Is Uvic Law open to Diverse Views or only Left Wing?

[Deadpool]

One thing I want to mention is that UVic has some great clinical and experiential learning opportunities. Your clients will be low-income individuals from marginalized backgrounds for the most part, and your peers in these programs may be more left-leaning than you. I would encourage you to not shy away from these experiences, as that is what you are paying the law school good money for. Just be respectful and self-aware in your surroundings at all times, and you should be fine. I made friends with people that have contrasting views and upbringing than me, and that is a part of the self-learning process that law school textbooks won't teach you. Younger lawyers tend to be more left-leaning nowadays so this is not unique to UVic alone. Whatever your personal viewpoints or politics may be, you should also try to understand how cases arrived at the decision they did, because many judges will have opposing viewpoints to you as well. 

My advice is to never shy away from rich opportunities like this just because you may fear the response you will get. Embrace it and see it as a learning opportunity. Generally, people in law school are not out to get you, and this is a new experience for everyone.

[Philosophy]

I went to a left leaning school on the west coast and I would say I am right of center on most issues. I personally never have had any problems with my peers. I participated a lot in class during undergrad and I expressed my views politely and reasonably, and I also listened to others' views with genuine interest. 

 

That being said, there are times when you have to be socially aware and just keep quiet if and when hyper-sensitive issues are being discussed. (abortion, LGBT, etc) 

 

However, overall, if you treat others with dignity and respect, then 99% of the time it gets reciprocated. I think the overwhelming majority of people have good inside of them. 

[AllanC]

38 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

ngl that is the only one thing that makes me hesitate to go to law school

ive noticed the overall trend in the posts between law students/lawyers and those who have yet to attend law school to have stark contrast in between the tone and the need to get "straight to the point". 

im still going to law school no matter what, but it does make me wonder what the students learn at law schools that makes them adopt the cynical attitude that is ever - so - quick to shoot down any post that they deem to deserve criticism

Though selection bias obviously plays a part, it's largely that as a professional your job is literally to tell people how it is (and to do so efficiently). It's not something that is specific to the legal profession or what you learn in law school.

[BlockedQuebecois]

12 hours ago, Thrive92 said:

it does make me wonder what the students learn at law schools that makes them adopt the cynical attitude that is ever - so - quick to shoot down any post that they deem to deserve criticism

Why would we not shoot down a post that deserves criticism? What good does that do anybody?

This is my principal complaint with places like Can Law Connect. When people are afraid to shoot down comments that deserve to be shot down, you end up with an echo chamber that is just deluding itself (see, for example, the complete lack of critical discussion there about the recent unpaid articles discussion at Convocation).

I know it feels nicer to have people agree with you and tell you what you want to hear. But it's not helpful when what you're saying or what you want to hear is wrong.

The people on CLC are going to keep saying "unpaid articles are 100% exploitative and the lawyers who support it all had their parents pay for their education", and the adults in the room (read: the lawyers and benchers who decide on this) will ignore them because they know that take is dumb. Contrast that with a user here who read the discussion here and on the discord and is able to say "I understand the arguments for allowing unpaid articles, but I think they are outweighed by x, y, z". That person is going to be taken seriously in the discussion, even if they initially experienced discomfort when their views were challenged. 

As to tone: I give honest advice to everyone. My honest advice is (usually) cloaked in kindness for people who pay me and people I think are unable to handle blunt honesty. If SCL or anyone else wants to pay me $30 every six minutes to cloak my advice on this forum in kindness, I am happy to oblige. I accept all major cryptocurrencies. For everyone else, you just get the honesty. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[dimsum1]

1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Contrast that with a user here who read the discussion here and on the discord and is able to say "I understand the arguments for allowing unpaid articles, but I think they are outweighed by x, y, z". That person is going to be taken seriously in the discussion, even if they initially experienced discomfort when their views were challenged. 

Huh - I would have thought that someone planning on law school, where presumably you will have to defend your views using evidence, would have no issues with their views being challenged.  

[Whisk3yjack]

I don't go to UVic, but I at least am a law student at a law school that is just as, if not more left wing (Windsor). I would describe myself as relatively left wing. I am certainly more left wing than my family and my friends at home or in undergrad. However, at Windsor I would say that I am probably in the centre right of the law school body.

Being right wing* is not going to be an issue for you. I have many friends that are libertarians. They are fun, interesting people that I enjoy hanging out with. We have civil discussion about politics. They are not ostracized for their views. You will not be crucified for expressing normal, right wing views like "taxes should be lower because it will be good for the economy" or "the existence of a police force is a good thing". As long as you're not going around things like "gay people are bad" you're political views won't be an issue.

