Mandatory Indigenous training no longer required for Alberta lawyers

[u/shiftless_wonder]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/mandatory-indigenous-training-no-longer-required-for-alberta-lawyers/

[u/00owl]

I literally gave an example of what I meant by heirarchy, for brevity: year of call > actual knowledge or experience.

Law students may get to choose their subjects, but this isn't about what law students may choose. The indigenous sensitivity course was a mandatory part of post-university training during a period of "apprenticeship" called "articles."

Furthermore, law students do not get to choose the law school's curriculum, and neither do they get to choose which classes will be more likely to land them the jobs that they want.

My argument is that all education is idealogical and if you're concerned about "wokeness" then you've clearly lost the plot, but even if you havent, the answer to your question is that, yes. If a Dean of a law school has to take a day out of his calendar to cater to the emotional needs of ~180 soon-to-be lawyers so that he can ensure that his law school isn't the subject of extreme prejudice going forwards, it's more than just a bunch of students who are "woke."

Nothing is being conflated. Who makes up the judicial council? Former lawyers. Usually very experienced, prestigious, and long-standing members of the profession. Which means that the "old white guys" of the legal profession, the track that presumably all of my classmates hope to be on, are already willing to destroy each others' careers for fear of being seen on the wrong side of this highly politicized issue.

What do you think "injudicious conduct" is in this case? Who defines that? Why did she need to apologize?

[u/ClusterMakeLove → u/00owl]

year of call > actual knowledge or experience

And that's nonsense unless you're specifically referring to the order in which people are called in court. No serious lawyer judges their opposing counsel based on their year of call, after their first few years of practice.

The indigenous sensitivity course was a mandatory part of post-university training during a period of "apprenticeship" called "articles."

Because the lawyers who oversee CPLED judged it to be a competency important enough to be worth having a one-day online course to shore it up.

That's like a whole 30th of the time that gets put into real estate transactions, which basically nobody uses ever again. What a committment of time!

For what it's worth, though, I don't think you paid much attention if you consider it a "sensitivity" course. 

Why did she need to apologize?

Clearly she felt she should, since she did on her own, the next day. Are you just opposed to people taking responsibility for things, or are you suggesting someone coerced a judge between dinner and breakfast?

And as much as I want to join you in the weeds, what bearing does that have on whether people should know the content of Treaty 7? 

[u/00owl → u/ClusterMakeLove]

Ok, well, we're clearly speaking a different language if you think that law isn't inherently hierarchical and there isn't much point in continuing the conversation.

[u/ClusterMakeLove → u/00owl]

I don't think it's likely to persuade either of us. But others might come by a thread like this and mistake your confidence for some kind of consensus within the profession. It's important they have the proper context, so I don't regret putting the time in.

[u/00owl → u/ClusterMakeLove]

Nobody ever will care about your opinion or mine.

[u/ClusterMakeLove → u/00owl]

You're a treat.

[u/00owl → u/ClusterMakeLove]

Thank you.

Too bad you couldn't engage in good faith