Katherine Long (3L) and Padraigin Murphy (3L)
The last issue of Ultra Vires prompted a discussion in our law school community about civic engagement and constructive dialogue. As future lawyers, judges, politicians, academics, business leaders, and community leaders, it is important that we grapple with these issues as we consider how to wield our immense privilege to contribute positively to society, now and throughout our careers.
We agree that criticism for criticism’s sake can be a problem, and is a tendency toward which many law students and lawyers are prone. We are concerned, however, that “Put Up or Shut Up” overshot the mark in several respects.
Critique is essential. It can be a key component of constructive dialogue. Critique can be, and usually is, part of larger advocacy strategies to achieve institutional change, helping to make the target institution—in this case, the Faculty of Law—a healthier and more inclusive place. The fact that some student criticism of an initiative does not suggest alternative means of achieving the same end does not make it less valid, or less productive.
Take, as “Put Up or Shut Up” did, Harrison Cruikshank’s 2015 article in Ultra Vires that focused on the “Walk a Day in Her Shoes” component of the White Ribbon campaign. Harrison articulated some important critiques of Walk-a-Day, but did not suggest an alternative fundraising idea. The existence of Harrison’s piece did not fix the marginalization faced by trans and genderqueer students in our community. Nor did it resolve the tension between the fight for gender equality and a fundraiser relying on the spectacle of men in heels. But it did spark a conversation.
The author laments that organizers “were left scrambling to come up with something new and engaging,” as if forcing organizers to reconsider their approach in the intervening year was a bad thing. This year, Walk-a-Day was replaced with a Yoga and Lunch event. Though in its formative stages, this new initiative is an important example of how student criticism can help make events more inclusive and better suited to the causes we seek to support.
Proclaiming that students should “put up or shut up” suggests that those who engage in critique are merely whiners. It seeks to quash student voices and silence dissent in our community. And it ignores the fact that many of us constantly “put up” and seek to advance the public interest through less visible efforts. We work in legal clinics; volunteer in the community; organize other kinds of fundraisers; engage in student government; do research for NGOs; and, yes, raise issues of concern in the school newspaper.
Some of us even write, star in, and organize Law Follies. Every year, much of our community gets together to make jokes and laugh about some of the most horrible aspects of legal culture and the law school. The writers do not offer constructive solutions alongside their sketches. Nobody expects them to. But its contribution to the culture of our school is appreciated anyway. It is inappropriate to suggest that students who criticize many of the same issues in more serious forums are deeply misguided, and apparently “blinded by” their “own perceived genius.”
“Put Up or Shut Up” also implies that fundraisers organized by and targeted at U of T Law students are presumptively desirable. It suggests that students should at least not criticize, and ideally support, such initiatives, lest students be dissuaded from organizing the same events the following year. We respectfully disagree that it is ever this simple.
Funds raised by student initiatives at this school do go to worthy causes that can make good use of the support. Nevertheless, some of us firmly believe that the need for charity is symptomatic of a deeply unjust economic system. On top of this, some of us are concerned that engaging in “philanthropy” is one way that those reaping the benefits of our unjust system morally justify their work and wealth. Both these concerns were directly at play last year when students criticized the SLS “Day of Pay” campaign. You may not agree with these views, but that does not make them unworthy of expression. So long as there are hungry who need to be fed, this terrain is going to be fraught.
Ultimately, the people we would ask to shut up are those who criticize students simply for expressing opinions and speaking out, and then suggest that doing so could put their job prospects at risk because the person the students criticized could be “the articling student showing you around your in-firm.” The silencing effects of trying to enter a profession as “old guard” as law are powerful enough without us making thinly veiled threats at one another.
Editor’s note: The name of the original article’s author was removed from this article at their request.
