How not to get hired on Bay Street

[Naj]

I do agree with many of the general points and principles being made here, but I can’t help but notice the omission of the following Israeli military actions when considering the context: striking hospitals, use of white phosphorus, and the restriction of basic necessities and aid into Gaza. I don’t see how these actions reflect military consideration of the fact they are at war with Hamas and not the normal people of Gaza. 

[WiseGhost]

Agreed @Naj I fully support Israel's right to protect itself, but I also believe that people should be able to criticize the means they are using to do so.

I have seen statements by lawyers on LinkedIn saying that Israel is entitled to protect itself through any possible means, and that is a very troubling idea when we follow it to its logical conclusion.

[Dinsdale]

21 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I’m not an employment lawyer and I don’t play one on the internet, but it would be surprising to me if any reputable firm were to try to terminate someone for cause on the basis they signed this letter but didn’t disclose it.

That's not what I said.  I said if firm asks student "did you sign the letter", student says "no way", then it comes to light that student did sign the letter, that is grounds for dismissal.  The lie.

[Dinsdale]

20 hours ago, Forever Curious said:

You might consider that propaganda has worked brilliantly on you if you took it as anything else.

These are the  key points of the letter, not sure what I’m supposed to be so outraged by: (1) Israel is a settler colony and apartheid state, (2) condemning statements that minimize the colonialism at hand, (3) condemning organizations that have only condemned Hamas, and (4) Israel is ultimately responsible for the Oct 7th attacks, and that the attacks on Oct 7th are ultimately the product of Israel’s occupation and colonialism. 

Not only is it not condemnable, it is in fact admirable and I’m so thankful to these students for giving voice to the voiceless. I hope that other firms that feel this way speak out and expose themselves. What a dark time for the corporate legal profession. 

So this illustrates my original point.  You are perfectly entitled to those opinions, it is a free country (for the time being).  But I can assure you that very, very few lawyers in positions of power on Bay Street subscribe to the view that "so called Israel" is a "settler colony and apartheid state" and is responsible itself for the terrorist attacks it suffered.  I'm just saying, going around saying that out loud is a perfect way to not get hired on Bay Street.

[BlockedQuebecois]

8 minutes ago, Dinsdale said:

That's not what I said.  I said if firm asks student "did you sign the letter", student says "no way", then it comes to light that student did sign the letter, that is grounds for dismissal.  The lie.

I suppose you could argue that my original statement was slightly ambiguous, but you’ve essentially just said exactly what I said firms aren’t likely to be doing. 

If they find out someone signed the letter but didn’t disclose it, they’re almost certain to just: (i) not give them an articling offer; (ii) not give them a hire back offer; or (iii) fire them in the usual course, without taking the position that it’s for cause. 

The idea that any firm wants to go to a decision maker on the basis that lying about signing this letter constitutes cause is… implausible, to put it gently. 

[Pantalaimon]

If any firms or student unions issued a statement including something along the lines of supporting "all forms of Israel self-defence", I suspect they'd face consequences. Here's a random snippet of firm statements, none of which go anywhere near the issue of what is justified in the name of Israeli self-defence.

• Blakes: Blakes stands proudly and resolutely with our Jewish communities. We condemn the horrific terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, and reject any attempt to justify the use of violence. We denounce all forms of hate, including antisemitism and all other religious, racial and targeted hate.
• Osler: We stand in solidarity with members of our Jewish community who have been deeply affected by the violence in Israel, compounded by the continuing threats to their safety amid rising antisemitism and calls for violence in our communities. We cannot look the other way. There can be no justification for acts of terrorism and the murder and kidnapping of innocent civilians. We stand firmly against antisemitism and hate of any kind.
• Stikes: At Stikeman Elliott, we reject all forms of discrimination and hate. The heinous acts of violence committed by Hamas, including the murder and kidnapping of Israeli civilians of all ages, have shaken us to our core. We have asserted internally, and now repeat publicly, that such terrorist actions have no justification, no legitimacy and must be condemned.
• BJs: The terrorist attacks of this past week are an affront not just to Israelis and the Jewish diaspora, but to all civilized people. For many they are a terrifying reminder of very dark times people of goodwill hoped would remain in the past. Our condolences and prayers reach out to the victims of these terrorist attacks, and to those with personal connections to people now suffering or at risk, and also to all those now pulled back into scarred memories of an evil yet to be fully extinguished. Our sympathy too for the people of Gaza not on board with Hamas, whose fate was sealed by terrorists willing to sacrifice their own in pursuit of their extremist ideology.

I wouldn't be surprised if firms that crack down on pro-Palestinian social media also crack down on pro-Israeli social media that could be interpreted as supporting attacks on civilians. Firms, after all, are trying to avoid controversy - not stoke it.

