Ultra Vires Vol 18 Issue 3: 2016 November

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | ULTRAVIRES.CA

THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW

COVER IMAGE BY DAVINA SHIVRATAN

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE COMMENTS ON TWU

TUITION AND DEBT PART TWO

POP CULTURE IN 2016

PAGE 6 & 7

PAGE 5

PAGE 17

NEWS

2 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

ultravires.ca

Ultra Vires is an editorially independent publication. We are open to contributions which reflect diverse points of view, and our contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the Faculty of Law, the Students’ Law Society, or the editorial board.

Editors-in-chief News Editors Features Editors Opinion Editors Diversions Editors Copy Editor Foreign Correspondent Layout Editor Photo and Design Editor First-Year Editors: Business Manager

Nick Papageorge & Maud Rozee Shari Nathan & Amani Rauff Aidan Campbell & Melissa Smith Cory Bettel & Scott Dallen Rabiya Mansoor & Kevin Schoenfeldt Kassandra Shortt Rona Ghanbari Alexandra Fox Davina Shivratan Louell Taye, Norm Yallen, & SuJung Lee Cory Bettel

ERRORS If you fi nd any errors in Ultra Vires, please email editor@ultravires.ca.

ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries should be sent to editor@ultravires.ca.

SUBMISSIONS If you have an article submission or a tip for us, please contact us at editor@ultravires.ca.

Ultra Vires reserves the right to edit submissions for brevity and clarity.

Indigenous Mayor Brian Bowman Delivers Lecture on Reconciliation AMANI RAUFF (2L) The David B. Goodman Lecture brings a distinguished lawyer or judge to the school annually for a few days of teaching and discussions. This year’s lecture was given by Brian Bowman, the mayor of Winnipeg and the f irst Indigenous mayor of a major Canadian city.

A U of T Law alumnus and former SLS president, Mayor Bowman practiced for fourteen years at two leading Winnipeg f irms in the areas of privacy, access to information, and social media. During this time, he stayed away from politics and worked with not-for-prof it organizations, wary of the hyper-partisanship and negativity he saw at City Hall. Eventually, he threw his hat in the ring, thinking “What’s the worst thing that could happen if I put my name on the ballot?” The answer, as he found out: “I could win.”

Mayor Bowman’s talk was titled Appropriate Responses to the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Mayor has unique experience in this area, having dealt very early on in his term with a Maclean’s magazine cover article branding Winnipeg the city “where Canada’s racism problem is at its worst.” The article documented the stories of Aboriginal women who were harassed and murdered, opinion polls that showed a higher level of disdain towards Aboriginal peoples than anywhere else in the country, and discrimination—sometimes fatal—in policing, housing, and healthcare services.

Mayor Bowman says that he remembers the day that article came out “incredibly vividly,” and that “on that day, we had to choose between dismissing that characterization or acknowledging the racism that exists in our community.” He recalls being advised to simply attack Macleans or the author of the piece, to f ind a distraction, or just ignore it altogether.

Instead, he said, “we confronted the problem head on.”

Bowman told the audience that he declared 2016 to be Winnipeg’s “Year of Reconciliation,” and that he saw it as a “real new beginning for the city of Winnipeg.” He spoke about the importance of acknowledging that a meeting or event is taking place on treaty land, and the importance of dealing with those treaties as more than just historical documents. He

emphasized that the treaties were meant to be “the opening chapter of an ongoing story of peace and partnership” that was interrupted. He believes that racism was fundamental to this interruption and its troubling consequences, including, but not limited to, residential schools. Reconciliation, said the Mayor, “means recovering the Canadian story of peace and partnership that the treaties began to tell, and that we lost track of somehow.”

Mayor Bowman’s talk, while interesting, did not address concrete f ixes to the problems brought up by the Maclean’s article as much as might have been desired. Thus, during the question period, the Mayor was asked for examples of the programs that Winnipeg has been implementing in the pursuit of reconciliation. Bowman cited the following: Mandatory training for roughly ten-thousand employees, including police off icers, on reconciliation;

•

Partnering with not-for-prof it foundations on the “Winnipeg promise” to get every child in the community who is entitled to the Canada Learning Bond signed up for it;

•

Embracing a housing-f irst approach to homelessness, aiming to end homelessness in the next nine years;

•

Funding a community homelessness assistance team, and stepping up funding for a substantial number of social workers; and

•

Visiting every high school in Winnipeg for discussions on diversity, reconciliation, and civic engagement.

Mayor Bowman ended his talk with a challenge to everyone in the room to f ind and recover “your piece of that story [of peace and partnership] . . . and share it with your community, and share it with the world.”

NEWS

ultravires.ca

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | 3

Faculty Affairs SHARI NATHAN (2L) AMANI RAUFF (2L)

The Faculty Council meetings of October 26 and November 23 centred on budget discussions and, as a corollary, tuition and f inancial aid.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016 University of Toronto Budget Overview

Scott Mabury, VP University Operations, and Sally Garner, Executive Director Planning & Budget, presented a budget overview to Faculty Council on October 26. According to their presentation, the University of Toronto’s budget is developed bottom-up from the divisional level, and development is driven by the University’s academic and service priorities. The Faculty of Law’s 2016 -17 revenue of $41M is raised primarily through tuition. As our largest funding source, tuition accounts for 52% of the Faculty of Law’s total revenue.

Other sources of funding include the University Fund (18%), provincial operating grant (12%), endowments (7%), and other sources (11%). In turn, the majority of the Faculty’s expenses consist of compensation (54%), followed by university costs (21%), other expenses (14%), and f inally f inancial aid (11%).

While the University of Toronto at large is expecting a total revenue growth of 7.3%, there is variation across divisions, with the Faculty of Law expecting revenue growth in 2016 -17 of only 0.6%—well below the divisional average. In addition, 23.9% of the Faculty of Law’s operating budget is supported by the University Fund—much higher than the divisional average of only 9.7% for other Faculties. The Faculty of Law’s budget is structurally problematic, with a weighted average revenue increase at 2.9% compared to a weighted average expense increase at 3.4%, ref lecting a structural def icit of 0.5%. The weighted average revenue increase of 2.9% is largely due to the 5% yearly tuition increase, 5% being the maximum allowable tuition increase that the Faculty can impose year over year. Dean Iacobucci claimed that the Faculty of Law budget’s structural def icit puts pressure on the Faculty to continue raising tuition by the maximum allowable 5% every year. This pressure is exacerbated by the fact that most divisions also increase their tuition rates by the allowable maximum, and the Faculty of Law is already receiving more support from the University relative to other divisions.

2L StAG representative Stephanie Lewis asked about expense-cutting possibilities such as a hiring freeze.

She noted that the Faculty is currently advertising teaching positions, despite the fact that compensation amounts for their largest expense, and that the law school’s student-to-faculty ratio is 14.5:1, considerably lower than the University average of 26.1:1. Dean Iacobucci was quick to point out that no new hires have been made in the past two years, and to clarify that the school will not necessarily be hiring for all advertised positions. He claimed that the job postings ref lect discussions and thought about replacement rather than growth, and that hiring will only be considered for exceptional candidates. StAG Vice President Katie

Longo also questioned discretionary raises, particularly the Faculty’s use of “retention bonuses” to keep faculty members who receive competitive offers from other institutions. Dean Iacobucci insisted that retention bonuses are not common practice and are only used at exceptional “moments . . . [that] are fewer these days.”

Wednesday, November 23, 2016 A New Dual Degree Program

Faculty Council voted to approve a new Dual Degree Program with the National University of Singapore (NUS) after the proposed changes were presented by Mariana Prado, Associate Dean of Graduate Studies.

Under the new program, NUS students can complete three years of LL.B. curriculum at NUS, then come to the University of Toronto to complete one year of LL.M. studies. After a total of four years, students would f inish with an LL.B. from NUS and an LL.M. from U of T. The program will only be offered to applicants from NUS, which is one of the world’s top universities with a renowned law program. Extension of the program to other applicants would require further approval; however, because this is the f irst program change of this type, extension of the program may not be as diff icult in the future, if this program change is successful. Prado emphasized that, effectively, the school is only extending the period of time after which NUS students must show proof of having attained an undergraduate law degree.

Tuition and Financial Aid

The budget, tuition, and f inancial aid discussion kicked off with an address from SLS President Sarah Bittman. The SLS reaff irmed the relevance and continued commitment to the three requests put forth last year of (1) adopting measurable goals for fundraising, (2) releasing f inancial demographic data, and (3) guaranteeing access to loans for students accepte with poor or no credit.

Bittman also listed a number of concerns that students expressed at this semester’s town hall on f inancial aid and tuition: •

A more progressive distribution of f inancial aid;

•

Taking prior student debt into consideration in calculation of f inancial aid;

•

Transparency of the f inancial aid appeals process; and

•

The impact of debt on career choices.

According to Bittman, some of these concerns can be addressed through policy changes by way of Financial Aid Committee, but many relate to the def icient size of the f inancial aid pot.

Students expressed concerns about the sustainability of relying on philanthropy to keep the f inancial aid pot growing in step with rising tuition. One concern raised was that students who are now graduating saddled with more debt and an arguably less marketable degree, will be less likely to donate back to the school.

Another concern was that, more generally, philanthropy is variable and dependent on the whims of donors.

A shortfall in f inancial aid funds has made it, (and will continue to make it) so that the tuition paid by students receiving f inancial aid is effectively increasing by more than the allowed 5% per year. The Dean responded to these concerns by saying that we are not “all in” on philanthropy, and that “a very small fraction” of the $3 million that goes to the JD program comes from philanthropy. According to the Dean, “This is not philanthropy f lops, f inancial aid is stagnant: if philanthropy f lops, f inancial aid will not grow the way we’d like it to.” However, given the Dean’s earlier remarks that all of the school’s sources of funding other than tuition and philanthropy are f lat (so decreasing in real terms), and expenses are increasing, it seems that if philanthropy “f lops,” tuition will continue to increase while f inancial aid falls behind.

Students and faculty also raised concerns over the lack of detail on the school’s fundraising campaign, goals, and strategy. The Dean replied that it is “important to appreciate that we are just coming off a $35 million campaign for the building, so for me to be public about where we’re going to be on our giving in f ive years would be problematic.” The Dean said that there are two pools in our alumni base: the roughly 8% of people who gave to the Building campaign, and the 90% plus who did not. He said that the school will be working harder to solicit funds from the latter group.

The Dean acknowledged that people are frustrated with the lack of any specif ics on fundraising, but does not feel that the Faculty can answer that question yet.

On emergency loans, the Dean said that “we’ve moved in a way that we never have previously to make loans directly available to people without credit ratings or with low credit [ but there are] a lot of issues in the way,” including problems with meeting f inancial reporting obligations when the Faculty acts as lender to students. The Dean said he understands the concern but that there are a lot of challenges in practice.

Ultra Vires asked whether the Faculty will be releasing the data for 2016 that they released in a limited capacity last year for 2010-2015 after pushes from SLS and UV. The Dean said it would not: it requires resources, there is a lack of comparative data from other schools, and it “doesn’t seem to move the conversation forward.” According to the Dean, high tuition will be problematic for some people regardless of the data, and others only want more data once some data is re-

leased. He thought that the data released last year “was reassuring as to where we were at” but only led to more conversations. Further, he says that the school’s strategy will remain the same regardless of what the data shows.

4 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

Tuition and Debt at the Law School, Part Two: Faculty Salaries and the Sunshine List AIDAN CAMPBELL (2L) Debate over rising tuition has been central to the last two Faculty Council meetings. Dean Iacobucci has taken the position that because Faculty salaries—the budget’s largest line item by a mile—are negotiated at a level beyond the Faculty, his hands are tied and the Faculty must raise tuition to keep pace.

Ultimately, the Dean is right that he is now constrained by universitywide collective bargaining. But it is worth delving into the numbers to get a better understanding of exactly what we’re paying for with our tuition dollars. Luckily, all of our professors and many of our administrators are sufficiently well paid to have made it onto the provincial Sunshine List, an open registry of anyone on the public payroll making more than $100,000.

The Retention Fund Part of the reason that the 5% negotiated increase in salaries is a bit misleading is that there is, or at least was, some discretion over Faculty salary increases in the form of a retention fund. (Though, during October’s Faculty Council, the Dean was quick to note that the raise would still have to be approved by U of T’s Governing Council.)

There is a longstanding policy that if a professor receives an offer to work for another school, the Faculty will match the offered salary, even accounting for exchange rates. This is one of the best-kept secrets of Faculty career planning, as all future negotiated increases will compound on top of this one-time raise.

Because professor salaries fluctuate from year to year (for a number of reasons, including sabbaticals and cross-appointments), it is difficult to say with certainty how many have accessed the program. But let’s examine a particularly striking example: in 2003, when our current Dean was a fresh-faced young professor, he saw his salary jump by nearly $50,000 thanks to an offer from an American law school, followed by another sizeable increase in 2008. Compare this to the more standard salary trajectories of Professors Kent Roach and Martha Shaffer, who both saw steady salary increases averaging out to 4% annually as compared to Iacobucci’s 8% annualized growth over the same period.

It is important to note that rising professor salaries were part of the rationale behind tuition deregulation (though it is strange that, even in the face of rapidly rising salaries, this fund was required to keep Faculty loyal).

Now, in leaner times, the retention fund is dry but its role in getting us to this current deficit should not be overlooked.

Gender Disparity While not necessarily a budgetary issue, the pervasive gender gap in Faculty salaries is worth commenting upon; frankly, it is impossible to miss as you look through Sunshine List data.

We are all familiar with the refrain that women only make seventy-odd cents on the dollar, though one might think professors at the law school would be exempt. After all, much of the wage gap can be explained by occupation, hours worked, and other systemic factors rather than outright discrimination and, seeing as all Faculty do fairly similar jobs within the same profession, you’d assume these factors would play less of a role here.