Your issue is that you don't seem like a fun, interesting person I would want to hangout with. I suspect that if you went to UVic, or any law school, you would have issues with the rest student body that you would attribute to your political views which are really just a product of who you are as a person. As was mentioned before, if being a contrarian has been an issue before, you should expect that to continue, regardless of which school to go to. 

*You called yourself a contrarian and a centrist, but my experience with people who describe themselves that way is that they are not in fact centrists and are just people who think that others are dumb for not drawing the same reasonable, moderate conclusions as them. I guess you could actually be a leftist contrarian centrist, but given your concerns I'm going to go with right

[SecondCareerLaw]

16 hours ago, Thrive92 said:

OP chances are those who are insulting you on this thread are likely not students (or never were) from UVic.

I am not from uVic myself, and probably never will be. However I doubt that the school will shun you or reject you based on your political beliefs.

If you have a problem with attending a school that is left - leaning (or dominant of any political beliefs tbh), then I would suggest you to harden your outer shell to antagonizing remarks on the internet, as you will receive alot of those regardless of what your political stance is.

That's not what direct emails to me from Uvic students say.

I would suggest you look into the field of human communication and how to deal with toxic behaviour. The only people responsible for abusive behaviour are those who do it!

[CleanHands]

Just now, SecondCareerLaw said:

That's not what direct emails to me from Uvic students say.

I would suggest you look into the field of human communication and how to deal with toxic behaviour. The only people responsible for abusive behaviour are those who do it!

He was actually being nice to you but you misinterpreted his post and responded like a dick. What a surprise!

@Thrive92 - This is why our responses to this poster had the tone they did.

[SecondCareerLaw]

16 hours ago, Thrive92 said:

ngl that is the only one thing that makes me hesitate to go to law school

ive noticed the overall trend in the posts between law students/lawyers and those who have yet to attend law school to have stark contrast in between the tone and the need to get "straight to the point". 

im still going to law school no matter what, but it does make me wonder what the students learn at law schools that makes them adopt the cynical attitude that is ever - so - quick to shoot down any post that they deem to deserve criticism

Hiya-I don't think the immature postings here are a good reflection of lawyers or even law students. 

[Whist]

I would echo what @Whisk3yjack said. There are people in law school from different areas of the political spectrum. The actual school itself is left-leaning in terms of calling people their preferred name, recognising the impact colonial culture has had on First Nations/Metis, etc, which to me are pretty basic standards of decency but I digress. They do not teach you which side to take in a legal issue, only how to analyse it. I attend law school in a firmly conservative province. I will acknowledge that the people in the niche of academia tend to be - but are not always - left-leaning. 

The problem is not that you asked if you'd fit in at UVic with non-left political views. It's that the tone of your question reeks of self-importance. Unless you go around wanting to "resist predictable views" in the form of purposefully misgendering trans students or spouting anti-vax crap, nobody gives a shit about your centrist contrarianism.

[SecondCareerLaw]

17 hours ago, Deadpool said:

One thing I want to mention is that UVic has some great clinical and experiential learning opportunities. Your clients will be low-income individuals from marginalized backgrounds for the most part, and your peers in these programs may be more left-leaning than you. I would encourage you to not shy away from these experiences, as that is what you are paying the law school good money for. Just be respectful and self-aware in your surroundings at all times, and you should be fine. I made friends with people that have contrasting views and upbringing than me, and that is a part of the self-learning process that law school textbooks won't teach you. Younger lawyers tend to be more left-leaning nowadays so this is not unique to UVic alone. Whatever your personal viewpoints or politics may be, you should also try to understand how cases arrived at the decision they did, because many judges will have opposing viewpoints to you as well. 

My advice is to never shy away from rich opportunities like this just because you may fear the response you will get. Embrace it and see it as a learning opportunity. Generally, people in law school are not out to get you, and this is a new experience for everyone.

Oh gosh should I really pay $30,000 to another school to do all that agaaaiiiin?:)

[BlockedQuebecois]

I can't believe some of you doubted my initial reaction to this guy. 

[SecondCareerLaw]

16 hours ago, Philosophy said:

I went to a left leaning school on the west coast and I would say I am right of center on most issues. I personally never have had any problems with my peers. I participated a lot in class during undergrad and I expressed my views politely and reasonably, and I also listened to others' views with genuine interest. 

 

That being said, there are times when you have to be socially aware and just keep quiet if and when hyper-sensitive issues are being discussed. (abortion, LGBT, etc) 

 

However, overall, if you treat others with dignity and respect, then 99% of the time it gets reciprocated. I think the overwhelming majority of people have good inside of them. 

So that's what  should not happen at a university -- have to keep quiet on issues like abortion or human rights -- just because someone has trouble thinking clearly about the issues for emotional reasons. Liberal canon means students are accountable for being rational, focusing on evidence, and tolerating other perspectives.   You shouldn't have to shut up to get along in a good learning environment. 

