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

[SecondCareerLaw]

4 minutes ago, Deadpool said:

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. 

There's no standard of professional ethics in most of these responses. Actually I don't take them seriously. At this point, it's a sport. most of these responses are personal rather than professional, ad homonym rather than logical, and frankly socially immature.  The profession of law has a bad reputation, and this is part of it. 

 

[Whisk3yjack]

I actually think that maybe this guy is right and we need more diverse views on this forum. Things have been  pretty exciting in the 28 hours they've been on this forum. Somewhere in between what we have now and an unnavigable morass of insufferability is a happy centre that keeps things interesting. 

[Whisk3yjack]

4 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

There's no standard of professional ethics in most of these responses. Actually I don't take them seriously. At this point, it's a sport. most of these responses are personal rather than professional, ad homonym rather than logical, and frankly socially immature.  The profession of law has a bad reputation, and this is part of it. 

 

Actually, if you read The Laws of the Law 3rd edition, you'll find that the only standard of professional ethics for lawyers is using big words and if you look at my recent posts you will see that I have used quite a few. 

[Ryn]

Just a brief reminder to keep this discussion respectful, please. I get that OP has invited some snark with the way the question was phrased, but let’s generally try and remember rule #1 and keep this train on the tracks, yeah? This is an interesting conversation and I’d hate for it to stop because people can’t resist insulting each other or whatever. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

1 hour ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

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

I never personally attacked you. I said that based on you feeling the need to ask this question, you were probably the type of person that has found your “contrarian” nature leads you to experience friction in your life. If that wasn’t true, you could have read my post and said “hey, I’m the kind of guy people always say is great at respectfully expressing my opinion, I guess I have nothing to worry about and should go to UVic!” 

Instead, you were a knob* for four hours, causing me to say your four hours on this forum proved you are the type of person who experiences such friction. Then, when you continued to be an ass*, I told other people that they were dumb for doubting my assessment.

None of that is a personal attack. If you came in here and asked “are law schools one of those stuffy places that get upset at you when you walk around naked”, I would assume you are the type of person who likes to walk around naked. People who walk around clothed rarely have to ask the internet if a place they are visiting will insist on them wearing clothes. 

If you find someone accurately assessing your character to be a personal attack, you may want to consider changing your character. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois
*Note: these could accurately be called “personal attacks”, if you are so inclined

[SlytherinLLP]

I think it would assist us in providing more helpful answers if you could provide some indication/examples of your contrarian views?*

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by SlytherinLLP
*Note: not a personal attack

[realpseudonym]

19 hours ago, Deadpool said:

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.

  

19 hours ago, Deadpool said:

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.

Also, if one's personal political views are a defining aspect of their law school experience, I think they've missed the point.

My problem with people who expressed a lot of strong political opinions in law school didn't usually have to do with the contents of their views. It's that they kept spouting off their views in class, while I was trying to learn the law. That's annoying. Law school is not always the place for a political debate. It's not a political science seminar. It's a professional program. People are there as the first step to entering the profession, which means learning the law and how to do a legal analysis. That, correctly, is most students' focus. 

That's not to say there aren't opportunities for deeper policy debates. There are. And there's no question that law is often political. It is. But to the extent that students are contributing to those discussions by referencing their personal convictions, those opinions should be concise and relevant to the debate. I had a lot of time for people who were able to do that, regardless of where they fell on the political spectrum. It's the people who had no ability to filter their participation that I really couldn't stand. They were distracting. And if someone's views in law school are getting frequent backlash from more than a small minority, it's probably because they're being insufferable, not because they believe thing X or Y. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by realpseudonym

[CleanHands]

36 minutes ago, Whisk3yjack said:

I actually think that maybe this guy is right and we need more diverse views on this forum. Things have been  pretty exciting in the 28 hours they've been on this forum. Somewhere in between what we have now and an unnavigable morass of insufferability is a happy centre that keeps things interesting. 

We did need this guy to fill the void after @TheCryptozoologist got himself banned.

[realpseudonym]

Just now, CleanHands said:

We did need this guy to fill the void after @TheCryptozoologist got himself banned.