Unfortunately you would be wrong: in 2015, the average salary for a male professor or senior Faculty was $209,015 while women made $174,736, or 84 cents on the dollar.

Now, some might argue that this is yesterday’s problem. Faculty members stick around a long time, and some were hired at time when the legal academy was even more predominantly male and hiring practices were more discriminatory. As salaries tend to grow over time, this older, maledominated cohort takes up an outsized share of the earnings. While this may be true, the effect in aggregate is not so large. Even when you control for years on staff the gender wage gap amongst professors for 2015 only shrinks to $24,730.*

Haves and Have Nots The lesson of the Sunshine List is that, while all of our professors are paid handsomely, there are stark divisions within the Faculty: old guard vs. new hires, tenured vs. adjunct, law and economics specialists vs. everyone else, and, most disappointingly, men vs. women.

Ultimately, Ron Daniels’s goal to increase tuition and pay professors vastly more has been a smashing success—but the gains have not been equitably shared. *Data only available from 1996 on so 20+ years becomes the highest years served value, statistically significant effect, p-value 0.014

FEATURES

ultravires.ca

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | 5

Better Know a Court: The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada NORM YALLEN (1L) General Mandate The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) is the tribunal responsible for making decisions on matters relating to immigration and refugees. The IRB is governed by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), and its authority is split between immigration and refugee protection divisions, each with their own internal appeal body.

The Immigration Division is responsible for conducting admissibility hearings and detention reviews. An admissibility hearing determines if someone accused of violating the IRPA—for instance, by overstaying a visa or being associated with a terrorist group—can remain in Canada or if they will be deported. Detention reviews determine whether someone detained by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) can be released. Detention practices of immigration authorities are currently under review, in part because some see them as unjust or lacking in due process. The Immigration Appeals Division (IAD) hears appeals on cases such as failed sponsorship applications and removal orders. If someone’s initial immigration application

fails or they are on the brink of removal from the country, the IAD is their avenue of recourse.

The Refugee Protection Division is responsible for hearing claims for refugee protection and deciding whether a person can obtain refugee status. When a person arrives in Canada and claims refugee status, they are given a hearing at the IRB. Canada has an obligation to protect refugees stemming from multiple United Nations conventions that exhort signatory states to grant such protection. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) hears and decides appeals of refugee applications that are rejected by the Refugee Division.

Refugee Claimant Process A person claiming refugee status must complete and submit a Basis of Claim form, upon which the IRB will schedule a hearing. The claimant must bring evidence to prove to the Board Member presiding at the hearing that they are a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention or a protected person under the Convention Against Torture. The Member weighs a variety of factors, including the conditions in the person’s home country, whether

they are a member of a particular social group, and if there is somewhere they can return to in their home country that would be safer. On a more general level, the Member seeks to determine whether the claimant is credible and whether their fear of persecution is objectively well founded.

If a refugee claimant’s application is approved, they are entitled to apply for permanent residency status. If the application is refused, the claimant has several options. The first is to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, under which an officer reviews documents from the case and other evidence to determine if the person would face danger in returning to their home country. The second is an appeal to the RAD. Though officially established with the introduction of IRPA in 2001, the RAD has only been operational since 2012. The role of the RAD is still being worked out amidst a farrago of regulations, guidelines, and court decisions. For example, the recent decision in Y.Z. allows claimants from ‘Designated Countries of Origin’ (deemed non-refugee producing) access to the RAD; the twin cases of Huruglica and Singh have

established evidentiary standards and the mandate of the RAD. Problems with the Refugee Division Approach The Refugee Division has faced substantial criticism over the lack of fairness and consistency in its decisions. Board Members are political appointees, and they often lack a background or expertise in either the law or immigration. There is an extremely high level of variance in the acceptance rate among Members: some accept over eighty percent of refugee applications, while others accept less than ten percent of applications.

The Board Member assigned to the case has a significant impact on it, as well as on the applicant.

It is impossible to claim there is a uniform standard when some Members accept almost all claims while others refuse almost all claims. Someone who faces persecution and danger in their home country may be faced with the prospect of returning simply because they had the misfortune of being assigned one of the latter Members.

Divergent Decisions and an Uncertain Outcome: The Case of Trinity Western University NICK PAPAGEORGE (2L) Trinity Western University, in Langley, British Columbia, is “Canada’s largest independent Christian liberal arts institution.” It is also at the heart of one of Canada’s largest contemporary legal debates.

In June 2012, the university expressed its desire to open a law school, and it submitted a proposal to the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

The Federation scrutinized the Community Covenant that all TWU students must sign and adhere to upon admission, which includes a requirement that students refrain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

In 2013, the Federation gave preliminary approval to the proposed law school in light of a commitment by TWU to meet all of its public and legal obligations of non-discrimination.

Some provincial law societies subsequently deferred to the Federation and accredited the law school; others, most notably in Ontario and British Columbia, declined to do so. Trinity Western challenged these refusals in court.

In a unanimous ruling this past June, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) not to accredit. The Court was impressed by the comprehensive approach taken by the Law Society in its deliberations. Writing for the Court, McPherson J. stated: “[T]he process adopted by the LSUC…was excellent. The record consisted of TWU’s application and supporting material, the relevant reports of the [Federation], three legal opinions designed to provide guidance to the benchers in their deliberative process, and approximately 210 submissions from members of the profession and the public.” As such, the LSUC had discharged its administrative law obligations and its decision was ruled to have been “clearly” reasonable.

The court nevertheless examined the competing Charter values before reaching this conclusion: “Taking account of the extent of the impact on TWU’s freedom of religion and the LSUC’s mandate to act in the public interest, the decision to not accredit TWU represents a reasonable balance between TWU’s 2(a) right under the Charter and the LSUC’s statutory objectives.” In essence, the potential inability of a TWU graduate to practice law in Ontario was outweighed by the deeply hurtful and discriminatory language of the Covenant.

A unanimous five-judge panel of the British Columbia Court of Appeal came to a resoundingly different conclusion. It fi rst found that the Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia had abdicated their duty as an administrative body by putting the matter of accreditation to a members’ referendum and agreeing to be bound by the results. The Benchers were chastised for failing to engage “in any exploration of how the Charter values at issue could be best protected.” The court thus ruled that it owed no deference to their decision.

The court then undertook a thorough examination of the Charter issues at play, quoting extensively from Doré, Loyola High School, Oakes, Big M Drug Mart, and other Supreme Court decisions. It held that proportionality was essential, and that an administrative body must ensure it “interferes with the relevant Charter guarantee no more than is necessary given the statutory objectives.”

It also emphasized the need for a pluralistic society to respect religious differences and not interfere with them “unless they confl ict with or harm overriding public interests.”

The court found that, as a private university, Trinity Western’s admissions policy and its

choice to adopt a voluntary code of conduct did not amount to “unlawful discrimination.” It stressed that “the impact of an administrative decision must be assessed on the basis of ‘concrete evidence’, not conjecture” and found no such evidence of harm in this case.

In a direct swipe at the ONCA’s preoccupation with the hurtful and discriminatory nature of the Covenant, the BCCA stated: “[T]here is no Charter or other legal right to be free from views that offend and contradict an individual’s strongly held beliefs, absent the kind of ‘hate speech’ […] that could incite harm against others. Disagreement and discomfort with the views of others is unavoidable in a free and democratic society.”

It concluded that the interference with Trinity Western’s freedom of religion was substantial: the decision by the Law Society was tantamount to preventing TWU from operating a law school, thereby preventing it from exercising its religious freedom. Conversely, accreditation would not reduce access to law schools for LGBTQ students: while they would not likely seek spots at TWU, students who would otherwise go elsewhere for law school would seek those spots, making the impact neutral.

With two major courts of appeal at antipodes over the correct outcome, Trinity Western is destined to get its day in the Supreme Court. To fi nd out what we might expect from that inevitable ruling, I sat down with our resident constitutional law scholar, Professor David Schneiderman.

“In this one, to be honest with you, I’m torn,” he conceded. “I’m genuinely feeling a bit torn.”

As a civil libertarian, he tends to favour robust accommodations for religious groups. However, the confl ict between s. 15 and s. 2(a) is nothing new, and he observed that the former “often

wins out against liberty claims.”

He also thinks the nature of the disagreement—accrediting a law school— could be significant for the Court. “They might say that law schools are special,” he suggested. “Judges have been to law school, they still have a relationship with law schools, they feel empowered to scrutinize what’s going on in law schools. So it might be that they’ll say law schools are the place where you have to teach fidelity to the rule of law, and therefore the Community Covenant and Trinity Western have to be compliant with the law.”

However, Prof. Schneiderman felt he did not know this Court well enough, given the number of recent appointments, to offer a concrete prediction. “Judges are pretty conservative folks,” he notes. As such, his intuition indicated that the Court might follow its 2001 decision in Trinity Western University v College of Teachers (British Columbia), which both appellate courts referred to but ruled was not determinative of the case at bar.

“If I was going to predict, I might predict a replay of TWU v BCCT,” Prof. Schneiderman mused. “They’ll say, ‘You can teach people whatever you want. It’s when they come out and they start practicing that we will then police their conduct.’ There’s a serious infringement of freedom of religion. There might be some hard feelings on the part of gay and lesbian students, but they’ll be protected once the [TWU] students enter the legal profession. That’s what you might get.”

One thing Prof. Schneiderman is sure of is that this will be a high-profi le case and the Supreme Court Justices will be well aware of that. “It’s going to be the case of the year whenever it goes up.”

6 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

OPINION

ultravires.ca

Trinity Western University: BCCA Struck the Right Balance AARON HAIGHT (2L) As a person of faith, surely I must be celebrating the most recent Trinity Western University (T W U ) law school decision?

Yes, but why I agree with the court might surprise you. My support does not stem from the fact that the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (BCCA) sided with a private Christian school. Rather, I believe that the fundamental Canadian values of freedom of religion and expression protect even those with socially unpopular opinions, and I commend the Court for af f irming this.

To brief ly recap, T W U asks each of its incoming students to sign a “Community Covenant” af f irming their dedication to cultivating Biblical virtues; the covenant includes a commitment to abstain from sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage. On November 1, the BCCA unanimously ruled that the Law Society of British Columbia acted unreasonably when it refused to approve T W U’s law school. The Court determined that not recognizing the law school would impact the religious freedom of T W U’s students and faculty “signif icantly more than is reasonably necessary to meet the Law Society’s public interest objectives.”

One of the most valuable concepts I learned from the corrective justice theory of law is that rights are reciprocal: if I want to enjoy a right, I must be willing to extend that right to others. Or as a wise teacher once said, “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” The true test of my commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms comes not when I enjoy their protection but rather when I am asked to extend their protection to those dif ferent than me.

For example, the rise of anti-Islamic sentiments in our society, especially those targeted at specif ic Muslim practices such as the wearing of the niqab, troubles me on two levels. First, I believe such attitudes display ignorance and inappropriately demonize human beings who happen to practise a religion foreign to many Canadians. But more importantly for the present topic, I also recognize that if I tolerate such conduct towards members of another religion, I undermine the very foundation that guarantees my own freedom to live openly as a follower of Jesus. I cannot seek to limit the freedoms of others while simultaneously insisting that my own rights be recognized.

This principle applies with equal force to dif fering perspectives on human sexuality.

The values underlying the freedom of expression recognized in Little Sisters Book

and Art Emporium (a 2000 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that extended freedom of expression protection to a LGBTQ bookstore) are the same as those which allow T W U’s students and faculty to hold their own views of sexuality. A society that recognizes freedom of sexual expression must accommodate all viewpoints, even when diverse perspectives inevitably lead to conf lict between members of society. Such conf lict presents opportunities for constructive dialogue and mutual understanding, not limitations on one group’s ability to hold and express their beliefs.

One of the most important themes in the T W U decision is that potential harm to Charter-protected rights must be assessed “concretely and in context.” T W U’s approach to sexuality of fends many within the LGBTQ community as well as greater Canadian society, but equally of fensive to me, as a Canadian, are statements describing T W U’s values as “abhorrent,” “archaic,” and “hypocritical.” How can we claim to respect diversity in Canada if we so negatively characterize those with beliefs dif ferent than ours?

I recently read To Kill a Mockingbird, where Atticus Finch instructs his daughter, Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view… until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” So, is T W U’s law school truly, in the words of the Law Society, “premised on principles of discrimination and intolerance”? T W U is not a secular institution; it combines academic learning with a community that shares certain personal religious convictions. At any secular institution, students and faculty are free to associate with various social, religious, or political causes without fear of losing their professional credentials. Indeed, our very own faculty celebrates the diversity of its students. Do we champion diversity while simultaneously insisting that only certain perspectives are permissible?

As a private institution, T W U’s right to admit only students who agree with its religious views is protected by BC’s Human Rights Code and has been af f irmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Two separate bodies, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada and British Columbia’s Minister of Advanced Education, approved T W U’s law school proposal after receiving assurances that T W U was committed to promoting non-discriminatory practices in its teaching of substantive law and ethics.

Indeed, the Law Society itself acknowledged that its rejection of the law school

was not based on academic qualif ications.

There is no hierarchy of rights in Canada. Determining whether religious freedom should be limited in favour of equality requires careful consideration of the “actual harm” suf fered by those whose rights are violated. The Law Society, a professional regulatory body, requiring T W U’s students and faculty to “secularize” their view of sexuality represents a signif icant infringement of religious freedom. In contrast, T W U’s covenant, which governs personal beliefs and behaviour, does not demonstrably harm the equality rights of the LGBTQ community. If we imagine the opposite scenario, where students who support LGBTQ causes were deemed “too liberal” to practice law, I suggest that the choice would be obvious.

