Matt Howe (3L) et al
From the “semesterization” of the curriculum to decisions about financial aid policy, much of the business of the law school is discussed in what have been termed “Dean’s Committees.” (This, however, is a misnomer for many committees. Although the Dean can strike advisory committees for his own benefit, most major committees are actually for Faculty Council. The Dean has come to exercise more control over Faculty Council committees over the past two decades.)
These committees, made up of Faculty, administrators, and Students’ Law Society (SLS) representatives, discuss a wide range of issues touching on almost every aspect of the law school.
Given the important work they do, we thought it would be useful to let readers know what these committees are up to. Surprisingly, this information is not always easy to obtain. Meetings are closed to non-members of the committees; the committees do not issue agendas in advance of meetings and it appears that agendas are not even produced and distributed internally for committee members; minutes are not released, not even in partially redacted form. Most committees simply release final reports at one of the last Faculty Council meetings of each academic year, when it is too late for students to shape their activities.
Assistant Dean, JD Program Alexis Archbold has told some SLS members that they cannot discuss what goes on in committee meetings without permission. Archbold indicated that all meetings are, in effect, presumptively entirely in camera. Archbold said there was a written policy to this effect, but when asked by the SLS to produce the policy, she did not respond.
Despite some challenges, we’ve done our best to provide an up-to-date reporting on what these committees are working on, some of which has major implications for the future of U of T Law.
Admissions Committee
Mandate: Committee members review the personal statements, optional essays, and personal sketches of applicants to the Faculty of Law.
Members: Faculty: Benjamin Alarie and Alexis Archbold (Co-Chairs), Catherine Valcke, Anthony Niblett, Anna Su, Richard Stacey, Albert Yoon, Douglas Sanderson, and Promise Holmes-Skinner. SLS: Maya Bielinski, Fraser Malcolm, and Andrew Wang.
How does it work? Candidates’ materials are reviewed and assigned a score between zero and four. Each application is reviewed by at least three committee members. This score, in addition to the candidate’s GPA and LSAT scores, determine if they will receive an offer.
There is an initial “culling” of applications based on low GPAs and LSAT scores. This process removes from the committee’s consideration those applicants whose GPAs and LSATs are too low to be saved by a perfect “4” on their written materials. While this might be an efficient way to reduce the work of the committee in the average case, it can prejudice students who use the optional essay to explain a poor grade or LSAT score. Under the current system, a student who suffers from a disability or has experienced hardship, and received a lower grade as a result, may miss out on a chance to explain their poor grade to the committee.
What has it done this year? The committee has reviewed two “waves” of applications, leading to a number of offers. The workload is intense—each SLS member was tasked with reading 110 applications in the first wave alone—and each application is reviewed by three committee members before a final grade is assigned. Given the number of applications, and unequal number of SLS and faculty committee members, many applications are not read by student representatives. The SLS raised this as an issue, arguing that a student-perspective is needed when reviewing all applications. The Chairs of the committee have agreed to resolve this problem going forward.
What is planned for the rest of the year? There is one wave of applications left to review, following the release of February LSAT scores.
Matt Howe
Appeals Committee
Mandate: Hears appeals from decisions made by the Associate and Assistant Deans of the JD program, as well as appeals regarding grades. Its purpose is to ensure that the standards, regulations, and policies of the Faculty of Law and University of Toronto have been fairly applied and are appropriate in the circumstances.
Members: Faculty: Martha Shaffer (Chair), Peter Benson, Mohammad Fadel, Sophia Moreau, Jim Phillips, and Richard Stacey. SLS: Sam Kim and Andrew Lynes.
What has it done this year? The Appeals Committee has not met so far this year because no appeals have been escalated to a point where it is required. This is not uncommon. The majority of appeals relate to grades, and many steps must be completed—such as meeting with the professor, second reading of the assignment, etc.—before the committee needs to convene.