5 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Why would we not shoot down a post that deserves criticism? What good does that do anybody?

This is my principal complaint with places like Can Law Connect. When people are afraid to shoot down comments that deserve to be shot down, you end up with an echo chamber that is just deluding itself (see, for example, the complete lack of critical discussion there about the recent unpaid articles discussion at Convocation).

I know it feels nicer to have people agree with you and tell you what you want to hear. But it's not helpful when what you're saying or what you want to hear is wrong.

The people on CLC are going to keep saying "unpaid articles are 100% exploitative and the lawyers who support it all had their parents pay for their education", and the adults in the room (read: the lawyers and benchers who decide on this) will ignore them because they know that take is dumb. Contrast that with a user here who read the discussion here and on the discord and is able to say "I understand the arguments for allowing unpaid articles, but I think they are outweighed by x, y, z". That person is going to be taken seriously in the discussion, even if they initially experienced discomfort when their views were challenged. 

As to tone: I give honest advice to everyone. My honest advice is (usually) cloaked in kindness for people who pay me and people I think are unable to handle blunt honesty. If SCL or anyone else wants to pay me $30 every six minutes to cloak my advice on this forum in kindness, I am happy to oblige. I accept all major cryptocurrencies. For everyone else, you just get the honesty. 

Dude, you are operating by a toxic rule set and are struggling with healthy boundaries. 

[Barry]

3 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

a good learning environment

Weren’t you the one concerned with how little time you could possibly devote to law school and the lowest grades you could get away with? 
 

Maybe take the LSAT and then worry about ideal learning environments, and if 25 year olds will still invite you to parties even if you think there are only 2 genders. 

[CleanHands]

1 minute ago, Barry said:

Maybe take the LSAT and then...

Also a good idea to do before worrying about the culture of one of the most competitive schools in the country to gain admission to.

[SecondCareerLaw]

5 minutes ago, Barry said:

Weren’t you the one concerned with how little time you could possibly devote to law school and the lowest grades you could get away with? 
 

Maybe take the LSAT and then worry about ideal learning environments, and if 25 year olds will still invite you to parties even if you think there are only 2 genders. 

Ahh, condescension, aggression, and self importance. Good one

[SecondCareerLaw]

55 minutes ago, Whist said:

I would echo what @Whisk3yjack said. There are people in law school from different areas of the political spectrum. The actual school itself is left-leaning in terms of calling people their preferred name, recognising the impact colonial culture has had on First Nations/Metis, etc, which to me are pretty basic standards of decency but I digress. They do not teach you which side to take in a legal issue, only how to analyse it. I attend law school in a firmly conservative province. I will acknowledge that the people in the niche of academia tend to be - but are not always - left-leaning. 

The problem is not that you asked if you'd fit in at UVic with non-left political views. It's that the tone of your question reeks of self-importance. Unless you go around wanting to "resist predictable views" in the form of purposefully misgendering trans students or spouting anti-vax crap, nobody gives a shit about your centrist contrarianism.

Ahhh, I see. That makes sense. You sense it could be you who is "predictable" rather than thoughtful in certain areas, become defensive, and post aggressively. 

Funny how you can post something that is anonymous, neutral and perfectly rational, and some of the responses are so often toxic. Lots of personal issues on display.  

[SecondCareerLaw]

40 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I can't believe some of you doubted my initial reaction to this guy. 

Your failing is you can't distinguish between perspective and personal attack. Once start to attack someone personally, you open yourself to the same. 

[Whisk3yjack]

46 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I can't believe some of you doubted my initial reaction to this guy. 

As a contrarian my instinct was to resist this predictable view

43 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

So that's what  should not happen at a university -- have to keep quiet on issues like abortion or human rights -- just because someone has trouble thinking clearly about the issues for emotional reasons. Liberal canon means students are accountable for being rational, focusing on evidence, and tolerating other perspectives.   You shouldn't have to shut up to get along in a good learning environment. 

This is something that I hear from contrarian centrists all the time that really bothers me. In what fucking world do people think that they will be able to go somewhere where they don't "have to shut up to get along". Holding your tongue is part of life. I restrain myself from expressing some of my opinions all the time because that's just how normal human interactions work. 

No one is going to be hold a gun to your head and force you to support police abolition, but your fellow students are not under any obligation to provide a safe space for your views. If you decide you want say that some people should have less rights than others, everyone is allowed to think you are an not nice person. In a totally apolitical sense, thinking other people deserve less rights is just genuinely mean, which is widely regarded as an undesirable quality in a friend.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Whisk3yjack
removed a mean word because I'm nice

[CleanHands]

3 minutes ago, Whisk3yjack said:

This is something that I hear from contrarian centrists all the time that really bothers me.