The BCCA struck the right balance. The students and faculty of T W U have the right to belong to a community with a particular view of sexuality. No other Canadian law graduate is required to state their personal view of sexuality before being admitted to the bar. Absent evidence that the professional qualif ications of T W U’s graduates will be compromised by their personal convictions, barring these students from practicing law is unjustif iable in a free and democratic society.

If we value a pluralistic Canada, that very plurality guarantees that conf licting views will arise. How we respond to those conf licts will demonstrate how committed we are to fostering diverse opinions and beliefs.

FROM THEORETICAL TO PRACTICAL.

© 2016 Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. All rights reserved.

ultravires.ca

OPINION

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | 7

Trinity Western University: A Queer PostEvangelical Perspective MATHEW ELDER (1L) It can be hard to avoid hyperbole when we perceive religion as creeping into spheres that we don’t think it belongs in.

This is especially true if the religious group in question has values that seem out of touch with human rights or equality.

The debate over the accreditation of a law school at Trinity Western University (T W U ) is extremely nuanced, trite as that might sound. Freedom of religion is not some abstract ideal, but rather the product of a complicated set of historical and legal compromises that underpin our notions of secularism. The problem is that religion, itself a dif f icult category to def ine, has never and can never be a purely private matter. The public nature of religious practice will always lead to conf lict and the need for compromise.

Neither side of the T W U debate seems particularly interested in engaging with that complexity—but, to be fair, neither am I. My perspective is more personal than academic. I was a queer student at Tyndale University College, a private Evangelical university in Toronto very similar to T W U. I began my undergrad as a straight Evangelical, so I understand

What’s Charity Law? BENJAMIN MILLER (1L)

why the sense of community these schools create can be very meaningful. However, I also experienced what it is like to be excluded from type of community. As I drifted towards Liberal Protestantism and eventually agnosticism, my position became harder. It is very dif f icult to study in an environment where every professor is contractually obligated to believe and teach a worldview that you no longer believe in.

I was good at navigating this until I came out: I was quickly f ired from a leadership position within the school; I lost my position partly because of a community covenant I had signed that is similar to the one at T W U; I did not spend the rest of my time at Tyndale as a real member of the community. I was an abstraction, a symbol of a position in a contentious debate for my peers. And the only response open to me was to be gracious to those that “accepted” me or diplomatic with those that did not. I cannot speak to the experience of queer students at T W U, some of whom seem quite happy with the university. But I do know what it is like as a queer person to be part of an institution that drives a wedge

So charity law is, like, where you do legal work for free, right? Not quite.

According to Linda Godel, partner at Torkin Manes LLP, charity law is the law that applies to the charitable sector. As a result, it includes areas of law that apply as much to other entities as they do to charities. For example, the charitable sector employs about 1.4 million full time employees and 1.2 million part-time employees, so employment law is pretty important. But it also includes laws that are specif ic to charities, like charitable trusts or the Canada Revenue Agency’s “10% limit” on political activities.

Okay, so what? You probably already see yourself volunteering in your community, but is it really something that will af fect your career? The charitable sector is so much more than what volunteers on evenings and weekends can handle. There are about eighty-six thousand charities in Canada, and about a hundred thousand more non-charity not-for-prof it organizations that are part of the larger voluntary sector. The charities alone had revenues of $246 billion last year. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of this money does not come from donations: $165.9 billion

between your queer identity and your ability to live in a way that comports with that identity: it is painful and the vast majority of queer people would never submit to it.

I f ind myself in agreement with the arguments that the Law Society of Upper Canada made before the Ontario Court of Appeal. Trinity Western, like other religious organizations, is exempt from many of the requirements of provincial human rights legislation. I am supportive of this. Dif ferent religious traditions have values that will inevitably come into conf lict with those of other groups. A robust understanding of freedom of religion requires a dialogical engagement when competing values come into conf lict. For this reason, I am even sympathetic towards some of the factors that led to me being f ired because of my queer identity. Yes, it was very dif f icult for me, but I can acknowledge that the creation of a religious community is dependent upon the ability for that community to uphold a common worldview.

However, I do not think that this approach can be extended to law schools.

The Law Society does not have the same

comes from government, $66.8 billion “earned” or business revenue (that’s right, charities can run businesses!), and only $13.3 billion from donations.

As a result, there are a huge range of legal careers that involve charity law. Universities, hospitals, foundations, wills & estates, and social enterprises are just some examples of areas that need lawyers familiar with charity law. Law f irms have taken note: some larger ones like BLG and Miller Thomson have developed considerable “social impact” practice groups, while a few smaller f irms practice primarily in this area (such as Blumberg Segal, Drache Aptowitzer, and Carters). This is without even mentioning the countless generalist lawyers who might have charities or nonprof its walk into their of f ices much like any other client. And of course there is also the Canada Revenue Agency, and Ontario’s Public Guardian and Trustee.

Lawyers who practice charity law often do so after practicing in corporate or tax law. Indeed, a lot of the knowledge and skills are transferable. Unfortunately, it’s very dif f icult to know you want to start in this area from law school, because the charity law curriculum is so limited. While

ability to ignore human rights requirements that a religious organization does.

The Law Society has to be guided by human rights regulations as it fulf ills its role as a gatekeeper to the legal profession. According to the Law Society, it fulf ills that role through accrediting law schools, regulating their academic programs, and approving their admissions criteria. The Law Society cannot limit access to the legal profession on discriminatory grounds. If the Law Society approved a law school with a discriminatory admissions policy, it would indirectly violate the equality requirements it is bound by.

I would not be able to attend a law school at Trinity Western because I could not in good faith agree to abide by their Community Covenant. But neither could most Liberal Protestants, Muslims, members of other religious communities, atheists and many others—frankly, a large chunk of our class would not be able to attend this law school. Discrimination such as this should not dictate admission into any of the limited number of law school spots in Canada.

most law schools have trusts courses that take time to deal with charitable trusts, most charities are corporations and few corporate law courses delve into non-profit forms (Osgoode being a notable exception). Despite the importance of tax law for this area, scant attention, if any, is paid to it in most classes. You might think that makes sense because this is a complex area and a large sector deserving of its own course. Fair enough. Yet there are only three law schools (Ottawa, Manitoba, and Victoria) that have a course dedicated exclusively to the charitable/voluntary sector.

In short, the sector is a lot more than your grandma’s bake sale! Whether it’s universities registering patents, churches navigating human rights, or environmental charities engaging in advocacy, the day-to-day problems that face charities are fascinating and complex no matter what your interests are. Any of these complex legal entities may one day call on your services.

Will you be ready?

Source of statistics: Blumbergs’ Snapshot of the Canadian Charity Sector 2014 Source of curriculum information: Private research

8 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

OPINION

ultravires.ca

My (Non-Exhaustive) List of Reasons Why You Should Totally go on Exchange (If Possible) During Law School RONA GHANBARI (3L)

Last year around this time I was having an internal dilemma about going on exchange. I had doubts for various reasons. I was concerned about the cost, the expenditure of time and energ y (both to apply and to move to another country), and had severe FOMO about the new building and life at U of T during my last year of law school. A ll of a sudden, every single course was doubly interesting, every extracurricular more pressing. I had already done an IHRP internship over the previous summer, and my line of credit seemed dangerously close to maxing. I did end up going on exchange though, and I don’t regret making that decision whatsoever. There are myriad reasons why people don’t go on exchange, be they f inancial or family related, or just not feeling like it. This article doesn’t intend to trivialize any of that, but my message here to anyone on the fence is that I really encourage you to take the leap and go—and here’s why:

It is a break from the hustle and bustle of U of T Law.

Toronto is hella expensive, and you can live frugally while abroad.

It’s no secret that the level at which we are expected to operate and compete for grades, jobs, and opportunities can be physically and emotionally taxing. A lthough the school puts ef fort into supporting us and providing mental health resources, sometimes what you actually need is a break from this environment. Going on exchange lets you still feel engaged and involved with academia and the law while, at the same time, switching up everything else about your surroundings completely. Depending on which school you decide to attend, the program can also be much less demanding. You also have the ability to decide whether you want to take on anything on top of your coursework. Of course you have this ability at home too, but the pressure to be involved on campus or in the community disappears when you know you’ll only be there temporarily.

The cost of exchange was admittedly a huge concern for me personally, but I’ve found the Netherlands to be cheaper than Canada in many ways. If you’re worried about f inances, you may not want to go somewhere like Geneva or London, but there are so many other options that won’t break the bank like those surely will. For example, Budapest is one of the most reasonably priced cities to live, eat, and drink in! You don’t have to stay in every night to go on exchange and live cheaper than in Toronto!

It may be your last chance to live and work somewhere else for a long while.

You do actually end up learning—even if you didn’t mean to.

To be completely honest with you, I didn’t decide to go on exchange for the purpose of academic fulf illment. I did choose a school that I thought would be interesting, and being in Amsterdam meant I got to be close to the International Criminal Court. But, ultimately, the largest draw for me was the mental health break and the travel opportunity.

However, I must admit that I underestimated how much I was actually going to learn while on exchange. Being exposed to the legal and political systems of dif ferent countries really provides an interesting perspective through which to examine what we are learning in Canada. In Europe, there are currently a lot of socio-political issues centred around immigration and religion that are ref lected in the law (like the anti-burqa decrees). This meant that I had some interesting (heated) debates in class; my eyes really opened to how public opinion can make big waves in the law, and what protections there are for minority rights. I wouldn’t have been exposed to this in the same way from behind a laptop in Canada surf ing the Internet about European law.

It opens your eyes up to opportunities for work abroad.

Whether we like to admit it or not, U of T is (mainly) a corporate feeder school. A lthough some of our classmates get amazing jobs in other areas without leaving the country, being abroad opens your eyes further to some of the incredible opportunities available for smart, hardworking, young people overseas. If you have an itch to work for an international NGO, or even a transnational corporation, networking while on exchange may be your foot in that door!

We always talk about work-life balance and how to get it right. But, if we are being totally honest with ourselves, the f irst few years in any position entail learning the ropes through hard work and total dedication. If you’ve scored a sweet gig in Toronto, or anywhere in Canada for that matter —be it corporate, government, NGO, or anything else— you likely won’t have the opportunity to live for months abroad or to travel relatively freely for quite a long time. Call it YOLO or Carpe Diem or whatever you want: just take advantage of the opportunity to screw of f for four months, not only without consequence, but while actually fulf illing your obligations! TA KE IT A ND GO!

Bonus reason! You deserve to have fun!

If your problem with going on exchange is FOMO in Toronto, don’t let that hold you back. I do admit that there were many courses I really wanted to take at U of T, and I was apprehensive about leaving all my friends from school behind during our very last year together. But going somewhere totally new, meeting new people, and experiencing new things without the pressures you face at home is something all of us deserve.

You’ve worked so hard to get where you are, so you deserve to go out with a bang! Your enjoyment, growth, and emotional education are worth the investment of time, money, and energ y. I promise you won’t regret it!

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | 9

ultravires.ca

PERSPECTIVES

Rights Review Student publication of the International Human Rights Program

THE UMBRELLA MOVEMENT: A POPULAR UPRISING PREDICATED ON THE 'NAIVE' BELIEF THAT ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE Professor Jason Y. Ng (JD/MBA ’01) and Karlson Leung (JD ’18) share their views and personal experiences on the ground two years after the 2014 Hong Kong demonstrations.

By Karlson Leung (2L) 28 September 2014 – “The perfect storm” A blow of a whistle – a shout, and another wave of students rushed to the frontlines. If not for the fact that they were rushing towards lines of riot police, the scene could easily be mistaken for a classroom after the lunch-bell rings – with an array of backpacks, paper, and food boxes left behind in a flurry. After all, most of these protestors were trying their best to keep up with their daily routines amidst the disruption.

On 28 September, when the police raised a black banner that warned that teargas was about to be fired, that was the moment that we all knew that Hong Kong’s Occupy Central – the precursor of the Umbrella Movement – was not just a normal protest.

That day the movement took a turn that would last 79 days.

Umbrellas on the Fragrant Harbour This is not what one would expect to see in the heart of the financial district of the former British colony and modern metropolis of Hong Kong, a city long known for its sound political and financial institutions, and where the rule of law and civil rights were respected. The 2014 protests came as a surprise to everyone, not least the demonstrators themselves, who had initially planned for a three-day demonstration. Nonetheless, this spontaneous and organized chaos became the typical scene in the Hong Kong protests that have since been dubbed “The Umbrella Movement,” as immortalized in pictures of the walls of umbrellas opened defiantly against the riot police on the other side.

The events leading to the main occupy demonstrations took off on 26 September, but it was the “28/9 teargas incident” that truly crystallized and unified the movement. The Umbrella Movement was the culmination of many factors related to broken promises and unmet expectations of electoral reform for electing the city’s Chief Executive. Chronic economic grievances, coupled with Chief Executive C.Y. Leung’s unpopularity [no relation to the author] and a general feeling that the city’s exceptionalism and autonomy was slipping away due to Beijing’s tightening grip, all provided for a deadly political cocktail that erupted in that fateful fall of 2014.

Alumnus Jason Y. Ng, University of Hong Kong adjunct law professor and author of “Umbrellas in Bloom,” characterized the 28 September teargas incident as having “changed the game.” According to Ng, the deployment of teargas – something rarely used in Hong Kong – was a key trigger for the Umbrella Movement. While protesters may be used to such measures in other cities around the world, from Ferguson to Bangkok, Ng stressed that “every social

movement follows its own unwritten rules.” For example, in Bangkok there is an unspoken understanding that police would not attack designated “safe zones” for the elderly and children within protest sites – breaching these rules would spark serious public backlash. In Hong Kong, teargas was last used during a 2005 World Trade Organization demonstration involving around 10,000 protesters, mostly South Korean farmers. The use of teargas on 28 September violated the unwritten rule that Hong Kong police would use minimum force to quell a peaceful protest.