Rona Ghanbari
Clinical & Experiential Education Committee
Mandate: Exploring ways in which experiential education might be meaningfully incorporated into Faculty’s academic program.
Members: Faculty: Brenda Cossman (Chair), Anita Anand, Ariel Katz, Vincent Chiao, Emily Satterthwaite, Audrey Macklin, Anthony Duggan, Cheryl Milne, and Lisa Cirillo. SLS: Andrew Lynes and Debbie Wang.
What has it done this year? The committee presented its interim report to Faculty Council in January. The discussions have thus far been focused on defining experiential education, articulating the value it adds to a legal education, and taking stock of the experiential opportunities already offered.
The committee has opted for a particularly broad view of experiential education, described by Professor Cossman as education which requires students to “engage in problem solving in the classroom.” Getting students to do “issue spotting” on hypothetical problems in the classroom is an example, as are drafting and mooting exercises. According to the committee, these types of experiences might have the value of better preparing students for legal practice, in addition to being more interesting than traditional lectures. Andrew Lynes, 3L StAG Rep, thinks more “issue spotting” might have the added benefit of better preparing students for exams.
What is planned for the rest of the year? The committee continues to audit the Faculty’s offerings. Given the broad nature of the mandate, it does not expect to produce any concrete recommendations this year.
Matt Howe
Environmental Sustainability Working Group
Mandate: Dean Iacobucci did not provide the group with a mandate this year. It effectively sets its own agenda.
Members: Faculty: Andrew Green (Chair), Denise Reaume, Gian Medves, Paul Handley, and Anver Emon. SLS: Debbie Wang, Philip Omorogbe, and Aidan Fishman.
What has it done this year? The group has met once this year. Five issues were discussed. First, the plans for bike storage in the new building are still unsettled. The committee did not develop a plan or recommendation. Second, the University’s changes to how it manages food vendors may provide new opportunities to focus on sustainability in the selection of food services for the new building. Third, the group will go on a tour of the new building soon with a focus on environmental features. Fourth, one committee member noted that the older buildings (i.e. Falconer) are very energy inefficient and should be a focus after the completion of the new building. Finally, one committee member suggested that the faculty should develop a sustainability policy.
What is planned for the rest of the year? There is no agenda for the next meeting. Discussion of the above items is likely to continue.
Brett Hughes
Tuition and Financial Aid
Members: Faculty: Alexis Archbold and Benjamin Alarie (Chairs), Anthony Niblett, Mariana Prado, Albert Yoon, Aladdin Mohaghegh, and Rejeanne Puran. SLS: Katrina Longo, Dillon Collett, and Andrew Wang.
Mandate: The committee reviews all financial aid appeals. It also debates broader policy issues relating to tuition and financial aid.
What has it done this year? The committee has evaluated all financial aid appeals to date. The SLS committee members set the agenda for one of this year’s meeting to discuss student concerns. The SLS brought forward three issues. First, the SLS called on the Faculty to improve its approach to access to credit and develop a better response to students who cannot secure the requisite private loans. Second, they asked the Faculty to release more data on the financial aid program and the economic composition of the student body. Third, they raised the possibility of changing the way the financial aid pot is divvied-up, such that more money is given to students from lower-income families.
What is planned for the rest of the year? The SLS has planned a town hall on the topic of financial aid and tuition. The SLS committee members will raise concerns and comments expressed by students at the town hall in future committee meetings.
Daniel Carens-Nedelsky
Gender, Accessibility & Diversity Committee
Members: Faculty: Alexis Archbold and Mariana Prado (Chairs), Angela Fernandez, Emily Satterthwaite, Anver Emon, Martha Shaffer, Sarah Pole, Jerome Poon Ting, Trudo Lemmens, and Lisa Del Col. SLS: Katie Longo, Dillon Collett, and Evan Rankin. Graduate students: Megan Rossa and Ido Katari.
Mandate: The committee explores ways to promote diversity and inclusivity at the law school and makes recommendations to that effect.