If the argument is that the omission of statements denouncing Israel's retaliation is a tacit endorsement, well, nobody's talking about the firms that didn't make a statement in response to the Oct 7 attacks (e.g. Davies, Goodmans) as supporting Hamas. Positive action elicits a different reaction than omissions. Nobody would be talking about TMU if their student union refused to condemn the Oct 7 attacks.

[Dinsdale]

16 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I suppose you could argue that my original statement was slightly ambiguous, but you’ve essentially just said exactly what I said firms aren’t likely to be doing. 

If they find out someone signed the letter but didn’t disclose it, they’re almost certain to just: (i) not give them an articling offer; (ii) not give them a hire back offer; or (iii) fire them in the usual course, without taking the position that it’s for cause. 

The idea that any firm wants to go to a decision maker on the basis that lying about signing this letter constitutes cause is… implausible, to put it gently. 

I mean, that is the easy way out, and sure, my former firm resorted to that approach on a few occasions to end things with troublesome students as quietly as possible.  But I think there would be significant pressure from some senior lawyers (at some firms at least) to immediately withdraw an offer from any summer or articling student who both signed the letter and then lied about doing so.  As was the case with a few firms on Wall Street. But I agree it would be messy and a real headache for HR; amongst other things withdrawing a student offer may be professional misconduct.

[Wraith]

https://www.torontomu.ca/news-events/news/2023/10/tmu-to-undertake-review-of-recent-events-increase-supports/

 

Quote

In response to a series of events, petitions and concerns in recent days, Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) is undertaking a formal review done by an independent, external expert. This review will determine if any of these actions and incidents are in breach of university policies and procedures including but not limited to the Student Code of Non-Academic Conduct, the Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy, the Workplace Civility and Respect Policy, the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities and Toronto Metropolitan University’s Statement on Freedom of Speech. 

 

[Yogurt Baron]

2 hours ago, CleanHands said:

Any position that any group is justified in employing any and all tactics, without qualification, in any violent conflict is clearly immoral and wrong.

I mean, especially when we're talking about shit that's already happened. If I wanted to go complain that my neighbour's stereo was too loud and someone said that they support "all forms of resistance", you could say, "Well, okay, I can't foresee this escalating to a life-or-death thing." But when people have been killed and someone's after-the-fact saying, "We support everything that's been done," that's pretty explicit.

[CleanHands]

16 minutes ago, Wraith said:

https://www.torontomu.ca/news-events/news/2023/10/tmu-to-undertake-review-of-recent-events-increase-supports/

I've made it pretty clear that I'm not at all sympathetic to these students, that I think the statement was idiotic and reprehensible, and that my attitude towards them not being hired due to this is "tough shit."

But I don't agree with universities policing speech of their students in this manner.

Edited October 27, 2023 by CleanHands

[Jaggers]

Quote

This review will determine if any of these actions and incidents are in breach of university policies and procedures including but not limited to the Student Code of Non-Academic Conduct, the Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy, the Workplace Civility and Respect Policy, the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities and Toronto Metropolitan University’s Statement on Freedom of Speech. 

Sounds pretty innocuous, though of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I oversee reviews of this nature (not academic, but workplace respect, code of conduct, etc.) every day. There is some aspect of policing, but if you have clear policies that apply equally, doing a review when you have complaints to see if they were breached is pretty normal stuff.

4 hours ago, PhilosophyofLaw said:

One of the signatories of a similarly worded statement at York claimed that, by "strong act of resistance," they were merely referring to the bulldozing of a fence between Gaza and Israel.

I call it the "Fred Hahn" defence.

[myth000]

5 hours ago, Diplock said:

I tried to avoid getting into this, but the subtext of your specifying that civilians "live near a terrorist base" is a variation on the "it isn't my fault for doing it but their fault for making me do it" argument. I'm not interested in those arguments because it's simply a version of what-aboutism that goes around in circles. What's relevant isn't determining who is most at fault for the existence of this conflict. What's relevant is determining the moral stance of the actions taken within the conflict.

People arguing on the Palestinian side think that living as a civilian within an occupying nation also puts civilians on the front line of the conflict and therefore it's Israel's own "fault" for creating the situation. Both versions of what-about are distractions from the ultimate issue and not any kind of reasonable moral position.

Note, in order to put the matter properly in context, I really don't think you should be imagining how you would feel after you're dead. Just imagine parents of dead children, and try convincing them the manner of exactly how their children were killed, and whether they were targeted as individuals or as a statistical abstraction, affects the responsibility of those who gave the order resulting in the inevitable death of children. Just try.