I arrived in Hong Kong in early October right after finishing a summer internship in Beijing as a young graduate student. There was relative calm, but uncertain air hung above the entrenched protesters who had braved pepper spray, teargas, and riot police only a few days earlier. It was an uneasy arrival.

Although I had only been to Hong Kong once before during my teens, my connection to the home of my forebears was strong. Having been brought up in a household where political discussions were plentiful and where there was a family connection to the city and the region’s struggle for societal progress, Hong Kong had a homey familiarity.

That night I arrived, I decided to take a walk immediately that evening around the main encampments near Admiralty at the downtown core. I met up with my Hong Kong friends who, just a few weeks prior, were living and working with me in Beijing.

Conversations in Beijing about the protests revealed attitudes ranging from mild annoyance and apathy to a resentment of Hong Kong “troublemakers” for stirring up a commotion out of their apparent sense of entitlement. But here, the opposite held true. Citizens of all stripes and colours sat cross-legged, listening to and respectfully debating with fellow citizens and leading members of government, academia, and the judiciary.

That night, as we walked by an underpass, we heard Audrey Eu , former member of the Legislative Council and former leader of the Civic Party, speaking to a group of about a hundred people of all backgrounds. There was no media presence, nor any disruption from the audience. In fact, it felt a bit too calm given the surroundings and the fact that this was delivered in the midst of a major demonstration with participants numbering in the hundreds of thousands. It was simply a lecture on the importance of the rule of law, for anyone who was willing to listen.

This was a typical scene every evening when numbers swelled, as people left their offices and schools for the streets. As someone born and raised in Canada, where most protests number only in the hundreds, I had never seen such an extraordinary demonstration of civic activism and democratic expression.

PROTESTERS AND BANNERS DURING OCCUPY CENTRAL IN HONG KONG’S ADMIRALTY DISTRICT. PHOTOGRAPHY BY KARLSON LEUNG.

While political party leaders, judges, and other prominent activists spoke candidly amongst the crowds, what was most salient was that anyone with a view to share could speak and captivate an audience. I walked by another student in an oversized American university jersey sharing his views over a microphone to a couple dozen passersby in the park. In another corner in the park, an elderly citizen lectured on the importance of free speech and universal suffrage. It was altogether a remarkable sight, and that feeling of civic activism resonated with me long after the last chants were voiced.

The demonstrations ended following a general decline in participation over the next few months. On 15 December, police cleared the remaining camps and protesters at Causeway Bay with little resistance and effectively brought an end to the protests.

Hong Kong today The Chief Executive is the head of the Government of Hong Kong and serves as the representative of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The office was created in the aftermath of the 1997 Handover and replaced the Governor of Hong Kong, the representative of the Monarch of the United Kingdom during Colonial Hong Kong. The election of the Chief Executive is dominated by a nomination process that is widely viewed as an act of direct interference on the part of Beijing, followed by a “small circle election” involving 1200 members of industry and business leaders, who tend to be pro-establishment and pro-Beijing loyalists.

Hong Kong is due for another election for the city’s Chief Executive in March 2017. The question

remains: what has the Umbrella Movement achieved and how has Hong Kong changed since then? At a guest lecture for the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, Professor Jason Ng spoke on his experiences and the lessons that can be learned.

Lessons learned One of the lessons that Ng highlighted was the virtue of patience. The road to democracy is a long one, and will take much more than 79 days. As Ng emphasized, in the case of the Umbrella Movement and similar uprisings, public support is often the only ammunition protestors have. As such, losing ground in the public opinion war may lead to the movement’s quick death. I was once quoted that a social movement like the one in Hong Kong needs to be swift and decisive in order to succeed. Future organizers must be wary of participant fatigue and disenchantment if tangible milestones are not set and achieved in due course. In Hong Kong, the vast majority of protesters could only bear sleeping on the streets and being on the frontlines for so long when no palpable goal was in sight.

Ng concluded that social awakening was the Umbrella Movement’s biggest achievement. He mused that there is a common perception in Asia that Hong Kong is a deeply materialistic society, but the movement was able to awaken an entire generation to be more engaged in civil society. For example, many young people are now more interested in politics and some are running and even being elected for political office. The legacy of the Umbrella Movement, Ng concluded, is that “a seed of change and political engagement has been planted in everyone’s mind.”

10 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

ultravires.ca

Interview with Jason Y. Ng, JD/MBA 2001 (Toronto) This interview has been edited for length and clarity. A full version of the interview is available online at ultravires.ca.

Jason Y. Ng is the bestselling author of HONG KONG State of Mind (2010) and No City for Slow Men (2013). His latest tome, Umbrellas in Bloom (2016), is the first book published in the English language to chronicle Hong Kong’s occupy movement of 2014 and the last installment of a Hong Kong trilogy that tracks the city’s post-colonial development.

Ng’s short stories have appeared in various anthologies and his socio-political commentary blog As I See It has attracted a cult following in Asia and beyond. Ng is a contributor to the Guardian, the South China Morning Post, EJ Insight and Hong Kong Free Press. He is also a full-time lawyer and an adjunct associate professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong. In 2016, he was elected President of Pen Hong Kong, the local chapter of Pen International which promotes literature and the freedom of expression around the world.

KL: You know it seems like you’re a modern renaissance man, you spent your formative years in Italy, the US, Canada, and Hong Kong. How did this affect how you view your own identity now that you’re settled in Hong Kong?

JYN: It’s been 11 years since I returned to Hong Kong as an adult after all my exploits overseas. I think I will always have this outsider/insider dichotomy in my identity. It is an identity that has worked well for me as a writer. The insider perspective gives me the emotional attachment and sensitivity I need to write good stories. The outsider perspective, on the other hand, gives me the objectivity and ability to make comparisons with other cultures and other places I’ve lived in, as well as to add dimension and volume to my writing. The two are invaluable to a writer.

KL: It’s been almost exactly two years since the Umbrella Movement and I know that you have recently written a book on this topic so I wanted to ask you about your views on the protests.

What do you think were some of the successes and failures? What were the perceptions on the ground like?

JYN: Let’s start with successes. The biggest achievement of the movement was social awakening. As I mentioned in my talk, Hong Kong people have this reputation of being materialistic, pragmatic and politically apathetic. We care – at least we used to care anyway – much more about the bottom line than ideology and principles. But all that changed after the Umbrella Movement. The movement helped connect the dots for people, and they started to see the link between politics and their daily struggles. For instance, the reason why we have to pay skyrocketing property prices is because of the collusion between government and property tycoons and the lack of accountability in government, and the only way to restore accountability is through universal suffrage. That realization, that collective awakening, was priceless.

There were other achievements that were tangential to the first point. That social awakening I talked about has made young people much more politically engaged. The younger generations are running for and winning political office, as we have seen in both the

PROFESSOR JASON Y. NG OFFERING FREE HOMEWORK ASSISTANCE AT THE HONG KONG PROTESTS. PHOTOGRAPHY BY JASON Y. NG.

recent parliamentary election. We now have a young voice in our lawmaking bodies, which until these recent months, had been dominated by an older establishment. That change is refreshing if not promising.

As for failures, the movement obviously didn’t achieve what we had set out to achieve, which was to have universal suffrage vis-a-vis our chief executive by 2017. In fact, in a few months’ time, we will once again witness ‘un-democracy’ in action when the new chief executive will be selected by an election committee composed of only a small subset of the population – 1,200 members – instead of the 5 million eligible voters. It will be a jarring reminder that the Umbrella Movement failed to bring about true democracy to Hong Kong.

An even bigger failure was that we have pretty much sealed our fate in our fight for electoral reform. The Umbrella Movement has spooked the Communist leadership and hardened its position on Hong Kong’s governance. Beijing is now much less likely to make any compromises towards Hong Kong and in a way we have set the clock back on democracy for years.

With respect of your question about perceptions on the ground at the protest sites, I think the most intense feeling was the sense of impermanence. We didn’t know what was going to happen the next day, or even the next hour. Every day we asked ourselves the same question: will today be our last day? Remember, the Umbrella Movement was a spontane-

ous and unplanned mass demonstration, and no one had any idea how long the struggle would last.

We had to live one day at a time, and it wasn’t easy living like that. For instance, the guys in charge of building furniture at the protest sites would ask the students: “How durable do you want us to make this shelter?” And the students would just look at each other and shrug, because they didn’t know either.

What’s the point of making something that would last if the police might come tomorrow and clear the protest sites?

KL: Do you think the younger generations, after witnessing the outcome of the 2014 demonstrations, remain as politically active and concerned or even more so? Has there been a cultural or attitudinal shift in youth? Would you even go so far as to say that the movement ‘sowed the seeds’ for similar movements in the future?

Alternatively, do you think the economic considerations will win out in the end as people become disillusioned with the possibility of change and find that other factors like one’s own job security or school are more pressing their lives?

JYN: The Umbrella Movement has had a serious polarizing effect on Hong Kong society, and people have been pushed to two extremes.

On one hand, there are people who have grown sick and tired of the protest culture and they simply don’t want to think about demonstrations any more. Ordi-

nary folks just want to get back to work, pay their mortgage, go on a vacation, etc. They have come to terms with the political and economic reality that Hong Kong will always be dependent on China. And so they keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

The other extreme are people who think to themselves: “I work hard but wealth is so entrenched in Hong Kong and there is no upward mobility for me.”

They don’t see a way out. The only way to for the status quo to change is if there is more accountability in government and less collusion between government and the establishment. Problem is: after the Umbrella Movement ended without achieving any political gains, the path to democracy and accountability seems to have permanently closed. These people, most of them people in their 20s and 30s, channel their angry and hopelessness into the proindependence movement.

But what unites these two groups of people is the seed of social awakening I talked about in my lecture.

Regardless of which extreme they have been pushed into, people are more likely to step up and answer the call to arms when the next wave of the political movement hits. Even though not everyone may take action, the awareness and the reference point are already there. People have seen it done before and they will know what to do this time. They will know what works for them and what pitfalls to avoid. That seed is already planted in their heads, whether they have gone the radical route or the more docile and pragmatic route.

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | 11

ultravires.ca

STRIVING FOR PRIDE IN JAMAICA

By Bethanie Pascutto (2L)

MAURICE TOMLINSON AND THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM CLINIC STUDENTS. AS A GUEST LECTURER AT A CLINIC SEMINAR LAST MONTH, MAURICE SPOKE ABOUT HIS WORK AS AN LGBTI RIGHTS ADVOCATE IN THE CARIBBEAN. PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRAM

In Jamaica, members of the LGBTI community are regularly targets of hate, violence, and discrimination that are supported and reinforced by the country’s religious majority and legal framework.

Religion in general—and Christianity in particular—is a central part of Jamaican society. Nearly two-thirds of the population identifies as Christian, and the majority of Christians are affiliated with evangelical churches. Most religious leaders in the country view homosexuality as a sin and publicly support criminalization of homosexual acts between men. Homosexuality was first criminalized in Jamaica by the 1864 Offences Against the Person Act, when the country was under British colonial rule. Although the Act only proscribes sexual acts between men, many Jamaicans believe that it outlaws LGBTI persons, and this general misperception has turned LGBTI persons into targets for vigilante justice. This is reflected in popular culture, particularly the dancehall music industry, which continuously celebrates songs that encourage the murder of LGBTI people.

This backdrop makes Maurice Tomlinson’s persistent optimism and fierce activism in Jamaica and the Caribbean immensely inspiring. Maurice is a Jamaican lawyer, LGBTI rights activist, and educator, who has fought for the rights of LGBTI Jamaicans for over a decade: first as a lecturer at the University of Technology in Jamaica, and then as a legal advisor at AIDS-Free World. In his current role as Senior Policy Analyst with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Maurice continues to challenge homophobic laws and practices in the Caribbean, both as counsel and claimant. He also returns regularly to Jamaica, where he works with Jamaican civil society to provide food and basic services to homeless LGBTI youth, and organized the country’s first pride event in Montego Bay. Maurice has epitomized patience and resolve in his fight against homophobic laws in the Caribbean.

While he has yet to officially win a case, he has achieved some significant victories in court. First, the Supreme Court of Jamaica clarified that LGBTI Jamaicans, like all other Jamaican citizens, have all the rights guaranteed by the Jamaican Charter. Second, the Caribbean Court of Justice has held that immigration laws in Belize and Trinidad and Tobago that included a prohibition on entry of homosexuals were discriminatory and unenforceable.

Maurice’s biggest fight has been against Jamaica’s Offences Against the Person Act, or ‘anti-sodomy law’. In 2011, Maurice filed a petition with the Inter-American Committee on Human Rights on behalf of two gay Jamaicans. Both men had experienced continuous and significant human rights violations because of their sexual orientation - violations that were authorized by Jamaica’s legal framework and institutional homophobia. Maurice argued that Article 76 of Jamaica’s Offences Against the Person Act violated multiple provisions in the Jamaican Constitution, the American Convention of Human Rights, and other regional and international human rights instruments.

In 2013, Maurice then challenged the constitutionality of the law again, this time on behalf of a Jamaican man who had been evicted from his home due to his sexual orientation. The case was filed with the Jamaican Supreme Court and argued that the law violated the claimant’s right to privacy under Jamaica’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately, the claimant withdrew the case in 2014 over concerns about his safety and that of his family.

