officers.
We may gain from this is an appreciation of diversity that brings different experiences and understandings of the law to the table, but perhaps more pertinent is recognizing the power that those of us who engage with the law through roles outside of law enforcement have the potential to redefine the law in different, more nurturing and comprehensive ways to communities who see law as police (i.e. low-income and, or minority communities). Popular education initiatives, public speaking in relevant venues, and mentoring of youth are three efforts to achieve such redefinition that I have personally seen work.
Determine where you fit in and play your position.
What Law Schools Don’t Want you to Know
A reader wrote in to us about this post about 15 Facts Law Schools Don’t Want You to Know:
1. Books are incredibly expensive, and you might never use them again.
2. Your first year of law school will already be laid out for you.
3. Your grades will be curved.
4. Law school debts could total well over $100,000.
5. What school you go to does matter.
6. Your chances of getting a high paid job are slim.
7. You can expect to work much more than 40 hours a week as a lawyer.
8. The bar exam requires you to study for months, and even after that 33% fail.
9. Breaks aren’t really breaks– you must spend them working.
10. Law school won’t teach you business skills.
11. Grades aren’t the end all.
12. Only 54 percent of all working-age law school grads are able to make it as a lawyer.
13. Fewer new grads are able to find jobs.
14. Law schools lure in minority students to improve diversity rankings without disclosing that less than half of African-Americans who enter these programs ever pass the bar.
15. Schools create misleading employment statistics by temporarily hiring new grads and spotlighting kids who land top-paying jobs, while ignoring the fact that most students make far-lower average incomes.
While many of these are true, others are more relevant in the American context than in Canada. For example, where you go to school matters far less in Canada (#5), where all schools are publicly funded and are considered first-tier. Bar exam pass rates are far better in Canada as well (#8, #15).
Make More, Work Less
How can you make up to 173% more as a lawyer with flexible hours?
BC Heritage Law is doing just that.
Advice from Lawyer of the Week
Isabel Schurman of Schurman Longo Grenier was honoured last week by l’Association des Avocats de la Défense de Montréal. She’s the vice-chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers.
In an interview with The Gazette, she provides this advice for those entering the legal profession:
Follow your heart. Follow your passions. Don’t listen to people telling you that there are no openings, no jobs, in the area of interest to you. If you really care about the issues in some area of the law, go for it.
Is Law School Worth It?
Following up on a New York Times article about the rapidly depreciating value of a law degree, Concurring Opinions has some advice on whether going to law school is a good career choice.
The gist of Sarah Waldek’s opinion is:
I’ve been thinking hard about what advice I would give prospective students and this is where I’ve landed: Only go to law school next year if (1) you have always dreamed of being a lawyer; or (2) you are accepted by a very prestigious institution; or (3) you are offered a full scholarship.
…
Of course, this year law school applications will be partly driven by the lack of opportunity costs. Graduating college students face generally dismal employment prospects regardless of what field they want to enter. But I suspect that optimism bias plays just as large a role in student decision-making. No matter what the economy, some lawyers will be wildly successful. Many prospective students are inclined to think that they will be part of this group, no matter how daunting the odds against it. On the more rational side of the analysis, it’s also true that law school historically has proven itself a relatively good place to weather out bad economic times.
What is different this time around, however, is that no one is yet sure whether the changes in legal markets and in law firms are permanent, or whether things will eventually return to what we had come to think of as normal. If you haven’t always wanted to practice law, or if you’re considering a law school that is not one of the best in the nation, or if the law school isn’t offering to pay for you to attend, my advice is to wait to see how this plays out.
Some of the comments on the article are also deeply troubling. Here’s a sampling:
Native JD: Don’t bother. There are no jobs for you. It’s a racist profession dominated by white men (I’m Native and Biglaw wouldn’t even interview me (Top 50 school, 3.0+, 5 years of Capitol Hill experience and heavily involved in ABA diversity efforts).
This profession is doomed.
Unemployed OVER A YEAR NOW: MEMO TO PROSPECTIVE LAW STUDENTS: THERE ARE NO JOBS! I have been out of law school three years now. I spent 2 years at Big Law (Cravath) and the past 14 months looking for work and doing lousy temp jobs. I had a 4.0 in college and law school (that is how I landed the Big Law job) and all the volunteer, pro bono, language skills, etc you could dream of. None of that matters. THERE ARE NO JOBS FOR LAWYERS. Go to Med School if your brain works.
LAC: I have been giving people who wanted to go to law school this advice since my 1L year. Except I say that you shouldn’t go to law school unless you are already rich (meaning you have about $200k just lying around), you can go to a Top 10 school, AND you can go for free or for less than $30k.
I was one of those poor kids who decided to be a lawyer when I was young so that I could grow up and support myself and my family. I went to law school with no debt—my college education was paid for with federal grants. I am now-$100k, and that only accounts for 70% of my tuition, which means NONE of my living expenses. The last $40k is one year of tuition in my LL.M program. One year. Frankly, I was in a better financial position when I was on Welfare. And at this rate, I will be again soon enough.
There are no entry-level jobs anymore for anyone. Not for finished fed clerks, not for LL.Ms (like me), and not even for Harvard grads. I have a degree in tax from one of the best programs in the country and about 10 people in my graduating class of more than 100 are employed 6 months later—more than half of those people are foreign nationals who have jobs in their native lands. Now, my friends who were lucky enough to get government jobs to take advantage of the public service loan repayment program are being told they make too much money to qualify (less than $70k/yr) and are left with $100k+ of student debt and a low-paying job. Frankly, many of us are taking paralegal jobs (and some firms now only hire JDs for such positions), thus effectively nullifying our credentials and Bar status just to put food on the table. At this point, my education is a curse. It automatically disqualifies me for lesser work elsewhere, and the loan load is oppressive to say the least.
There is no upside any longer. There needs to be a moratorium on law school admissions for at least 5 years to stop the excess flood of lawyers into an economy that cannot remotely support the supply it currently has.
I’m not sure how applicable Waldek’s concerns (or those of the commentators) are to the Canadian context.
First, Canadians pay far less for a quality legal education than Americans do. Tuition at the most expensive law school in Canada (U of T) is roughly $22,000. It’s considerably less at other law schools. You can get a top notch education at McGill, for example, for under $7000/yr (it’s even cheaper for Quebeckers). Out west, you can hit up UBC for under $10,000. Or try Dalhousie out east for under $13,000. American tuitions are 3-5x higher!
Second, the job market here appears to be better. To be sure, Bay Street recruitment has definitely dropped, salaries have dropped, and hire-back is no longer guaranteed for summer and articling students. But even so, the impression I get from my colleagues on the Street is that we are far from the nightmare scenario being described above.
Most importantly, it appears that although this past year was one of the worst in recent history, the storm is passing. The economy is now improving. Legal recruitment and salaries should begin to rise. Of course, it will be a long while before firms are throwing around money and perks like candy, as they were before.
I’d say the Canadian situation calls for cautious optimism.
