How not to get hired on Bay Street

[Dinsdale]

https://x.com/anthonyfurey/status/1716153263651799301?s=20

[Chewy]

Student in Solidarity, 1L may be in for a rough ride.

[WiseGhost]

I always assumed that law students knew better than to sign a document justifying anti-semite terrorism. 

[CleanHands]

Just now, WiseGhost said:

I always assumed that law students knew better than to sign a document justifying anti-semite terrorism. 

You clearly don't know law students very well then.

I'm only surprised it took this long for this kind of dumbassery to come out of a Canadian law school.

[Jaggers]

57 minutes ago, WiseGhost said:

I always assumed that law students knew better than to sign a document justifying anti-semite terrorism. 

They do, which is why they try to do it anonymously. Seems strange to feel so strongly that you have to sign on to something like this, but not so strongly that you'll actually sign your name. But then, that's law students for you. Eat your cake and have it too.

[helloall]

That's a lot of Linkedin 404s lol

[Wraith]

Interesting day. I had to make Twitter to really enjoy this. Here are some of my favourites

Mod note:
Took down the tweets.

-Renerik

 

[chaboywb]

51 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Interesting day. I had to make Twitter to really enjoy this. Here are some of my favourites:

This is going to quickly go off topic, but for any TMU law or otherwise students reading this, these particular Tweets are elitist bullshit. The open letter is wildly offensive and idiotic for anyone to attach their name to, but this shouldn't condemn an entire University.

[LMP]

7 hours ago, helloall said:

That's a lot of Linkedin 404s lol

Some people need to learn not to sign anything you won't stand by. 

[Jaggers]

I would think a good rule of thumb is that if you want to sign on to a public document, but not actually sign your name publicly, you should think hard about why.

[epeeist]

One should generally read before signing (some exceptions like contracts of adhesion may be better not to read, but don't rely on that...); or as a law student, come up with a better excuse:

"...

The Star also reached out to several students who signed their names to the letter (many signed anonymously with phrases like “in solidarity with Palestine”). Only one responded to say that they had made a mistake of not fully reading the contents.

“I, by no means, support terrorism in any way, and I unequivocally condemn Hamas’ actions, but I still empathize with the Palestinian people,” said the student, who asked that his name not be published in light of social media doxing of signatories. He added that he supports a ceasefire to end the loss of life but, in “hindsight,” he should have been more informed before adding his signature...." [emphasis added]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tmu-law-students-face-backlash-after-open-letter-declares-unequivocal-support-for-palestinians/article_49e3c829-f4e3-5905-a7fa-4c2bf507cbce.html

@chaboywb Don't know what the content of the tweets (X's?) were, but sometimes it's not just what some students say but a meaningless tepid response by the law school or university itself that leads to condemning a university (not so much TMU administration from what I recall, thinking more like Harvard).

[Phaedrus]

Sometimes we shouldn't attribute to malice (or anti-semitism) what can be explained by incompetence or, in this instance, social pressure.  

I'm not so far removed from undergrad or law school studies that I forget how rampant campus causes are. It seems every injustice, every plight, and every international crisis results in a table being manned at the quad by well-intentioned students begging for signatures. It's tempting (and usually easy) to give the issue half-assed consideration and concluding, "who isn't opposed to rape and murder?" The causes are usually championed by student societies and I think it's naïve to dismiss that the assumption that a society in good standing with the university surely must have passed some institutional scrutiny - and has some level of approval - as an unreasonable one. Take those shortcuts together and you end up with dozens (and hundreds and thousands) of students signing shit they haven't fully reviewed and don't fully understand. 

We should expect more from law students, for sure, but I'm not ready to paint them all with the same brush. Hell, if a group of 3Ls were soliciting signatures when I was a 1L, I might have assumed it was fine to join, too. It might even help me network or show I'm a 'team player'.

Either that, or I'd have guessed it was a go-nowhere letter like most others prepared by student groups. Except, this time, it wasn't.