 

I was responding to your argument that, from the point of view of the victim (or their family), the assignment of blame is irrelevant. I'm arguing that it is not irrelevant, at least from my perspective. I would argue that a person or group that is a victim in one circumstance can often be a perpetrator in another. There are no permanent victims or oppressors. Therefore, everyone is capable of adopting a neutral point of view where blameworthiness matters. If victims relied on this neutral perspective and their conscience, rather than their self-interested emotions, they might see that a death due to collateral damage is less blameworthy than a targeted murder. As such, their focus should be on grieving rather than seeking revenge.

I'm all for empathy, but that doesn't extend to supporting calls for revenge. My point is that if you choose to live near a terrorist base when you have the opportunity to live elsewhere, you 'create a hazard' in quasi-legal terms. A terrorist base inherently attracts military attacks. Therefore, if your children die in an airstrike, you bear some of the blame. I don't see this as 'whataboutism'; it's a point about personal responsibility. Of course, this argument won't sit well with most parents, but it's one aspect of the truth. It might even be a parental responsibility to start a political movement advocating for non-violent resistance by Hamas. Instead, what I often see are Gazan parents celebrating their deceased children as 'martyrs' and calling for violent revenge.

I understand that many people living near terrorist bases may not have the means or opportunity to move. Israel, as the state in this case, has the responsibility to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to minimize civilian harm. If the state has taken these measures, then collateral civilian deaths in airstrikes should not be morally equated with civilian deaths in terror attacks. I understand that you're not trying to make this moral equivalence but are simply stating the Palestinian position that they are morally equivalent.

[123]

I find blaming parents for their children’s deaths, after their children have been killed in bombings pretty tasteless. There’s a debate to be had over what is a proportionate, justifiable military response and what collateral we should accept. But we can still speak with grace and compassion towards people who have suffered loss. And losing a child seems unimaginably painful. There are thousands of parents grieving deceased children in Gaza right now.  And there are lots of people throughout the world mourning cousins, nieces, nephews, uncles etc in both Israel and Gaza. Even if some of those people didn’t act flawlessly by living near terrorists — which I have a lot of reservations about as an argument for blameworthiness —  I really resented reading that the parents are to blame. 

Maybe I’m too emotional about this. I took an internet pause last week because this war was too much for me to follow. Probably time to do that again.

Edited October 28, 2023 by realpseudonym

[myth000]

The truth is ugly, not tasteful.  While compassion is important, it should not preclude us from examining all aspects of a situation, even those that are uncomfortable to discuss.  That is what I use anonymous forums for. 

Many posters use anonymous forums to be bullies, and I accept their existence because maybe that is their truth.  My truth is that I am not swayed by emotional appeals.  Even if it means something tasteless like assigning blame to grieving parents, I will do it if I think it makes sense.  My intent in doing this is to question the desire for violent revenge, to challenge the cycle of violence that can be fueled by emotional appeals. I think violence is ultimately more dangerous than any comment that people find tasteless.  

[Naj]

2 hours ago, myth000 said:

I would argue that a person or group that is a victim in one circumstance can often be a perpetrator in another. There are no permanent victims or oppressors. Therefore, everyone is capable of adopting a neutral point of view where blameworthiness matters. If victims relied on this neutral perspective and their conscience, rather than their self-interested emotions, they might see that a death due to collateral damage is less blameworthy than a targeted murder. As such, their focus should be on grieving rather than seeking revenge.

This sort of take is out of touch. Expecting immediate victims of war to employ some high standard of rationale is so devoid of the reality of human experience that it practically becomes irrational. 

[WiseGhost]

Assuming that parents who have lost a child have the capacity to view the situation 'rationally' is its own form of irrationality. 

As human beings, we are emotional creatures. I think that it is best to act with compassion and understand the depth of loss on both sides. 

 

[myth000]

3 minutes ago, Naj said:

This sort of take is out of touch. Expecting immediate victims of war to employ some high standard of rationale is so devoid of the reality of human experience that it practically becomes irrational. 

I have been traumatized, I never lost my rationality.  I'm sure some Gazans are like me; I expect at least some of them to be rational despite their traumas.   I don't subscribe to a soft bigotry of low expectations.  Gazans should not be seen as a monolith. Those who are capable of rationality amid the tragedies should be the ones leading their community, not the ones trying to inflame tensions with emotional appeals for violent revenge.

[CleanHands]

43 minutes ago, myth000 said:

I have been traumatized, I never lost my rationality.

Not to trivialize anything else if I'm wrong, but I hope you're not referring to people in law school being mean to you (as you've posted about that experience in these terms before) and equating that to parents losing their children to armed conflict.

