As the composition of the law school student body has evolved, so too, have the rules of the game. Some have welcomed these changes, while others demand more; others still lament what they consider to be hyper-sensitivity and the stifling of free speech.
These changes probably seem radical to those who have never been exposed to critical perspectives on topics such as gender and race. A thorough discussion of these ideas is beyond the scope of this piece, so instead I offer some thoughts on the new language and topography of the ideological terrain in law school.
Academic institutions, and perhaps law schools in particular, should be bastions of academic freedom, where ideas can be challenged and arguments made.
The question is whether hateful speech or hateful ideas have any place here. I suggest that they do not. We should not feel the need to self-censor, but we should carefully choose our words and challenge our own ideas to make sure they hold water before releasing them out into the world.
We have probably all noted our “attention to detail” in our cover letters to potential employers, likely right next to the words “team player.” Precision is an essential quality in lawyers. We may not all be wordsmiths of Shakespearian calibre, but as lawyers, our written and oral skills are essential tools for the work we do, be it at a legal aid clinic or on Bay Street. When we use words, we should make sure that they mean exactly what we think they mean, that we are using them in the correct context, and that there is no better word to put in its place. The wrong word can sidetrack a multi-million dollar deal or cause irreparable harm to colleague or client.
To use ableist, misogynistic, homophobic, or otherwise derogatory language is both inappropriate and unprofessional. It is also imprecise, because, as I can assure you, an exam cannot sexually assault anyone and an article of clothing cannot be intellectually challenged. How we speak speaks volumes of our character and level of professionalism. We should endeavour to be polished and polite at all times, as this is the manner in which we build our reputations.
We are entering a profession characterized by privilege and prestige. Among the privileges granted is that of self-regulation. It is both a necessity (arising out of the need for expertise in adjudicating members’ behaviour and the need for an independent bar) and a sign that our profession can be trusted with, among other things, the onerous task of adjudicating complaints against its members. Along with privilege comes its dowdy cousin, responsibility. Maintaining the public’s faith in the legal profession and, by extension, the administration of justice is of paramount importance. Meaningful and transparent accountability is critical, and it begins right here, in the halls of law school. Civility and courtesy, which the Law Society of Upper Canada has seen fit to expound on in the Rules of Professional Conduct and include in the Oath we will take when we are called to the bar, do not only manifest themselves in the tone of voice we use when we speak. They are engaged in our ideas and the words used to communicate them.
Ideas with no merit should not be given a pass simply because they are someone’s opinion. We are all entitled to be wrong, but we are not entitled to be wrong without repercussions. Ideas out of step with the democratic principles and equality values of our political milieu should be ousted as such.
Please do not think that when you suggest that women are to blame for sexual assault, that anti-Semitism no longer exists, or that welfare incentivizes laziness you are being shouted down because there is some sort of conspiracy against free speech; you are being challenged because your ideas are based on notions which are demonstrably false. Facts, not feelings, rule the day, and in the arena of objectivity, hatred, oppression, and antiquated notions will never triumph.
This is not meant as a sermon from the pulpit. Those who reject what I have suggested are entitled to continue using whatever language they see fit and subscribe to whatever ideas they choose; they should, however, be alive to the logical consequences of their words.