[BlockedQuebecois]

11 minutes ago, Phaedrus said:

Sometimes we shouldn't attribute to malice (or anti-semitism) what can be explained by incompetence or, in this instance, social pressure.  

I’m not entirely convinced that “complete lack of a spine” is all that much better than “anti-Semitic”. 

[Eathwens]

My bet is people didn't actually think the information would get leaked to the public, just go to faculty/staff. 

[myth000]

A significant portion of law students support extremist/terrorist movements abroad, viewing their future roles as lawyers as a means to legitimize these ideologies within the framework of liberal democracy. They aim to make these views more acceptable by invoking universally recognized principles such as self-determination and minority protection. The primary error committed by the TMU student group is their candid expression of these extremist views, rather than strategically framing them in a manner that would make them more palatable to a broader audience.

[CleanHands]

9 minutes ago, myth000 said:

A significant portion of law students support extremist/terrorist movements abroad, viewing their future roles as lawyers as a means to legitimize these ideologies within the framework of liberal democracy. They aim to make these views more acceptable by invoking universally recognized principles such as self-determination and minority protection. The primary error committed by the TMU student group is their candid expression of these extremist views, rather than strategically framing them in a manner that would make them more palatable to a broader audience.

It's really not too much of an exaggeration to say that a good chunk of law students view absolutely everything through the lens of group identities and a hierarchy of relative "privilege" of these groups, and view basically any act of violence from a "less privileged" group against a "more privileged" group as justified. And they'll laughably act like contrary views are the reductive and uneducated ones.

1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I’m not entirely convinced that “complete lack of a spine” is all that much better than “anti-Semitic”. 

It's not just spinelessness. It's reflexive virtue-signaling along the above lines. Any idiots who didn't pay close attention or give this much thought before signing and who are walking this back just saw "Israel/Palestine" and that's all they needed to see (not even considering the context of recent events and how that might warrant some heightened attention to the finer points of this).

1 hour ago, Phaedrus said:

-Snip-

I'm usually on board with almost everything you write here, but you're way off. This reflexive, mindless, self-righteous, mealy-mouthed bandwagon-jumping is one of the most contemptible things about a good number of Canadian law students, not a mitigating factor.

[js99]

Obviously, signing this was a very naive idea. I agree with other posters who have pointed out that signing this was probably an exercise in reflective signalling and shows poor judgment. You need to think about everything you publicly sign.

I would note that nowhere in the document, though, did the signatories ever explicitly endorse Hamas. It was, at best, implicit when they called "all forms of Palestinian resistance justified". Still: even implicit endorsements of violence are unbecoming of any lawyer. With this I agree. These students are accountable for that choice.

My, point, though, is this. Let us hold it as true that even implicit support for violence is enough to justify ruining these students entire career (which, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but hold it as true).

I have seen, including on LinkedIn, prominent lawyers post sentiments which san be summarizes down to, “Don't talk to me about Gaza. Don't talk to me about dead children because they're human shields. Terror is terror. We are fighting animals, we need to stand with Israel”.

Like it or not, that contains an explicit and dehumanizing endorsement of retaliatory violence against civilians. Explicit, publicly broadcasted, and formed in your own words -- as opposed to implicit and through the two seconds it takes to hastily add a signature on a much more private petition letter. 

Is it not a double standard that those lawyers get hundreds of likes on LinkedIn, but these 22 year olds are booted from the profession? To me, the explicit dehumanization I have seen on LinkedIn is at least equally if not more problematic than how this letter dehumanizes the horrifically murdered Israelis. The result of the double standard is a chilling effect where lawyers -- and usually Muslim and Arab lawyers -- in the profession who have reasoned critiques of a government feel as though they will face immense career backlash even for speaking those reasonable and understandable beliefs.

So, I think we should think critically about all of this instead of joining onto hate-fuelled bandwagons that dehumanize one another.  That goes both for these petitioners, and many of the same angry reactionaries trying to cast them out of the profession -- that group also need to take a real honest look inward. Just my opinion.

[CleanHands]

1 minute ago, js99 said:

-Snip-

This is just pure misdirection.