What has it done this year? The committee has reviewed the results of the February 2014 survey on diversity. The survey focused on student experiences of marginalization and issues students have faced due to socioeconomic background, disability, parent or care-giver status, English language proficiency, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender. A number of recommendations were made to address these issues. The committee has also instituted a second inclusivity training for first-year students, which took place in January. Finally, the committee has made recommendations on the use of the multi-faith room in the new Jackman Hall law building.
What is planned for the rest of the year? The final meetings of the year will consist of finalising the recommendations for the multi-faith room and the proposals made in response to the 2014 survey.
Roxana Parsa
International Advisory Committee
Members: Faculty: Kerry Rittich and Karen Knop (Chairs), Samer Muscati, Michelle Rosenstock, Sara-Marni Hubbard, Jerome Poon-Ting, Audrey Macklin, Ayelet Shachar, Albert Yoon, Patrick Macklem, and Larissa Katz. SLS: Debbie Wang and Samuel Mosonyi.
Mandate: Proposing ideas for how the Faculty can improve its international ties. The current aim is to develop a handful of strong partnerships with other universities, particularly those outside of North America.
What has it done this year? The committee canvassed student opinion on visiting scholars. Particular interest was expressed in having more international law scholars from China visit the Faculty. The committee also discussed the possibility of an exchange program with an American law school. Despite a general consensus that top-tier US law schools would not be interested in such a program, the committee intends to reach out to certain schools, including Berkeley, to test their interest.
What is planned for the rest of the year? With respect to faculty exchanges and international interaction, the committee intends to canvass younger faculty to see how they can help them establish more international ties.
Justin Khorana-Medeiros
Library and Technology Committee
Members: Faculty: Gian Medves & Ariel Katz (Chairs), Sophia Moreau, Mohammed Fadel, Malcolm Thorburn, Paul Handley, Dylan Reid, Susan Barker, John Bolan, and Andrew Martin. SLS: Philip Omorogbe and Aidan Fishman.
Mandate: The committee’s mandate is to ensure that library services and technology are responsive to the needs of students and faculty. This year, it is also focused on the move into the new Bora Laskin Library, serving as a resource and providing feedback to the Library in the transition. Finally, the committee is looking into a digital repository for Faculty scholarship.
What has it done this year? Discussed ways to reduce disruptions for the move, particularly: having it take place over reading week, extending short-term loans to accommodate the moving weekend, and letting students know in advance of the move.
While a decision about which digital repository system to use ultimately lies with the Faculty, the committee has discussed the merits of the different systems, including the SSRN and whether to use U of T’s central library network. The conversation centred around one particular system, the BePress Digital Commons system, which Osgoode recently adopted. The system would allow the Faculty to collate all of its research on one digital platform at a cost of $20,000 a year. The SLS initially opposed this research platform on cost grounds, but agreed to discuss it further in their weekly meetings.
What is planned for the rest of the year? The committee agreed to implement a Google Forms Suggestion Box where students can provide feedback about the new library. Also, having discussed different options for a Digital Commons Repository such as BePress, Google Scholar, U of T’s central repository, and SSRN, the Faculty will make the final decision about which platform to proceed with.
Geetha Philipupillai
Mental Health and Wellness Committee
Members: Faculty: Alexis Archbold (Chair), Martha Shaffer, Anver Emon, Larissa Katz, Anthony Duggan, Sara-Marni Hubbard, Lisa Del Col, and Yukimi Henry. SLS: Katrina Longo, Philip Omorogbe, and Maya Bielinski.
Mandate: Exploring the role that the Faculty should play in supporting students in the areas of mental health and wellness and making recommendations on the subject.
What has it done this year? Reviewed the evolution of mental health and wellness programs at the university, and within the law school, and compared these services to other universities and professional programs (mainly in North America). The SLS members have raised particular issues and concerns of students—for example, the need to clarify the sick-note policy, for the CDO to do more to minimize the stress of OCI’s and the 1L recruit, and for more programs on debt management to help minimize the mental health costs of high tuition.