Far from deterring Maurice, these setbacks have only reinvigorated him to continue challenging the ‘anti-sodomy law’, this time as the claimant. In 2015, Maurice asked the Jamaican Supreme Court for a declaration that Articles 76, 77, and 79 of the Offences Against the Person Act violate several provisions of Jamaica’s Charter, including the rights to liberty and freedom of the person, the right to security of the person, the right to freedom of expression, the right to equality before the law, and the right to protection from inhumane or degrading punishment or other treatment. The case is still at the preliminary stage. Thus far, the Jamaican Supreme Court has allowed nine religious groups to intervene in defence of the law, but has ruled that the public defender cannot intervene on behalf of Maurice for reasons of neutrality. The public defender is appealing the latter ruling. A trial date has yet to be set.

In addition to fighting in Court, Maurice has engaged in frontline work with Jamaicans, in an effort to change preconceived notions about LGBTI persons. Although Maurice continues to face Jamaica’s institutionalized homophobia head on, he has been

fortunate to witness some remarkable transformations. Maurice and his husband Tom run training and sensitization sessions for Caribbean civil society groups and the police. The first day of the training session focuses on human rights broadly and participants are not made aware that Tom and Maurice are a couple. On the second day, after participants have had a day to spend with them, they reveal that they are a couple. According to Maurice, participants are surprised by how ordinary Maurice and his husband are, and begin to rethink their preconceived notions.

and Canada. I am very moved by the fact that the LGBTI youth living in the sewers, but by the accident of birth, could have been me. I feel I have a moral obligation to go back and try to make things better because I am a Jamaican.

BP: You just talked about homeless LGBTI youth living in the sewers. What are you doing to tackle that issue?

Unfortunately, Maurice and Tom have experienced some shocking incidents. In one session, a police officer entered the room singing a popular Jamaican song that contains lyrics supporting the murder of gay men. In another, a man got up in the middle of the training and yelled, “You are demons!”

Unsurprisingly, both Maurice and Tom find these experiences difficult to manage, but they have realized that the deeply-embedded culture of homophobia in the country cannot change overnight.

MT: We are doing two things. We are working with a local group called Colour Pink that provides sanitary packages and food to these youngsters. Meanwhile, we are working with the major LGBTI group, JFLAG, and the Mayor of Kingston to identify a piece of land where we can build a shelter. The EU had suggested that they would provide us with the funds needed to build this shelter. But then the Syrian crisis hit, and all that money went elsewhere. We are still trying to determine how to go forward. In the meantime, there is work going on to try help parents understand what it means to have a LGBTI kid and reintegrate these youngsters with their families.

Interview with Maurice Tomlinson

BP: You have been the lead organizer for Montego Bay pride since its launch last year. What was the atmosphere at the first year’s events and how did that change this year?

Here is a little more of what Maurice had to say about this inspiring experiences.

BP: How did you first get involved in the LGBTI rights movement in Jamaica?

MT: As a corporate lawyer, I initially was working behind the scenes by providing support to the major LGBT and HIV groups in Jamaica. One day the groups asked me to hold a session for LGBT individuals who had been impacted by police violence and didn’t know their rights. No other lawyer wanted to do this training session because it was considered professional suicide. The participants came to me with their stories and I realized I was living in a bubble—as a privileged lawyer I was able to insulate myself from this reality. I thought that if people knew what was going on then things would get better, so I wrote letters to the editor. I soon realized that people were aware and they were upset that I was challenging the status quo. The backlash was severe but I didn’t back down. I kept writing letters and it escalated to the point where I left my corporate law job and I became a full-time activist, first with AIDS-Free World and now with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

BP: How did your involvement in international and domestic litigation on LGBTI rights change your day-to-day life in Jamaica?

MT: Although I represented a claimant in challenges to the Jamaican buggery law in front of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights [IACHR] in 2011 and Jamaican Supreme Court in 2013, my life didn’t change until a photo of me and my husband was published in a Jamaican newspaper. It was like I had crossed some sort of line. The fact that I got married meant, to the evangelical fundamentalists, that it was Armageddon—that it was the end of the world as we know it and humanity would become extinct. The hysteria is ridiculous.

BP: Yet, you have chosen to return to Jamaica on several occasions. Why? MT: I believe I have an obligation to use my privilege where I can. The reality is for many persons in Jamaica, being visible is just not possible. I can engage publicly as I can go back and forth between Jamaica

MT: The first year’s event saw a lot of timidity and trepidation. The people who came were more curious than anything else. I think it helped that we kept the location secret. As the event progressed, people started to relax and enjoy themselves together, and boundaries were broken down.

This year we had a 50% increase in the number of participants and much more international participation. We would have more, but we had space restraints. There was a lot of tension as there has been a recent flare-up of violence in Montego Bay, but the event was incident-free.

Interest is definitely growing. I think next year we will expand the event to include a film festival and exhibitions that will allow the public to participate in getting to understand the LGBTI reality.

BP: What would you say to Canadians in general, and U of T law students in particular, about what they can do to fight for LGBTI rights in Jamaica?

MT: Canadians need to appreciate and acknowledge that a lot of what we are facing in the Global South, like laws and religious groups, came from the Global North.

Respect our local leaders. They are bastards but they are our bastards. When Minister Baird confronted the Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda at a public event in Montreal about Uganda’s human rights record, it really set the cause back. Before that, she hadn’t really cared about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, but because she was so insulted she went back to Uganda and pushed through the Bill.

Respect that there are many people on the ground doing work. We don’t need to be saved; we need support. And when you choose to engage, do so by sharing the positives of inclusion. Share that decriminalization of homosexuality and respect for rights has led to greater productivity, a more inclusive society, and less HIV. And sometimes you have to engage practically. There are a lot of research and campaigns that you can help with. You can also engage with cash because the cases are expensive. The dollar in Jamaica is very weak—$10 goes a long way and you spend more than that on coffee for the week.

12 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

ultravires.ca

PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS AT A CROSSROADS: AN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS SUPERSTAR’S REFLECTIONS ON SOUTH SUDAN

By Yolanda Song (3L)

problem was not one of “simple underperformance,” but, as Gagnon put it, “a whole mindset.” Peacekeepers appeared reluctant to intervene in attacks against civilians because they wished to avoid putting themselves in danger. For example, the report found that when UN troops occasionally conducted patrols, they only “peer[ed] out from the tiny windows” of their armoured carriers without leaving them. At least once in the months following the initial crisis, peacekeepers saw and heard a woman being assaulted just outside a PoC site and did nothing to protect her.

These findings led the UN peacekeeping chief to establish a task force to implement the report’s recommendations. According to Gagnon, for peacekeepers protecting civilians from conflict-related violence, the challenge moving forward is in determining an “appropriate balance between a proactive, outward-looking posture—which means doing day and night patrols, getting out of vehicles, interacting with community members and local police—and ensuring that peacekeepers aren’t unduly at risk themselves.”

A MATH TEACHER IN A PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN SITE IN SOUTH SUDAN TEACHING BOYS AND GIRLS. PHOTOGRAPHY BY SAMER MUSCATI/HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH.

“What is it like to be back in Canada?”

in August 2015, yet hostilities have continued.

It was a seemingly routine question, but for Georgette Gagnon it took on a whole new meaning.

We spoke just after Gagnon had spent hours guiding IHRP and Munk School students through the process of a human rights investigation in Afghanistan, where she worked for five years as the UN mission’s Director of Human Rights. More recently, the “international human rights superstar,” as Munk School Professor Carmen Cheung calls her, had just returned from a UN Independent Special Investigation in Juba, South Sudan.

One of the most horrific aspects of the war is that both sides have targeted civilians based on their ethnicity and presumed loyalties. Large-scale extra-judicial killings, massive destruction of homes, and an unprecedented level of sexual violence have forced tens of thousands of internally displaced persons to seek protection at UN peacekeeping bases. This led to the formation of the Protection of Civilian (PoC) sites, a type of settlement unique to South Sudan.

“They are huge, almost like small cities,” Gagnon described, “with thousands of people living in tent-like structures.” Within the sites, humanitarian agencies and INGOs provide services, including medical care, food and water distribution, and schools. What separates PoC sites from other displacement camps is that UN peacekeeping troops are mandated to provide security.

After a long, thoughtful pause, Gagnon answered me. “It sounds trite, but when you come back you realize how fortunate Canadians are to live in this country and this situation—economically, politically, socially.” By contrast, an average of 3,500 people fled South Sudan every day last month due to the violence spreading like wildfire across the country.

The literacy rate remains at 27%, and most of the population are subsistence farmers or cattle herders. There is “absolutely no infrastructure,” Gagnon said. “It’s a country that’s reliant on international aid.

It’s got 10 million people, many of whom have only known war their whole lives.”

Civil war in South Sudan For most of the last half of the 20th century, the north and south of Sudan were embroiled in bitter civil conflict, resulting in the death and displacement of millions of people. A 2005 peace agreement gave rise to the South’s independence six years later, and many believed this would lead to a new beginning.

These hopes were soon dashed as the country fell back into civil war in 2013, this time between government and opposition forces within South Sudan. The conflict is organized along ethnic lines, but according to Gagnon it is mainly a contest over power and access to resources. Both sides signed a ceasefire

There are six PoC sites in South Sudan, two of which are located next to the UN base in Juba and house over 27,000 civilians. In July 2016, these sites and the neighbouring UN facilities were caught in the crossfire of intense fighting as government and opposition forces fired “indiscriminately” around them, using heavy weaponry including rocket-propelled grenades and tanks. According to the Special Investigation’s report, these clashes killed two peacekeepers and at least twenty civilians over four days, and injured dozens more. The fighting was followed by weeks of increased sexual assault committed mainly by government soldiers around the PoC sites.

About a kilometer down the road from the UN base, at a private compound called Terrain Camp, government soldiers launched another horrifying attack on UN personnel, local staff, and humanitarian aid workers. Dozens of soldiers broke into the camp, where they murdered a local journalist, physically and sexually assaulted aid workers, and carried out mock executions for four hours. The report found

that, despite being mandated to protect these individuals, UN peacekeeping troops failed to respond to their repeated calls for help.

Independent Special Investigation The July 2016 violence in Juba was met with horror and international condemnation. In August, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established an Independent Special Investigation to examine the attacks and the response of the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan’s (UNMISS). As part of this team, Gagnon travelled to Juba in September, where she interviewed victims, witnesses, UN staff, and peacekeepers. “Our report found that the UN response was inadequate and that UN peacekeepers could have done more to protect civilians, which is their mandate,” she told me.

The investigation raised several troubling points.

One of the most disturbing findings was UNMISS’s lack of preparation despite the well-known risks of renewed fighting around the PoC sites. The report stated that the Mission did not fully address a number of foreseeable situations: watchtowers were not equipped to deal with small arms fire, let alone heavy weaponry, and no contingency plans were made to respond to significant movement restrictions imposed by government forces. Second, Gagnon highlighted the “lack of coordinated command and effective leadership once the crisis started, which contributed to an inadequate response” by UNMISS. The report concluded that UN peacekeepers’ “risk-averse posture” seriously impaired the fulfilment of their mandate to protect civilians. According to Gagnon, “UN peacekeeping to protect civilians is at a crossroads here. There are serious concerns about the will and skill of both peacekeepers and troop-contributing countries to fully protect civilians when required.” The report emphasized that the

The future of South Sudan As the UN’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide warns of “the potential for genocide” in South Sudan, the country’s future appears uncertain at best. Gagnon identifies the greatest continuing challenge for the UN as the South Sudanese government and opposition forces, who have “massively let down their communities.” “They are supposed to be implementing a peace agreement with huge international pressure and support, and they’re not doing it,” she said. Currently, the Security Council is attempting to put greater political pressure on the factions to implement the agreement and prevent another return to violence. “UNMISS taking a more proactive role is part of that effort,” Gagnon said.

As we spoke, I could hear the frustration and disappointment in her voice. Gagnon has worked on Sudan since 1999, when the South was still a long way from independence. “The most difficult thing is seeing that even with independence and huge amounts of international support, the government and opposition leadership are bent on fighting each other. They are more concerned with expanding their power and resource base than with the 10 million South Sudanese people trying to make a life in their own country after decades of war.”

And yet she has not lost hope. Gagnon draws inspiration from the many South Sudanese who are “committed to making the government perform and serve the people as it should.” Seeing their efforts and the efforts of local and international NGOs in pushing back on ethnic-based violence, corruption, and abuse of power, “you really want to be supporting all of that,” she reflected.

Back in economically, politically, socially fortunate Canada, “it’s a real struggle to get Canadians and others who may have some influence to pay attention to the political and human rights issues in places like South Sudan.” But such obstacles have never stopped Gagnon, who is constantly thinking of the people on the ground. If they haven’t given up, she said, how can we?

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | 13

ultravires.ca

Interview with Georgette Gagnon This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

YS: What brought you to do international human rights work?

GG: I’d been practicing at a law firm in Toronto for a few years, and I got an opportunity to go to South Africa to observe the first all-race elections in 1994. Those were the elections that saw the end of apartheid and the election of Nelson Mandela as the president of South Africa. The experience was really the eye-opener. I was in South Africa for two months, witnessing people voting for the first time and seeing what a system like apartheid did to people. I decided I wanted to work to end such systems and on behalf of people who had lived through and were living through such oppression. It was transformative.

YS: You spent several years working for Human Rights Watch before you worked for the UN. How would you compare your experiences?

GG: The issues worked on are the same, whether it’s torture, attacks on civilians, civilian casualties during armed conflict, violence against women, sexual violence, or grave rights violations against children. But the institution or structure within which you’re documenting and advocating on those issues is quite different. Both structures are absolutely needed and comple-

mentary in the global fight for human rights.

Human Rights Watch is an independent non-governmental research and advocacy organization. Its job is to document, highlight, expose human rights violations committed by whoever, put forward recommendations, and advocate for changes in policy or practice. HRW is not the organization trying to practically institute change on the ground with local actors day in and day out.

HRW is calling for change and may have initiated change but is not generally making the change actually happen on the ground.

