While the JPT workshops showed some promise in discussing anti-oppression and anti-racism, much improvement is needed
Anti-racism, mental health, and the role of the legal system in perpetuating inequality are among the most pressing problems many current 1Ls hope to address in our careers. As the year progressed, we quickly learned that our classes would not facilitate discussions about anti-oppression and anti-racism, and that we would have to find these resources elsewhere. As these were also the topics addressed in this year’s joint professionalism training (JPT) sessions, we had high hopes. However, in the end, the JPTs were a mixed success.
Some sessions, particularly those facilitated by Justice Shaun Nakatsuru, discussing his judgements in R v Jackson and R v Morris, and Myrna McCallum, presenting her approach to trauma-informed lawyering, were both informative and spaces for the critical engagement with the law which we have been pushing for since the beginning of school. Most importantly, it was incredibly heartening to see such accomplished professionals doing this work. Instead of discussing general ideas of anti-oppression and anti-racism, these sessions not only showed us how to be critical about the law, but also legitimized the very practice of it.
While some discussions were good, others were not as effective. Much has been said about January’s Critical Race Theory workshop, and the following comments apply to the program in general. We appreciated the effort to begin the JPT sessions with more profound discussions on anti-oppression and anti-Black racism. We also found the content in the Critical Race Theory workshop to be useful and engaging. However, because the sessions took place during the lunch period, and on one of the busiest days of the week for many 1Ls (Wednesdays), we could not give the content the attention it deserved. While we understand the difficulties the COVID-19 pandemic has created for scheduling, these sessions could have been planned such that they did not overburden students during an already onerous Fall semester or during the start of the Winter term when we were concerned with the 1L recruitment cycle and mooting.
The session on “Self-Care as a Professional Practice Skill” felt detached from the realities of life as a law student. Aside from the contradictory advice to eat lunch as self-care during a mandatory lunch-time session at which no lunch was provided, the message of professional negligence itself was premature in a Faculty already dealing with problems providing mental health services. It sent us the message that unless we “take care of ourselves,” our lack of resources notwithstanding, we could become incompetent as professionals. Given that law school occupies so much of our lives, professional competence is hardly the only reason the law school needs to structurally support student mental health. During the session, we were also required to disclose mental health difficulties with our breakout groups and were not provided any opportunity to debrief afterwards other than what the school already provides to all students. The idea that our mental health was an individual problem we had to take care of in our own time ran through this session.
As was said before by Meaza Damte (1L), “JPT is not all bad, but to say that it is enough is a gross misrepresentation of the obstacles the legal system continues to face” in working towards anti-oppression and anti-racism. While this year’s program showed promise, there remains work to be done if it is to become a meaningful endeavour which gives the issues raised the attention they deserve.