The conspiratorial part of my brain wonders whether these are all ingenious @Hegdis alt accounts, designed to unite the forums. 

[efrefgg]

I'm running out of thumbtacks and yarn, the stores don't have any more.

[SecondCareerLaw]

17 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

  

Also, if one's personal political views are a defining aspect of their law school experience, I think they've missed the point.

My problem with people who expressed a lot of strong political opinions in law school didn't usually have to do with the contents of their views. It's that they kept spouting off their views in class, while I was trying to learn the law. That's annoying. Law school is not always the place for a political debate. It's not a political science seminar. It's a professional program. People are there as the first step to entering the profession, which means learning the law and how to do a legal analysis. That, correctly, is most students' focus. 

That's not to say there aren't opportunities for deeper policy debates. There are. And there's no question that law is often political. It is. But to the extent that students are contributing to those discussions by referencing their personal convictions, those opinions should be concise and relevant to the debate. I had a lot of time for people who were able to do that, regardless of where they fell on the political spectrum. It's the people who had no ability to filter their participation that I really couldn't stand. They were distracting. And if someone's views in law school are getting frequent backlash from more than a small minority, it's probably because they're being insufferable, not because they believe thing X or Y. 

Don't disagree with what you say, except that personally in non-law degrees hardly ever have I personally come across anyone "insufferable" in the sense that you describe. The rule of the day has been to go along with the prevailing view of the majority or hierarchy whether or not there are reasonable assumptions to question precisely because they are relevant to the topic at hand. In my experience, that is far more the norm.  

[kferns97]

21 minutes ago, SlytherinLLP said:

I think it would assist us in providing more helpful answers if you could provide some indication/examples of your contrarian views?*

 

 

 

That facts don't care about your feelings perhaps?? 

[CleanHands]

4 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Don't disagree with what you say, except that personally in non-law degrees hardly ever have I personally come across anyone "insufferable" in the sense that you describe. The rule of the day has been to go along with the prevailing view of the majority or hierarchy whether or not there are reasonable assumptions to question precisely because they are relevant to the topic at hand. In my experience, that is far more the norm.  

r/iamverysmart would enjoy your takes on the sheeple.

[efrefgg]

I, for one, see predictability as an asset. It is very useful when I cross the road. The drivers know my plans, so they can take the necessary measures not to hit me. 

[SecondCareerLaw]

32 minutes ago, kferns97 said:

That facts don't care about your feelings perhaps?? 

Lol, noooo, I'm wired very differently than that, although yes that is very common. 

What topics? The usual hot buttons, to whatever extent these come up in law: issues of race, class, gender, native issues, the environment, international relationships, divorce and child support, system vs human interest.  

Again, dear Canadian Law Forum posters, don't make assumptions about my views -- these are not going to be disclosed here and are not obvious. 

[azure]

8 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Lol, noooo, I'm wired very differently than that, although yes that is very common. 

What topics? The usual hot buttons, to whatever extent these come up in law: issues of race, class, gender, native issues, the environment, international relationships, divorce and child support, system vs human interest.  

Again, dear Canadian Law Forum posters, don't make assumptions about my views -- these are not going to be disclosed here and are not obvious. 

The fact that you used the term "native issues" leads me to think you would definitely not fit in at UVic, home of the first JID/JD program and a leader in Indigenous law. If you used that word in class instead of correct terms such as Indigenous people (and yes, that is the correct term, "native" is outdated and offensive to some) your classmates and potentially professor would most likely call you out on it. Though I can't imagine that being acceptable in any Canadian law school....

For the record, I went to UVic. 

[Kobe]

If this is guy is trolling I would like to tip my hat, this is incredible.

[Thrive92]

4 hours ago, CleanHands said:

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.

Just no. My responses will not have a different tone that is influenced in any way of the tone of the OP. I dont let others' trollish (or childish) emotions influence mine. Deffo not on the internet

This isnt some PC stance or "woke" culture either; this is just something that seems to help me irl. Aside from a very small circle of family members, I really could not care less if you threaten to deport me just because I accidentally cut you in line in a fast food joint to pick up an order that is not even mine. I respond with a smile that it was my mistake, and to go ahead, and then after get the order from the counter. I don't let your personality influence mine.