The UN is both documenting human rights abuses and making recommendations, and working with national counterparts and others to make change happen on the ground.

The UN is there day in and day out, assisting the government, for example, to set up a national preventive mechanism on torture, or to enforce the law on elimination of violence against women. With the UN it’s often a longer-term, deeper engagement on a human rights issue over several years undertaken in a wider political and multilateral context.

YS: Given recent criticisms about international human rights work—concerns about replicating structures of colonialism and dependence, and about the imposition of Western culture—how do you see the role of an international human rights lawyer and advocate?

GEORGETTE GAGNON IN A MEDIA SCRUM WITH LOCAL JOURNALISTS IN KUNAR, AFGHANISTAN. PHOTOGRAPHY BY FARDIN WAEZI/UNITED NATIONS ASSISTANCE MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN.

GG: The work is to provide, if requested and even if not requested sometimes, support to the local actors—victims, survivors, civil society, human rights activists. In some cases, they may not be able to get access to the types of information or people that the international may get, and may not be able to make public statements about human rights for security or other reasons.

I’ve found through my work that many people in different countries and situations accept the universality of basic human rights and state obligations to respect and protect those rights. Maybe they don’t use the language of human rights as outlined in article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—“all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”—but they agree with the principles of, for example, equality among all people, equal opportunity, no discrimination, equal access to justice and equality under the law, and the prohibition of torture, whether it’s couched in a different type of language or legal structure.

YS: In your line of work, progress doesn’t always happen as fast as we’d like or even in the direction that we’d like. How do you stay motivated to do this work when you’re up against these challenges?

GG: My way of staying motivated and encouraged is to focus on the children, wom-

en and men—the victims and survivors— who are there, experiencing a daily life of war, inhumane detention, human rights abuses, lack of security, who are really struggling to survive. The international attention your human rights work might bring to them, the exposure, is very critical. It may provide some hope that the situation could change, prompt or force action to end and prevent the abuses, and keep the situation on the radar screen. The answer is in asking a person who has fled conflict or a situation of human rights abuse, why haven’t they given up?

YS: Do you have any advice for students who are interested in this field of work?

GG: If you are interested, the most important thing is to do it. Not just think about it, but to give it a try somewhere. For example, students could consider working as a UN volunteer, which you can do when you’re 26. It’s a good way to get into a UN environment for three or six months somewhere.

Internships through the university or with an NGO are also good—wherever you can go—a refugee camp, developing country, conflict-affected area. The point is you need to try it to see if you can do it. Don’t just sit in university and think, “Oh, I’d like to do that.” There are many forms of doing human rights work. But in my experience, the real field work is where it’s at and it’s to be tried. And then you can see if human rights work is for you.

SPECIAL FEATURE

14 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

ultravires.ca

Bay Street Hiring Is Down.

Like, Way Down.

CORY BETTEL (2L) AND SCOTT DALLEN (2L) The dream is over.

In 2015, Toronto had its warmest winter in years. The United States Supreme Court affirmed same-sex marriage. Kanye West announced his intention to run for office in 2020. And Bay Street hiring was up to its highest level in years, finally recovering from the reported hiring “bloodbath” of 2013.

In contrast, 2016 has been objectively awful. Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States.

Brangelina is officially defunct. Davie Bowie, Prince and, worst of all, Harambe are all dead... And Bay Street hiring numbers have taken another significant dip.

Total hiring on Bay Street has fallen sharply to its lowest level since 2013. Roughly 375 students were hired this year, compared to 420 in 2015, 398 in 2014, and 352 in 2013. After three years of hiring increases, employment has declined.

These figures include returning 1L hires, who make up an increasing proportion of Fall Recruitment hires, which masks the extent to which people who participated in this year’s process were unable to obtain an offer.

Though hiring remained steady at Queen’s, Osgoode and Ottawa, employment stumbled at U of T Law (down 12%), Western (down 14%) and Windsor (down 18%). This downward trajectory is exacerbated by rising tuition rates and class sizes at many Ontario law schools. U of T Law, for instance, is once again expected to raise tuition by the maximum allowable increase of 5%.

The 2016 Fall Recruitment Special relies on data from two sources: 1) data from the firms about how many students they hired from which schools, and 2) our own internal survey sent to everyone at U of T Law who was eligible to complete the OCI process. Though some firms have not returned our requests for their 2016 hiring information, the number of law firms included in this information is still relatively consistent with our prior reporting on recruitment. Our internal survey had an 84% response rate, making its results statistically reliable.

As always, there are inherent limits to our data collection. We do not have data about how many students from each school actually participate in Toronto recruitment or comparable data related to employment in other provinces.

This year, we wanted to speak to the importance of grades in the hiring process at U of T Law, in particular to dispel the myth that students are required to minimize the number of courses in which they receive a Pass with Merit grade in to land a job on Bay Street. Though a more comprehensive analysis will be published in February, our findings are that grades are a relevant, but not fully determinant, factor in the 2L recruitment process.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to complete our survey. We appreciate the time you put into it, and hope that everyone who finds this helpful in the recruitment process next year will carry it forward. We look forward to supplying you with a full recruitment special in February, complete with further analysis. For now: let’s all cross our fingers, pray for Harambe, and hope for a better 2017.

Total Students

Toronto

Osgoode

Western

Queen's

Ottawa

McGill

Windsor

Dalhousie

Other

375

93

83

42

44

30

20

33

14

16

Approx Class Size

200

313

175

200

305

185

245

170

% with Toronto Jobs

47%

27%

24%

22%

10%

11%

13%

8%

Total Hired

2015 Total

420

106

84

49

48

32

25

40

18

18

2014 Total

398

97

83

48

46

35

27

26

15

21

2013 Total

351

94

75

44

43

30

13

23

13

16

2012 Total

379

89

89

43

43

39

18

28

14

16

2011 Total

403

96

83

53

47

36

27

27

18

16

FULL TABLE AVAILABLE AT ULTRAVIRES.CA/2016/11/2016-TORONTO-FALL-RECRUITMENT-SUMMER-STUDENT-HIRING/

few months. For now, here are some of the most important numbers: Recruitment facts: • 64% of respondents accepted a position through the recruitment process • 52% of respondents said they did not do any “networking” with the firm where they accepted a job, prior to OCIs • Although 53% of respondents said they could not identify a single Seven Sister law firm before attending law school, 35% said this was a significant factor in deciding where to work.

In Your Own Words These are responses selected from our online survey.

These particular responses were selected in an attempt to show as many different viewpoints as possible. Responses may have been lightly edited for clarity.

Did any employers make you feel uncomfortable?

• Multiple employers made me feel uncomfortable during the in-firm process by pressuring me to say ‘first choice.’ They also asked who else I was interviewing with and who I was having dinners with.

• 32% of respondents said they were brought to tears at some point during the process

• My (male) interviewer started an answer with "not to sound paternalistic" after a question about the firm's gender ratio.

• 69% of respondents said they were not surprised by the offers they got, based on how their interviews went

• Interviewer told me that we shouldn't worry about having diversity initiatives in Canada because no one would even think about being racist here.

• Only 8.5% of respondents said that they outright lied about their level of commitment to a firm during the recruitment process

• Male interviewers staring at chest and thighs during interviews.

• The firm which received the highest number of applications was Blakes, with 112 applications Saying “first choice”: • 61% of respondents said they told the firm from which they accepted an offer that the firm was their first choice. Only 4% of respondents told more than one firm that the firm was their first choice.

Firm Acceptances • 64% of respondents accepted positions at large fullservice firms • 17% of respondents accepted positions at boutique firms • 10% of respondents accepted positions at government offices • 7% of respondents accepted positions at mid-sized firms • 2% of respondents accepted positions with other employers Number of Offers • Zero – 34% • One – 29% • Two – 24%

Survey Data

• Three – 11%

The Ultra Vires high level statistics analysis team (UVHLSAT) will have more data analysis to share in a

• Four – 4%

• I was asked how much I would like to see my (future) children.

• At a cocktail party a partner told me a racist joke about a racial group with which I identify. He was not aware, at the time, of my identity.

• One interviewer made a comment about how it's a shame I'm not a visible minority.

• When I described my experiences working with disadvantaged people at DLS, one interviewer essentially said ‘bring out the violins for those people, am I right?’

the recruitment process?

• I cannot thank them enough! I just really can't.

• It was heavily in favor of those who were being recruited, and did not focus much on students (50% of us) who were left behind in the recruitment process.

I feel as though that they did not put enough into making students not hired during the OCI process feel like there was hope beyond the process and to help connect them there.

• The CDO was disingenuous about the behaviour of employers in the process. They led us to believe the firms would be honest and sincere in how they conducted their hirings and we should be honest in return. It is understandable from their position they want to maintain good relations with the firms, but I think they lulled us into a false sense of security when this process should actually be done in a cynical and pragmatic way. Firms lie to students all the time and I wish someone had told me honestly in all the panels I went to that I should lie to them too.

• You guys are the most incredible and underappreciated service I've ever come across. Everyone should be using your services all the time.

• The fact that the faculty has now hired a "Personal and Wellness Coordinator" speaks volumes to the lack of resources offered by the CDO. Don't tell me to calm down – help me find a job.

• It's obvious that they really care about the students. I was really impressed with how much effort they put into the whole OCI process.

Are you satisfied with the outcome of the process?

• One employer told me it was nice that I didn't have an accent despite immigrating here as a child.

• Would have preferred getting a job.

• A male partner told me that ‘You'll need a thick skin to succeed here, especially as a woman.’

• Absolutely not.

What were some of the most important factors in which offer you accepted?

• Feeling good about the people, the type of work, the firm's reputation for work-life balance.

• Not proud of it, but prestige.

• The manner in which I was treated in the process.

• Range of practice areas; commitment to retention of women; firm culture.

• Early experience, courtroom experience, size of the firm, mentorship and networking, mobility, firm culture.

How did you find the CDO’s services during

• More content than satisfied.

• A lingering feeling of being slimy... It won't wash away.

• Partially. The night before call day I had a small panic about what I should do if I got an offer. I think that I knew that the firms weren't right for me, but I genuinely did not see any alternatives. I feel better now. Still anxious about jobs, etc. But better.

• Yes. Very!

• Yes! I realize this is largely because I received an offer, but the process itself was not as nerve-racking as I had expected.

• Mixed feelings - received a job but not at the firm I was hoping for.

• Yes. I am free now. No firms own my soul.

SPECIAL FEATURE

ultravires.ca • I wasn't planning to participate in the process at all so the outcome was not determinative of my plans for the future.

Having gone through the process, how do you feel now?

• Relieved • Tired • Good • Like I need to find a job • Meh • Terrible • Bitter • Fantastic • Fucked • Violated. Belittled. Not respected.

• Excellent • Unemployable • Exhausted and manipulated.

• Like someone pulled the rug out from under my feet.

• Very happy, and a little anxious about whether I made the right decision.

• Like I just got hit by a bus.

• Sad. • Over the moon • Extremely relieved that it's over and that I didn't exit empty handed.

• I feel good about the result. I was treated fairly throughout the process. But I do think that it could be improved.

• It's all opaque, gimmicky bullshit • Dead inside • Energized • Like I should've gotten better marks in 1L • Disheartened What is something you didn’t want your employers to know about you?

• That I wasn't really interested in working at their offices.

• Marital status.

• My desperation.

• How uncommitted I was to working at a law firm beyond articles.

• I don't drink alcohol.

• Alcohol consumption.

• That I'm a completely different person than the one they were speaking to.

• That I really don't want to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, no matter how 'fun' the firm is.

• I'm lazy.

• Passion for admiralty law.

• No. I was honest throughout the process about who I was and what I wanted in a firm.

• I think corporate law is so, so boring. I'm pretty sure they could tell though.

• I like to sleep.

• That I don't want to be a lawyer for the rest of my life.

Or even for half of it.

make offers at 5 pm on Wednesday.

• The first choice situation. It felt like it was hard to get offers from some firms if you didn't feel comfortable telling them they were your first choice or that you would accept an offer from them - so in that way it doesn't feel like students are protected by "the process".

• I would eliminate the social events (e.g. meals, cocktail receptions). I found them to be really tiring after a long day of interviews.

• The CDO needs to stop buying into 23-year-old, stressed-out, indebted law students' tendency to be risk-averse, and do more to encourage people to pursue public interest and government.

• I think firms should be able to explicitly tell you that they are making you an offer by day 2. The offers I received were made very obvious to me by mid-afternoon on day 2, and the rules aren't fooling anyone.

• I think a computerized "matching system" -- like they do for medical students choosing medical schools -- would really take this pressure off and would make the system more fair overall.

• I wish there was a better balance of power between students and employers. We're advised not to tell multiple firms that they're our first choice but employers have no problem leading students on with no intention of giving those students offers. A lot of my friends felt burned and manipulated in this process.

Not only were some firms' actions unfair, but quite frankly, they were unethical. I think the Law Society should do better in regulating firms' actions, rather than giving us a useless 5pm blackout period.

• Mandatory PFOs. Silence is unbearable.

What do you think about the new "cooling off period" from Wednesday at 5 pm to Thursday at 8 am?

Responses to this question were overwhelmingly negative. A representative sample response: “It's so stupid.

It has zero benefits and only drawbacks. Instead, we should get offers at 5PM on Wednesdays and then not be allowed to accept them until Thursday at 8AM.” Did you witness any employers breaking the LSUC guidelines?

• Yes. My top two firms heavily indicated that they would be giving an offer by the afternoon of Wednesday; they got around the 'offer' issue by using terms like "don't worry about tomorrow, you're completely set," "our position is not likely to change," "you can sleep well," and "we'll be seeing you here soon again." There was so much pressure to tell firms where else I was interviewing at that I told a majority of my in-firms who they were competing with.

