Pe’er Krut (1L) and Maytal Lazarovic (1L), on behalf of the Jewish Law Students’ Association
Year in and year out, the administration at U of T Law forces its 1L students, already drowning in readings and grappling with the hardest academic year of their lives, to come in on Fridays for Equity Diversity Inclusion training. This training is important, in theory, it seems, but not in practice—at least not in the way it’s delivered at U of T Law. These sessions are meant to foster inclusivity and awareness, but more often than not, they’re performative exercises that exclude the very voices they claim to uplift.
Take this year’s training on antisemitism. Jewish students and community leaders had been vocal for months about how to get it right. U of T Law Administration even confirmed a speaker with the co-Presidents of the Jewish Law Students Association leading them to believe—finally—that the voices they represent were being heard. And yet, at the last minute, with no warning or explanation, they moved the entire module online and made it asynchronous. No live discussion, no real engagement, just a recorded outsourced module that students could click through on their own time. Meanwhile, every other EDI session has remained in person.
Why? Jewish students weren’t given an answer. But the message was clear: their concerns didn’t matter. This wasn’t about real education or combating antisemitism—it was about optics. It was about checking a box while avoiding the discomfort of a live conversation.
And even beyond the format, the module itself was problematic. The assigned portion seemed neutral enough at first glance, but anyone who took the bare minimum step of clicking through the menu of other module options provided would have noticed some red flags. It didn’t take long for groups, particularly the Muslim Law Students Association to point that out. The very students these trainings are meant to support were, once again, left correcting mistakes that Administration could have avoided if they had just meaningfully consulted the people affected.
And this isn’t just about one module or one community. When EDI training is done without true consultation, it doesn’t just alienate the people it’s supposed to support—it spreads misinformation, fuels resentment, and makes law students less informed, not more. Islamophobia, antisemitism, and other biases don’t get meaningfully addressed when the very people affected have no say in the conversation.
If U of T Law actually cared about making its students better advocates, it would stop treating EDI as a bureaucratic obligation and start treating it as an actual dialogue. Until then, these Friday sessions will remain what they’ve always been: a waste of time that makes things worse, not better.
If EDI is truly a priority, and the Administration insists on continuing to mandate it for their 1Ls, then it should be given the level of attention something of this importance is owed. That means actual consultation and implementation of feedback—or, at the very least, double-checking the full content of a course before assigning it. But hey, what would we know? We’re just Jewish students—it’s not like we’d have any insight into a module about us.
Editor’s Note: Pe’er Krut (1L) and Maytal Lazarovic (1L) are members of the Jewish Law Students Association.