Not a single poster in this thread has endorsed literally anything Israel has done, or said anything negative about criticism of the state of Israel.

[Mal]

There is a difference between defending your country with legitimate military objectives and targeting civilians including women and children. Even your strawman (js99) recognizes that Hamas is using Palestinian civilians as human shields, which places the responsibility for collateral damage primarily on them. War is horrific, and will cause suffering amongst innocent Palestinians, but that doesn't mean Israel is wrong to respond militarily. 

Strongly supporting Israel in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that dwarfs 9/11 in loss of life is not a stamp of approval on all their policy. It's a rally around the flag, supporting Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. This is in stark contrast to the support of all forms of resistance in the wake of terrorism, which is a clear reference to terrorism itself. 

Pretending that things are said in isolation, not in their proper context, is fundamentally an error of interpretation. Anyone who is willing to publicly support terrorism is frankly unfit to be a lawyer -- even if they don't literally say "I support the murder of women and children". 

[Jaggers]

"all forms of Palestinian resistance" is a very specific statement, particularly when issued right now.

[Phaedrus]

2 hours ago, CleanHands said:

I'm usually on board with almost everything you write here, but you're way off. This reflexive, mindless, self-righteous, mealy-mouthed bandwagon-jumping is one of the most contemptible things about a good number of Canadian law students, not a mitigating factor.

Contemptable, sure. But it's also not unique to Canadian law students. Peterson, Saad, Walsh and virtually every other right-wing social commentator's condemned post-secondary students' virtual signaling and the need to be on the "right side" of issues even before knowing anything about the issue at all. Sometimes it's spineless acquiescence as per BQ's comment, or it's bandwagon-jumping, but it happens with every cause and especially when signees are young adults. Sign first, think later.

There are degrees of contempt to be had depending on who signed the document and why, and if we accept that, then it has to be accepted that there are mitigating circumstances. We're used to making these arguments all the time, in the criminal context and otherwise. Is the 1L signee as contemptable or blameworthy as the 3L that drafted it and begged lower years to sign it? I, personally, don't think so. Power and peer influence factors, actual or perceived, exist. Do they deserve the same consequence (i.e., losing their summer/articling position)? Again, I don't think so and for the reasons above. Once we start pulling at a few threads, it's easier to distinguish between wanton virtue signaling and intentional virtue signaling. Then for consequences, it makes more sense for the former to get their knuckles wrapped and the latter more severely punished. 

And so we're clear, I don't support what happened and I don't dismiss that, in this context, there are possible serious consequences for picking sides. I just don't feel right about lumping everyone into the same category. 

[WiseGhost]

I disagree with the idea that 1Ls are fundamentally less responsible than upper years. All of these students are adults and should have known better. Just because a 3L has marginally more legal experience than a 1L does not mean there is a power imbalance.* I also personally don't believe that these students should have their careers ruined, but understand why firms would want to stay clear. Signing your name to an offensive document shows bad judgement. 

*On a side note, I've had fellow students describe an otherwise healthy relationship between a 25 year old 3L and a 23 year old 1L as problematic. Which frankly boggles my mind. 

[Jaggers]

I don't think that signing something like this as a first year student should mean nobody will hire you. People do make mistakes, and usually more often when they're younger. That said, people don't get jobs for any number of very minor reasons, and there's no reason that signing something like this shouldn't be one of them. 

God knows I've said stuff in interviews that was a lot less offensive than this, which was probably grounds to pick someone else over me.

[Justhereforthetea]

None of these students will ever work on Bay Street, ever. Very senior lawyers are passing around the list of names as we speak. 

[QueensDenning]

9 minutes ago, Justhereforthetea said:

None of these students will ever work on Bay Street, ever. Very senior lawyers are passing around the list of names as we speak. 

I emailed the list to our student program coordinator. Partners are aware of the list as well. I would be very surprised if any of those students got an offer this cycle.

I don’t think they’ll be black listed in the future though to be honest. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by QueensDenning