Aron Nimani (3L)
Discussions within the law school are pretty unusual. When you are more accustomed to hearing the opinion of a softball teammate at practice, or a Tinder date over their third beer, the level of intelligence and thought behind a law student’s opinion can be impressive. Staggering, even. Sadly, that opinion can also be blinded by its own perceived genius, and we’ve seen that with some fundraisers lately.
I think it goes something like this: “I’m by all accounts objectively intelligent and well-educated, I’ve put a lot of thought into this issue, and on that basis I’ve formed an opinion. Ergo, my opinion must be a good one, and I should share it.”
Unfortunately for everyone involved, that is not always sound logic. Not because your opinion is incorrect or necessarily unreasonable, but because when an opinion is all you have, it usually is not enough. But people dislike confrontation, so when you go ahead and say something controversial or offensive without inviting discussion, you get nothing but an echo chamber. You feel assured, better about yourself, and are encouraged to do it again. I’m here to tell you to stop.
Who are “you”? You are every law student who wants to comment on fundraisers and events just for the sake of making yourself heard. Whether it’s a Facebook post, a comment on a news story, or an article here in Ultra Vires.
Let’s consider the article that prompted me to write this, titled Law school caught in tangled web of obligations following Promise Auction. Putting aside the point that there was no tangled web of anything, following that clickbait headline led to an article that can be summed up like so: “Bitch, complain, bitch, complain, bitch, complain…oh but it did better than last year.”
Let me be perfectly clear: the Promise Auction organizers bested last year’s results, raised thousands of dollars for two great causes…and got publicly shit on. Not “received some criticism” or “were given ideas on how to improve.” No, what they got was a series of paragraphs complaining about the job they did. Now, show of hands—who wants to volunteer to run it next year?
Right.
(A note lest you think I’m being too hard on the article: the author explained on Facebook (then deleted the post) that he was “unable to get the information he needed” about the Promise Auction. He tried one organizer who was unable to reply in time, so instead he relied on an eavesdropped out-of-context conversation for talking points.)
Let’s consider another couple of examples from around this time last year—Flip Your Wig for Justice and Walk a Day. The first is a pledge-based fundraiser in support of access to justice in Ontario. The second is an international White Ribbon Campaign pledge-based fundraiser in which men receive pledges for wearing heels for a day in support of ending violence against women.
Both are fundraisers that support important cause. Yet both received heavy criticism and backlash, also beginning with a UV article (rather prophetically including in its title “this has gotten too silly!”). Unlike Tangled Web, the article wasn’t a complaint just for the sake of complaining, it was a complaint for the sake of the author’s moral views and for the sake of a cause and population he felt was underrepresented. It generated thoughtful discussion on important social issues. Unfortunately, by my count, it offered only one suggestion on how to improve fundraising efforts.
While Flip Your Wig is independently run and can continue without having to placate a vocal minority, Walk a Day has to strike a balance, and the organizers, your classmates, were left scrambling to come up with something new and engaging that will continue to raise badly needed funds. Whether the resultant March 9 Yoga and Lunch fundraiser will manage to do so remains to be seen. I certainly hope so, and I encourage everyone to attend. Someone has already found cause to complain, but my thoughts on the social justice war can be saved for another article.
What we need to do is talk about how to improve our events and fundraisers, or it really is going to get too silly. It isn’t my goal to harp on anyone’s commentary. It’s my goal to encourage everyone to start discussions on what you consider to be the issues apparently plaguing all of our fundraising efforts. (Has someone complained about the bake sale yet?)
Remember, even if you’re not friends with them, everyone in this school is your colleague. They are the articling student showing you around your in-firm, and they will be the lawyer sitting across from you in the courtroom. They donate their time to help good causes that they believe in and believe are worthy of your support. When you share your opinion, they will hear it, so make it worthwhile.
I am not here to say that you have to pander to everyone with whom you disagree. Debate is healthy, and it drives progress. I am here to tell you that when the totality of what you are saying is “this and/or you are wrong,” not only will you add no value to anything, you’ll probably do more harm than good.
So remember what your mother taught you: think before you speak. Ask yourself whether you are driving conversation, or driving it into the ground. When the answer is the latter, don’t speak.
In other words: put up, or shut up. And if you can’t say something nice, say something constructive.
For more information about “Within Reach: An End to Gender-Based Violence,” please check out the Facebook event page.