You forgot to put "contrarian centrists" in quotes.

I'm sure this guy is a "centrist" in the sense that Dave Rubin uses it in describing himself and Stefan Molyneux as being part of the "new centre."

[SecondCareerLaw]

4 hours ago, Whisk3yjack said:

I don't go to UVic, but I at least am a law student at a law school that is just as, if not more left wing (Windsor). I would describe myself as relatively left wing. I am certainly more left wing than my family and my friends at home or in undergrad. However, at Windsor I would say that I am probably in the centre right of the law school body.

Being right wing* is not going to be an issue for you. I have many friends that are libertarians. They are fun, interesting people that I enjoy hanging out with. We have civil discussion about politics. They are not ostracized for their views. You will not be crucified for expressing normal, right wing views like "taxes should be lower because it will be good for the economy" or "the existence of a police force is a good thing". As long as you're not going around things like "gay people are bad" you're political views won't be an issue.

Your issue is that you don't seem like a fun, interesting person I would want to hangout with. I suspect that if you went to UVic, or any law school, you would have issues with the rest student body that you would attribute to your political views which are really just a product of who you are as a person. As was mentioned before, if being a contrarian has been an issue before, you should expect that to continue, regardless of which school to go to. 

*You called yourself a contrarian and a centrist, but my experience with people who describe themselves that way is that they are not in fact centrists and are just people who think that others are dumb for not drawing the same reasonable, moderate conclusions as them. I guess you could actually be a leftist contrarian centrist, but given your concerns I'm going to go with right

Funny you mention that. Years ago I had a room mate who had graduate from Windsor who had the same complaint. That was 2006. 

Totally get the distinctions you make between principled views on things like taxes and and prejudice. There has to be prohibitions against wanton prejudice and hate against particular groups. Thanks for your view. 

On thing, I for one am not right wing. Definitely left on certain issues.

However you are making a lot of assumptions about someone being "fun" and "interesting". Wow. How judgmental. And based on next to zero information. Just wow.

I also never said I had issues from the past. It's all your projections!!  Maybe ask: what within you makes you come to such assumptions?? 

Ahh I see, you are basing the assumption based on past experience with "contrarian and centrist". Well that is definitely projecting too. I guess as a left wing person maybe you have had a lot of arguments and left not feeling heard or understood, which is probably exactly how the other side felt as well. 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by SecondCareerLaw

[Whisk3yjack]

4 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

You forgot to put "contrarian centrists" in quotes.

I'm sure this guy is a "centrist" in the sense that Dave Rubin uses it in describing himself and Stefan Molyneux as being part of the "new centre."

Centrist in the sense that obviously his rational mind, unclouded by the weakness of emotion, is able to come to the moderate, reasonable, correct view on an issue. 

[SecondCareerLaw]

13 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

You forgot to put "contrarian centrists" in quotes.

I'm sure this guy is a "centrist" in the sense that Dave Rubin uses it in describing himself and Stefan Molyneux as being part of the "new centre."

Yup, guess you're one of the predictable ones. You see the world in black/white. Molyneux is probably racist and Rubin is funded by the Koch brothers, owners of some of the most environmentally destructive companies in the world. They have some good points in other contexts, but are definitely not centrist. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by SecondCareerLaw

[Deadpool]

OP, everyone here may very well be wrong about you, but I think you are taking this a little too personal now. In your current life you may have been able to "come back at people" with little consequence, but the way you choose to act, and the words you use, will matter a great deal from the moment you step foot into law school. Law students and lawyers are held to a higher standard of professional responsibility and ethics than the average person in society. Your words and actions will be interpreted in many different ways, by many different people. They will have power. You need to be self-aware not only in the classroom but how you conduct yourself outside of it.

This is part of the reason why people are stressing the importance of this to you. I have seen lawyers and paralegals come before law society disciplinary hearings over innocent remarks they made in their private lives, which they thought held no bearing on their professional standing. It sucks that you have to really keep yourself in check in the legal field, but that is exactly what you need to do if you want to be a lawyer. Building relationships with your peers, the community, and your clients is part and parcel of being a lawyer (and treating opposite parties with respect), and if you start arguing with everyone that rubs you the wrong way or disagrees with your views, then you are going to set your back from establishing these relationships and being a good lawyer. 

[SecondCareerLaw]

7 minutes ago, Whisk3yjack said:

Centrist in the sense that obviously his rational mind, unclouded by the weakness of emotion, is able to come to the moderate, reasonable, correct view on an issue. 

Speaking to your past arguments where you felt unheard and misunderstood.