What is planned for the rest of the year? This committee is holding a town hall to canvas student opinions on the current mental health and wellness programs on offer at the school. The final meeting of the year will be concerned with cataloguing the issues raised at that town hall and proposing next steps to address those concerns.
Daniel Carens-Nedelsky
Mooting and Advocacy Committee
Members: Faculty: Sara Faherty (Chair), Martha Shaffer, and Malcolm Thorburn. SLS: Evan Rankin and Fraser Malcolm.
Mandate: All issues relating to the mooting program at U of T Law.
What has it done this year? The committee has not met so far this year. It will have its first meeting in March.
What is planned for the rest of the year? One of the issues addressed each year is whether U of T should participate in any additional moots. Another perennial issue, whether the upper-year compulsory moot should be moved to first-year, is currently being considered by the Standing Curriculum Committee as part of its discussions around a new intersession term.
Alex Redinger
Student Affairs
Members: Faculty: ??? SLS: Spencer Burger.
Mandate: Student Affairs functions as a residual committee; it acts with respect to issues that do not fit neatly into the “boxes” of other Dean’s Committees.
What has it done this year? The committee has not met so far this year. Issues have been deemed to fall under the mandates of other committees, or to be “individual” issues to be dealt with directly by the administration on a case-by-case basis.
What is planned for the rest of the year? The committee will not meet unless an issue arises that cannot be dealt with by another committee or the administration. It is not clear what type of issue would fit this bill.
Nick Papageorge
Short-Term Curriculum Committee
Members: Faculty: Kerry Rittich (Chair), Vincent Chiao, Anita Anand, Richard Stacey, Douglas Sanderson, and Sara Faherty. SLS: Spencer Burger.
Mandate: The committee organizes the sessional dates for each academic year.
What has it done this year? The committee has not met so far this year, though the sessional dates for the 2016-2017 academic year have nonetheless already been approved at the most recent Faculty Council meeting.
Justin Khorana-Medeiros
Standing Curriculum Committee
Members: Faculty: Kerry Rittich (Chair), Brian Langille, Catherine Valcke, Mohammed Fadel, David Schneiderman, Andrew Green, Anthony Niblett, and Sara Faherty. SLS: Andrew Lynes, Sam Kim, and Samuel Mosonyi.
Mandate: First, to explore the possibility of an “intersession” between regular academic terms in which upper-year students would be required to take intensive courses or other learning opportunities. Second, to review the recent changes to the first-year curriculum.
What has it done this year? The Committee delivered its interim report at Faculty Council in January. (See Maud Rozee’s article in this issue for details.)
What is planned for the rest of the year? The intersession is still in the planning stages. The earliest it will be rolled out is the 2017-2018 academic year. Questions and comments can be submitted to Assistant Dean Sara Faherty.
Matt Howe
Truth & Reconciliation Committee
Members: Douglas Sanderson & Mayo Moran (Chairs), Dillon Collett (SLS), Sinead Charbonneau (ALSA), Bruce Chapman, Kerry Rittich, “one administrative representative.”
Mandate: The TRC Committee was recently formed in response to the TRC’s Call to Action No. 28, which calls for all law schools in Canada to institute a mandatory course in Aboriginal peoples and the law.
What has it done this year? So far, the TRC Committee has met to discuss how to implement this call to action. The SLS held a Town Hall meeting in January to consult students on the issue, and posted an online survey as well for students who were unable to attend.
What is planned for the rest of the year? The committee is in the process of sending out a Faculty survey, and Professor Sanderson will be conducting a consultation with the U of T Elders. The information from these consultations will ultimately be used in a report for Faculty Council that will discuss the nature of their deliberations, the content of their consultations, and their proposals for next steps.
Alex Redinger