[Naj]

53 minutes ago, myth000 said:

I have been traumatized, I never lost my rationality.  I'm sure some Gazans are like me; I expect at least some of them to be rational despite their traumas

Respectfully, I don’t think your trauma is relevant here, and I don’t think your expectations are grounded in any kind of awareness beyond what you think you would do if you were in that circumstance – which is not valuable insight since any sense you have right now would quickly disappear if a bomb came falling from above and you subsequently have to dig your relatives out the rubble of what only moments ago was your home. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML6JtLqOe5c

Edited October 28, 2023 by Naj

[BHC1]

1 hour ago, myth000 said:

I have been traumatized, I never lost my rationality.  I'm sure some Gazans are like me; I expect at least some of them to be rational despite their traumas.   I don't subscribe to a soft bigotry of low expectations.  Gazans should not be seen as a monolith. Those who are capable of rationality amid the tragedies should be the ones leading their community, not the ones trying to inflame tensions with emotional appeals for violent revenge.

It is pretty unseemly to blame victims for their own murders or the murder of their family members, whether they be Palestinian or Israeli. Though I agree with your sentiment - that the desire and cycle of violence isn't the right approach - I don't think the answer is expecting people to behave in a way contrary to what can be reasonably expected of human beings, given all our flaws. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by BHC1

[myth000]

11 minutes ago, Naj said:

Respectfully, I don’t think your trauma is relevant here, and I don’t think your expectations are grounded in any kind of awareness beyond what you think you would do if you were in that circumstance – which is not valuable insight since any sense you have right now would quickly disappear if a bomb came falling from above and you subsequently have to dig your relatives out the rubble of what only moments ago was your home. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML6JtLqOe5c

Assuming that people in traumatic situations are incapable of rational thought can itself be a form of prejudice. It's important to recognize that people respond to trauma in various ways, and some are able to maintain a level of rationality even in the most difficult circumstances.   

13 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Not to trivialize anything else if I'm wrong, but I hope you're not referring to people in law school being mean to you (as you've posted about that experience in these terms before) and equating that to parents losing their children to armed conflict.

See, that's a tasteless comment.  But do I mind it?  No.  You have a right to wonder, it is rational to wonder.   But I'm not sure what angle you have on this, or what point you are trying to prove.  I can only assume it is a putative personal attack based on prior interactions on this forum.

[CleanHands]

1 minute ago, myth000 said:

See, that's a tasteless comment.  But do I mind it?  No.  You have a right to wonder, it is rational to wonder.   But I'm not sure what angle you have on this, or what point you are trying to prove.  I can only assume it is a putative personal attack based on prior interactions on this forum.

Look, the thing is, you drew a direct comparison between your own experiences and those of people whose children have been killed in airstrikes, to justify casting judgement upon them for their reactions. And in doing so you held yourself up as a model of rationality in contrast to people who would surrender to their basest instincts in such circumstances. But you've written about ordinary struggles of life before in hyperbolic terms. So, what you're writing would seem pretty outrageous coming from basically anyone, but it's even more so in the context of your posting history here.

[myth000]

2 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Look, the thing is, you drew a direct comparison between your own experiences and those of people whose children have been killed in airstrikes, to justify casting judgement upon them for their reactions. And in doing so you held yourself up as a model of rationality in contrast to people who would surrender to their basest instincts in such circumstances. But you've written about ordinary struggles of life before in hyperbolic terms. So, what you're writing would seem pretty outrageous coming from basically anyone, but it's even more so in the context of your posting history here.

Can you point me to these supposedly hyperbolic posts? From what I recall, I once complained about the general unfriendliness, bullying, cheating, and corruption at my law school and provided concrete examples. I generalized my experience to the entire legal profession, which, in hindsight, I shouldn't have done. Even at that sensitive time, I noted that my perspective was subjective and that others (perhaps the vast majority) might have more positive experiences. I may have acted self-righteously, but I was still rational enough to recognize the subjectivity of my experience. You and your group acted as if I was personally attacking you, as if you represented the profession I was criticizing.

However, that's not the trauma I was referring to. I don't expect any sympathy; I merely mentioned my personal experience with trauma to illustrate that it's possible to remain rational despite it and that community leaders should be the kind to rationally work towards peace rather than seek revenge at the slightest slight.

[SNAILS]

15 hours ago, Pantalaimon said:

If any firms or student unions issued a statement including something along the lines of supporting "all forms of Israel self-defence", I suspect they'd face consequences.

I suspect the opposite.

Students supporting Israel are not called upon to condemn Israeli violence against Palestine.

[BlockedQuebecois]

2 minutes ago, SNAILS said:

I suspect the opposite.

Students supporting Israel are not called upon to condemn Israeli violence against Palestine.

Could you provide some examples of student groups that have issued statements supporting Israel post-October 7 that have not been called on to condemn violence against Palestinian civilians?