• No direct rule-breaking. The kind of grey area stuff seemed to be more for students' benefit - trying to make sure they weren't stressing all of Wednesday night.

• Not explicitly, but every firm that I got an offer from hinted very heavily that I would be receiving an offer. However, no one asked me if I was their first choice and I didn't feel pressure to do so.

• Not in my experience.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

• I should have gone to a "weaker" school and gotten higher grades against less impressive competition

about upsetting anyone. They are multi-million dollar companies whose main business is putting on a face. They will lie to you like it is nothing, for the most marginal of benefits. If you want the job fight tooth and nail. Email people and demand to know what they think. But remember there is more to law than just Bay street.

• This question feels like you're trying to get me to say "first choice."

• At the end of our first interview, one of the big firms asked me to come back for a second interview and we scheduled a time on Tuesday. Then that night they called me and told me they had decided I wasn't moving on in the process and that they were canceling my second interview. I know they have to do a lot of scheduling, but I think that's pretty shitty.

• I think releasing this survey so soon after offers is rather insensitive to people that might be upset because they did not get what they wanted out of the process.

• These firms are vicious; the place I said the words 'first choice' to played me like a puppet. Keep your options open and watch out for yourself. If I had played my cards even slightly differently, I would not have walked away with a job. Friends of mine who walked away with jobs with 1 in-firm or 2 were incredibly strategic; it is so important to seem wanted.

I'd highly suggest name-dropping a few other places that are 'pursuing' you, during the right moment, of course. In simpler words - on Monday and Tuesday, you should give off the vibe that you're in high demand; by Wednesday, seal the deal and reciprocate as much as possible. Have a back-up plan if you can.

To the firms that manipulated, played, and outright lied to my friends and I: we remember. Over the next few years we will start from the ground up - as students working in tiny hidden offices, the sweatshops that power these Bay Street mammoths.

But one day, maybe seven years from now, maybe ten, maybe fifteen, I will become partner. At a firm down the street from yours. At a firm where my word is respected. And trust me when I say that I will remember the way that your team treated me, I will remember the exaggerations and lies that you fed me while looking me in the eyes, I will remember the way that you nonchalantly played me because I was only a student and you thought that your disrespect wouldn't cost you anything. I will remember that relying on your words nearly cost me a job, because to you keeping a wait-list candidate hanging around was more important than your firm's reputation and integrity. And when I see you on the opposing side, litigating a multi-million dollar deal gone sour that your firm's reputation depends on: I will do everything in my power to win.

• From OCI's to in-firms, I thought our class was thoughtful and kind throughout. Everyone seems to genuinely want one another to succeed, and the atmosphere was really not as tense or competitive as it could have been.

• I'm happy with how it turned out, I felt that the breaches of the LSUC rules I encountered were all done in good faith. The employers that said they would offer me a job did, and the employers that asked where I stood (I think) genuinely wanted to help me decide. T • Dealing with the American election in the middle of the process was rough. I didn't cry about the process itself, but I certainly cried about that, and it made for some very somber interviews on Wednesday.

• That I forgot to put on deodorant.

• You can go through this entire process and feel extremely confident that you will get a job, or feel like one firm really tried to sell their firm to you, yet get no calls on Call Day. It breaks you and makes you feel absolutely terrible. If I could go back and do it again knowing what I know now, I probably wouldn't do it at all.

• I'm uncomfortable with lack of ethnic diversity in the legal field.

• I'm just glad it's done, socializing for 15 hours a day for 2 straight days is exhausting.

• The sheer extent of my disorganization and procrastination.

• I think U of T uniquely prepares its students for this process. I was at tables with other students from other schools, and they struggled a lot more.

• There are some firms that are very professional in this process and that's amazing. It made me feel great about where I'm going to work. Others are not.

Simply. Some are aggressive and break the rules.

Some will very clearly waste your time if you don't schedule their first interview in the right slot, which is fuckin childish. These things should matter to people. If they did, maybe things would change. Unfortunately, the ends justify the means for some who are sure of what they want early, which makes those firms much less accessible to those who are trying to learn and figure things out during the process itself.

• The firms are vicious and they don't care about you.

Don't think they are like real people and worry

• At every stage of the recruitment, try not to compare yourself to others. Just do your personal best!

• That I was diagnosed with A.D.D. • My anxiety; my uncertainty around whether I wanted to practice litigation over the long-term

What would you change about the recruitment process?

• Get rid of the cooling off period - have the firms

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | 15 • Two firms really stick out to me from this process.

I met with BLG, and they made me feel humiliated and embarrassed. They fooled me over and over again and I feel like a huge sucker for falling for it every time. At the end of my first day interview with them, I was sitting with my host when someone entered the room to tell my host how impressed everyone was with me and that they wanted me back tomorrow. I felt so happy. I knew infirms would be ok!

It was only later on, reflecting back on the events after learning new pieces of information, that I was able to realize what had really happened. Like the twist in 'The Prestige'. But instead of being cool, it just made me feel stupid for letting my optimism allow BLG to fool me so severely. It turns out this little 'skit' was conducted for the benefit of very first round interviewer. A special drama for the prospective candidates.

My host emailed me and asked me who I would want to meet tomorrow. I had done a lot of research on BLG and was interested in a few different departments; I asked to talk to lawyers from those areas.

My host said alright, he would set it up and email me back to confirm. But I didn't hear back. Sucker than I am, I just assumed it was taking longer than expected. Only now do I realize how naive I was and I do feel embarrassed. But at the same time, why would I not trust them?

As it would turn out, BLG was confirming with the people they liked and letting the rest of us flap in the wind. But since I did not know, on Tuesday morning I wrote to them to ask for confirmation, which I received. I was told to ask for someone other than my host when I arrived, but that did not seem too strange. When I arrived, I ending up having a short 20 minute chat with a lawyer who had nothing to do with my interests. As it turns out, they must have just foisted some random available lawyer on me because they had promised me a 'second round' and wanted to keep their illusion going. Once again though, my optimism blinded me from seeing how wrong this was. Only after I had talked to someone the next day who had been given a 'real' second round interview did I realize how badly I had been played.

In the evening, I received an email telling me that they enjoyed meeting and they had enough information now to go forward. Cryptic for sure, but still deceitful. Why did they not just tell me?

After putting it all together, I first felt like an idiot for missing all of the clues along the way. But then my second feeling was ...why? Why did lying to us matter so much to them? Why not tell me they did not want a second interview with me rather than keeping their deception going, wasting my time and building up my hopes?

I contrast this to the wonderful experience I had with Davies. After it became clear I was not a good fit, I received a respectful phone call to suggest I focus my efforts elsewhere. They respected my time.

They treated me like a person. Later on in the week, I received a nice and encouraging email from their head recruiter wishing me luck on the process.

These little gestures meant a lot to me. This firm did not feel a need to lie to me and lead me on. I would recommend them to anyone to apply for. I think it says a lot about their culture and way of doing business that they treat their candidates well.

• Everything just felt very arbitrary and it really can be damaging to one's self-worth. But thank you Ultra Vires for creating this survey for catharsis, and for the CDO for reminding us that this isn't the end: there are many opportunities beyond this.

• My only in-firm called me at 8:04 on Thursday and started their sentence with "Hi its ____: I'm not calling to make an offer, but to let you know you're third on our list (hiring for 2 positions), and we're just waiting for our second offer to get back to us. They then called back at 8:25 after I spent 20 mins in limbo to tell me the other student accepted so they could not make me an offer, and felt "really crummy" about it.

Trust me, I felt "crummier" and would have much rather have received no call at all than one letting me know how close I had been to receiving an offer.

• Survey was too long.

DIVERSIONS

16 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

ultravires.ca

UV “News” Round Up RABIYA MANSOOR (2L) AND KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L)

Legal Profession Collectively Agrees to Change Dress Code

Admin Goes Day Without Student Complaint, Assumes the Worst On November 24, U of T Law’s administration experienced something it had never experienced before. “It was four p.m. and we hadn’t received one angry email or phone call or drop in,” said a source within the administration.

“Honestly, we assumed some sort of killer virus had wiped out all the students. You know how disgusting law students are. Wait, are we still on the record?” The lack of complaints was even more surprising considering that earlier that day an email had mistakenly gone out to the 1L listserv that said, “Professors, remember to submit the results of your course grade lottery by December 15.” “Still,” our source said, “not a peep!”

U of A Student Writes Supposed Satire Some U of A law student wrote an article that he had to remind everyone was satire and was supposed to be funny. When asked what he was satirizing, the author responded, “It’s obvious isn’t it? It’s women. I hate women.” In the article, the author hates a “f ictional” woman because she drinks and is a sexual being. He also hates her when she stops drinking and no longer enjoys sex. He said it was satire though, so the whole world was cool with it.

Student Doesn’t Attend Pub Night At 9 pm, 2L Linda Loopstra decided it was time for bed.

But, that meant she wouldn’t be attending the law school’s pub night.

Her friends were aghast, accusing Linda of having “no school spirit” and “not giving in to the rampant alcoholism of the profession.” Linda defends herself: “I was just really tired.”

In what can only be described as the most welcome news of all time, the legal profession has collectively agreed to eliminate the suit as the standard outf it for lawyers. Instead, lawyers will now wear comfy t-shirts and sweatpants, with hoodies as an option in winter, and, of course, shorts in the summer. “This will not only make all of us more comfortable,” a spokesperson told us, “but will help even the playing f ield for lawyers who cannot af ford expensive suits.” In other news, Brooks Brothers just announced its newest line of luxury sweatpants, retailing at $4000.

Law School Adds Certificate in Numbers After a baf f ling misunderstanding of the Learned Hand formula in Torts, U of T has decided to add a certif icate in basic algebra to its course of ferings. “Basic numerical literacy is key in the legal profession,” said Dean Iacobucci. Students will need to take four courses to complete the program: Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division. Currently, no students have showed interest in enrolling in the certif icate.

U of T Students Who Planned to Work in NYC This Summer All Change Minds For obvious reasons.

2FML: A Cautionary Tale JANINE PRONGPEPPER (ALUMNUS) AS TOLD TO KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L) I’m going to make this short and sweet.

My name is Janine Prongpepper and I’ve been in 2L for f ifteen years now. No, you don’t know me. No, you haven’t seen me in any of your classes. I’ve been paying off my so-called debt to society—the Law Society, that is. What was my offence? It was that classic sitcom plot: two dates, one night. Except for me it was six f irms, one summer.

I was just trying to be polite. There I was at in-f irms, interviewing at six dif ferent places, and every time any f irm tried to gauge my interest I told them how nice they seemed, how I was sure everyone really liked them, how lucky any girl like me

would be to work for a f irm like them. I didn’t tell any of them they were my f irst choice; they just kind of assumed it. You know how it is: show any interest in a f irm and they think you want to work there the rest of your life. I wasn’t even looking for a career; I just wanted to try things out.

Then came offer day. I don’t know what came over me. The f irst f irm called, a f irm I had planned to say no to, but then there was that friendly voice on the other end and I couldn’t bear to hurt his feelings. So I said yes. And then it happened f ive more times. I didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, so I had six jobs lined up for the summer.

It seems funny when it happens on TV, but let me tell you, there’s nothing funny about it in real life. Oh sure, I had some fun. I’d wear my Raptors hat with the sticker still on it into my bro f irm and be like, “This year is our year.” Then I’d throw on my Harry Potter earrings and head on down to my nerd f irm for awhile.

But what happens the day you walk into your snobby f irm and talk about how much you love Nickelback? What happens when you wear your Raptors hat to the nerd f irm and brag about your gains?

I’ll tell you what happens. Your shitty of f icemate, Trevor, gets suspicious and or-

ganizes an inter-f irm recreation day just to out you, and you juggle the events as much as possible, but then you show up to your bro f irm ultimate game wearing your hipster f irm jersey and everything falls apart.

Trevor wins. A ll six f irms report you to the Law Society, who orders you to eighteen years of document review divided evenly between all six f irms. Can they do that? Is that legal? You tell me: I was going to take labour law in 3L .

Here’s the moral: Don’t be like me.

Don’t be polite. Don’t worry about people’s feelings so much. And most importantly, don’t trust Trevor.

ultravires.ca

DIVERSIONS

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | 17

You Want it Darker: 2016 Gives and 2016 Takes Away KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L) AND NICK PAPAGEORGE (2L)

Nick:

Kevin:

My pop culture highlight of 2016 was finding out that Bob Dylan had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. He has long been one of my favourite artists precisely for his masterly compositions of confounding verses and unexpected allusions.

2016 was a good year for aging musicians. Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize. Paul Simon, Nick Cave, Bob Weir, Charles Bradley, and A Tribe Called Quest, musicians ranging in age from forty-six to seventy-five, all released new albums proving that they were still going strong creatively. But 2016 was also a tragic year for aging musicians. I’m here to talk about three musical legends we lost this year who all gave the world one last gift before making their exit.

Through his use of language, Dylan creates his own little enchantingly absurd worlds and then draws you into them. Worlds filled with politicians and thieves, lovers and acid heads, scoundrels and debutantes, and men in Napoleon Bonaparte masks. Worlds where Einstein plays the electric violin and, inside the museums, infinity goes up on trial. Then there are his protest songs, which are some of the most powerful and poignant indictments of war, hatred, and injustice that I know of.

And for every moment in life, there seems to be a Dylan lyric to go along with it. For better or worse, law school keeps me coming back to this one in particular: “There’s no success like failure, and failure’s no success at all.”

But there is another moment—or, perhaps, series of events—that stands out for me even more. Like many Canadians, I was shocked and saddened this past May to wake up to a press release from The Tragically Hip: their inimitable frontman, Gord Downie, had been diagnosed with cancer and the band would embark on its final tour over the summer. I was benumbed by the idea that this was really it for him and for them, and I resolved to get tickets.