This is why my responses to our good old friend @TheCryptozoologist are different in tone compared to yours; you dont seem that much restrained to lay it on him based on his past troll posts.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Thrive92

[ZineZ]

I'm stepping in here for a minute. OP - you'll note that I have slightly edited your original comment to remove a derogatory remark you made related to a specific religious belief and replaced it with [removed by mods].  You are currently welcome in this space, but there is a line that we're trying to maintain as we moderate this forum + keep topics open for discussion.

Let's not cross it. 

[efrefgg]

2 minutes ago, ZineZ said:

Let's not cross it. 

He's not gonna take that well. Contrarians are known to cross lines.

[SecondCareerLaw]

31 minutes ago, azure said:

The fact that you used the term "native issues" leads me to think you would definitely not fit in at UVic, home of the first JID/JD program and a leader in Indigenous law. If you used that word in class instead of correct terms such as Indigenous people (and yes, that is the correct term, "native" is outdated and offensive to some) your classmates and potentially professor would most likely call you out on it. Though I can't imagine that being acceptable in any Canadian law school....

For the record, I went to UVic. 

Sound like you are trying to make a threat, "For the record, I went to uvic".?? If so, good luck with that!

Most people in the native communities don't give a shit what word you use. Native, indigenous, First Nations, etc. For those that do, you find a lot of different views as to which is preferred. What a lot of people DON'T like, is shallow political correctness about serious issues that don't have anything to do with what you call them, the issues that is. As for whether a proff would try to regulate the words used, that is worth looking into in the case of UVic.....

Nor do you have the slightest knowledge of my background or race so you can check your assumptions at the door before saying something you would seriously regret in person.

 

[99problems]

8 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

"For the record, I went to uvic".?? If so, good luck with that!

Maybe he was implying that he is familiar with the culture?

[Diplock]

Speaking as a criminal defence lawyer, I can absolutely confirm that the legal profession is accessible to individuals such as the OP who insists on turning even normal social interactions into whatever the hell this is. I don't disagree that the original guess as to his issues and perspective was warranted. Any thread that starts with "I'm so balanced and free-thinking in my perspectives that I'm afraid I won't be accepted in law school" has so many assumptions and issues baked into it that the warning signs are clear, to anyone who knows what they look like. That said, if I'm going to give a fair answer, can someone like this succeed in law school and get into the legal profession, assuming the grades, LSAT, and academic ability are there to support it? Yes. Because God knows I have colleagues just like that.

So, OP, you have the answer you were looking for, and also the argument you were asking for. There isn't anything that's going to keep you out of the legal profession - not even your deep-seated suspicion that people who disagree with you are trying to do just that. But I also suspect you habour this hope that if you only get into a room of smart enough and well-enough educated people, they'll suddenly realize how much sense you are making and in contrast to everyone else in your life to this point (i.e. people too dumb to recognize your obvious intelligence) you'll find acceptance. That isn't going to happen either. Because your problem isn't that you have views opposed to some leftist consensus. It's just that you're being a dick about it.

In summary, there are dicks in the legal profession, and you can certainly be one if you want to and you're capable of getting that far. But other people in the legal profession are still going to know that you're a dick, and treat you accordingly.

[SecondCareerLaw]

1 minute ago, not not a lawyer said:

Maybe he was implying that he is familiar with the culture?

Maybe. 

[Kobe]

11 minutes ago, SecondCareerLaw said:

Sound like you are trying to make a threat, "For the record, I went to uvic".?? If so, good luck with that!

Most people in the native communities don't give a shit what word you use. Native, indigenous, First Nations, etc. For those that do, you find a lot of different views as to which is preferred. What a lot of people DON'T like, is shallow political correctness about serious issues that don't have anything to do with what you call them, the issues that is. As for whether a proff would try to regulate the words used, that is worth looking into in the case of UVic.....

Nor do you have the slightest knowledge of my background or race so you can check your assumptions at the door before saying something you would seriously regret in person.

 

If you read this as anything but trolling at this point Idk what to tell you.

*Person states why there opinion is relevant* "Is that a threat!?!"

"Say that to me in person and I'd knock your teeth out"