Of course, getting tickets was not a simple—or even realistic—inevitability. Ticket scalpers, armed with software of dubious legitimacy, scooped up nearly every single ticket and promptly listed them on the secondary market for five times the face value. I was dismayed, and took solace in having gotten to see The Hip perform live many times before. I told myself I would be a man of probity and would refuse to let criminals profit off of another man’s terminal illness.

It turns out I am not that person.

I was with a friend in a Toronto bar on August 10 when I noticed that all the music playing was Hip songs; having long since abandoned hope of seeing the show, I had forgotten they were even in town that night.

After a few drinks, I decided I would regret not going to this show for the rest of my life. So I went to a bank machine, withdrew a wad of cash, and shoved it into the hands of the first reprobate willing to sell me a ticket at that price.

And I regret nothing. The show was phenomenal, as electric and high-energy as any the band had put on in years. It was also profoundly emotional: the most touching moment was when Downie stepped out onstage and started the first song, his bandmates forming a close semicircle around him. The minutes-long send off the crowd gave Gord—on stage by himself, making an apparent effort to wave at and thank every single audience member—was surreal. It is an evening I won’t soon forget.

David Bowie, ever the showman, released his album Blackstar two days before the liver cancer he had kept secret for eighteen months took his life. It’s impossible to hear the album now and hear it as anything other than a man singing about his own death. One of the standout tracks, “Lazarus,” opens with this line: “Look up here, I’m in Heaven.” Then the album closes with “I Can’t Give Everything Away” where Bowie sings, “I know something is very wrong.” Still, in spite of the context around its release, this is a beautiful, at times even uplifting, album from one of the world’s greatest artists.

On March 24 this year I saw an ad for a concert I really wanted to go to. But the ticket was going to be expensive and I had seen the artist before. For maybe an hour I flip-flopped, fighting myself internally. It’s too expensive! But who knows when you’ll have the chance to see him again! But you’ve already seen him! But it was amazing! Finally I decided to go. Fortunately tickets hadn’t sold out while I was wavering. The next night I saw Prince play a show alone, just him and a piano. This was probably the best show I’ve ever seen. The amount of energy he had, the giant personality coming from his tiny frame, the sheer musical talent, kept me in awe for two hours. Less than a month later, Prince died from an overdose of painkillers. I literally didn’t believe it when I first found out. There was no sign of anything wrong that night, no sign of the chronic pain he was suffering that led to his death. He gave everything he had to the audience. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it here, in print: Prince was pop’s greatest genius.

I was driving to Montreal with my girlfriend when I found out Leonard Cohen died. We had already listened to his newest album, You Want it Darker, earlier in the drive. “Oh shit,” my girlfriend half yelled. I thought she had spilled something. We drove silently for awhile. She had memories of listening to Leonard Cohen with her mom and brother growing up. She was sad. I had only ever really dabbled in Cohen’s music before, but I had memories of him too. I remembered the first of his albums I bought when I was in high school and only knew him because of Jeff Buckley’s version of “Hallelujah.” I remembered a friend forcing me to listen to “I’m Your Man” on repeat because she was obsessed with it after it appeared on a show she liked. So we both sat in the car and felt sad about losing someone we had never met, but who had been a presence in each of our lives for a long time. As 2016 comes to an unhappy and uncertain close, the words that keep coming to mind are from the title track of Cohen’s final album: “You want it darker. We kill the light.”

IMAGE OF LEONARD COHEN BY ALEXANDRA FOX. ALL OTHER IMAGES VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

DIVERSIONS

18 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

ultravires.ca

An Oral History of the IRAC War Part Three: Brief Accomplished KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L) When we last visited our duo of petulant professors and Queen Gloria, the group was completely split into three factions, but there was still hope that a unif ied Legal Methods class might prevail.

Hugh English: I think I might be in love with Queen Gloria. Is that inappropriate? Can you take that out?

Dean McCourt: If that skinny ass b**** Hugh would have ever admitted this whole thing was his fault, maybe things would have worked out dif ferently. Try getting him to admit he’s wrong about anything though. His puny, shrivelled raisin of a brain can’t even comprehend it.

Queen Gloria: And it seemed like it worked. We talked for hours after that. We didn’t come to an agreement, but we were close. The thing is though, it was all a lie. Each of them was buying time, while their followers carried out their sophomoric little schemes.

Hugh English: He said I was what? Wrong? Wrong? Am I pronouncing that right?

What does that even mean?

Queen Gloria: The two of them, my god, you know? Like, just, come on, what? You know? I mean, it’s like [makes frustrated grumbling sound]... It’s like trying to reason with two bottom-feeding catf ish, every time you try to talk to them, they’re just down there eating… well, they’re just hard to deal with, okay?

Dean McCourt: Did Queen Gloria call us bottom-feeders again? You know, she thinks she’s like this majestic super being who’s so much better than us, and I guess everyone else in the world thinks that too, but like, she’s not so perfect, guys. Let me tell you some things about Queen Gloria…

Dean went on for approximately one hour telling increasingly lurid, insulting , and, most of all, unbelievable stories about Queen Gloria. We decided against reproducing them here. Finally we got him back on topic. Queen Gloria called a meeting of the three professors to try to forge peace.

Hugh English: Ah yes, the big meeting. It was noble of Queen Gloria to try, but Dean McCourt was never going to play along. He’s too petty. His demands were ridiculous. He wanted me to meet individually with each student and apologize. He wrote a script: “I, Hugh English, am amongst the lowest forms of life on earth and I regret everything I’ve ever done.”

Dean McCourt: It was a very reasonable request. It’s just that Hugh English is basically a small child. People actually like small children, though, and they’re capable of learning. Hugh is more like a cardboard box that someone painted a face on.

Queen Gloria: Right from the beginning, the meeting was going terribly. Dean calls Hugh a slimy newt, Hugh calls Dean a shitty little ventriloquist puppet, Dean pretends he’s got something in his eye. I snapped. I yelled at them for a full ten minutes.

Hugh English: Oh, I was scheming alright. Throughout the whole conf lict I had been hiding banana peels in places where Dean walked. Something I learned as a child. But now it was time for a surge. Total shock and awe.

Dean McCourt: It’s true, I slipped on way more banana peels than usual during that time period, but I didn’t make the connection until later. After the meeting f inished, I went back to my of f ice. I didn’t notice immediately when I walked in, but there were banana peels everywhere. Suddenly the lights went of f and someone pulled the door shut. I tried to f ind my way out, but I was slipping everywhere. I must have fallen a hundred times trying to f ind the door. Finally, I just lay down, overwhelmed by the smell of bananas, and took comfort in the fact that I had been scheming, too.

Hugh English: I didn’t suspect anything. I didn’t think Dean had it in him. But that twerpy muskrat man booby trapped my of f ice. When I opened the door, a bucket of paint fell on my head. Two paintball guns were rigged to shoot me repeatedly. I tried to use my computer and my mouse electrocuted me. I went to open a drawer in my desk and the handle burnt my hand. Can you believe it? He Home A loned me.

Queen Gloria: And so it all came to an end. Our great experiment was over. It failed.

I know I didn’t act perfectly. I can’t help but think if I could have just seen it coming, I could have put an end to their schemes before they started. But I tried, I really did, and I take comfort in that. The fact that my colleagues are morons is a shame, but you know, there’s a small sort of comfort in that too, in knowing that some people will never surprise you. They just can’t help but be themselves.

And that’s why Legal Methods is taught in three sections. And have you ever seen Dean McCourt eating a banana? T hank you for sticking with us these last three months and taking the time to learn about a part of our school’s rich history; we couldn’t have done it without your support.

The End

Dean McCourt: I still have nightmares about Queen Gloria.

A Suit for Every Occasion AIDAN CAMPBELL (2L) & KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L) Never owned dress clothes before but still need to look sharp for the corporate recruit? We’ve got you covered. A ll you need is one grey suit, one red tie, and a single white shirt. Make it last!

They’ve matched you with a mentor who is supposed to be your guide through the whole process. The only way to pull this of f is if you can ditch ‘em. Make a vague allegation of harassment not quite rising to the level of a f ireable infraction, but bad enough to ensure you get a dif ferent guide the next day.

Cool, you’re really being courted. Sometime during the evening, steal one of their ties as part of a “magic trick.”

Make it disappear. Do not give it back. Now you have two ties.

OCI Day One:

Or, if that’s too cutthroat for you, try this: f irst thing when you see your guide the next day, comment on how they’re wearing the same outf it as yesterday. When they tell you they’re not, assure them they’re wrong. They will either believe you eventually or be too f lustered to pay attention to your clothes. If that’s too cutthroat for you, you’re not cut out for this.

Day Two:

White shirt, classic. Flashy red tie, gotta stand out.

OCI Day Two: White shirt looking a little if fy under the arms, so what?

Cut out the smelly parts, no one can tell in a jacket. Stuf f toilet paper in your armpits to protect your jacket. Red tie again. Not even your friends will notice you’ve worn the same thing twice.

Thank god you only get one in-f irm.

Initial Tour and Sit Down: They probably saw f ifty other people at OCIs. No way they remember or care that you’re in the same grey suit.

Dinner: Don’t change. Make them think you’ve been too busy meeting with other f irms to make it home. Steal a fancy napkin to use as a pocket square tomorrow.

Good news, you’ve got an email saying they want you back in to meet a couple more partners. Bad news, you passed out in your suit jacket, your shirt is covered in boozy sweat stains and your pants are missing.

Time for the ult imate power move: wear your jacket over any t-shirt, preferably pr inted. Find the natt iest jeans you own. If you have the misfortune of owning a tr ilby hat, add that in for good measure. Hope to god the law yers you’re meet ing see this as tota l outside the box think ing.

Call Day: Evening: Some of the younger associates want to take you out.

The of fer comes in. Congratulations! Your small act of rebellion has made you the most punk rock summer student Bay Street has ever seen.

ultravires.ca

DIVERSIONS

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 | 19

Your UToronto Webmail Inbox

TEXT BY NORM YALLEN AND IMAGE BY DAVINA SHIVRATAN

Administration’s Guide to Writing a Law School Exam KEVIN SCHOENFELDT (2L) T he administration asked us to print this how-to guide for writing law school exams, out of concern that students were ignoring their emails. Since it is in the public interest, we agreed.

One hour, two hours, as many as you think are necessary to be up and ready on time.

Dear 1Ls,

•

Get a good night’s sleep. There’s nothing more important.

So you’re about to write your f irst law school exams. Forget every single thing you’ve ever known about writing exams. Every. Single. Thing.

•

Eat a nice breakfast. Not that garbage food you usually shovel into your mouths.

Eat something nice, like maybe some orange slices, yogurt and granola, and some berries. Do not even drink one drop of cof fee or else you will feel so nervous that you will not be able to leave your house. YOU CA NNOT WR ITE YOUR EX A M FROM YOUR HOUSE.

•

Have multiple routes to school planned, using multiple modes of transportation. Draw a map.

You’ve been here before, but this is the morning of an exam, your brain will not be working properly. If you normally walk to school, you may forget how to walk. Do not be alarmed, follow your backup plan. If you wish, you may submit your backup plans by December 1, and we will ensure you didn’t screw them up.

•

Know what room you’re writing in. This is simple.

•

When you f irst get into your exam room, consider screaming and shouting as loud as possible for two full minutes. This will help activate your brain. Surely there is a Ted Talk that says this. Once this is done, if you are able to, ensure you are sitting as far away from all your classmates as possible. They cannot be trusted.

•

When the exam begins, intelligently spot and discuss all the issues in each fact pattern in the clearest language possible, with reference to cases you have studied in class. If you have read our “How to Study for a Law School Exam” guide and then studied properly, you should have no problem at all. But you probably did not. You do not live right.

You think you know how to write an exam already? Wrong. You think law exams are basically just like any other exam? Nope. Wrong. You think you’re smart enough to get by without a how-to? THINK AGA IN. Here is our step-by-step guide to making it through your f irst exam period without having to come cry to us about how badly you did.

•

Forget everything you think you know about writing exams. You thought we were kidding? We were not.

•

Go back in time 4 months. Do all of your readings. What’s that? You claim you did all of your readings? We are not morons. We know you’re lying. Sure, some of you are good, serious people who did all your work. The rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves, and there’s no such thing as time machines, so you did this to yourselves.

•

Be ashamed of yourself.

•

Set at least forty-f ive alarms for the morning of your exam if you think you need to.

You do need to. You do not live right. Even if it’s an afternoon exam, you will probably sleep in and your tears mean nothing to us. Set your alarm early if you have to.

20 | NOVEMBER 30, 2016

Overthinking: Email Sign Off Edition MAUD ROZEE (2L) Sure the CDO is useful for some things, but there’s only so much they can do. When you’re f lailing around trying to write to potential employers without mortally embarrassing yourself, this is the guide you’re going to want to consult.

DIVERSIONS

ultravires.ca

1. “Sincerely”

4. “Best”

What are you, some wide-eyed ingénue? Is this the f irst email you’ve ever sent? On the one hand, maybe it’s refreshing. On the other, maybe it’s too refreshing. Show some spine.

Too personal. Come on, try to maintain some semblance of professionalism.

5. “Yours truly” 2. “Best regards”

Woah! Slow down there. Still way too intimate.

Okay, you’re playing it safe. It’s classic, it’s timeless, but it’s a little stif f. A little boring. Wait, who are you again?

I’ve already forgotten because you’ve blended right into the crowd.

6. “Warmly”

3. “Regards”

7. “Please hire me”

Wow, okay, check out Busy McBusiness over here. Sorry for wasting your time by making you write this email.

Don’t lie, it’s not ethical.

Nice. Hits just the right tone.