Mainly Mattias Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 B.C. lawyers vote down TWU law school By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun columnist October 30, 2014 Nearly 6,000 B.C. lawyers — about half the profession — have voted to have the provincial law society withdraw accreditation from a proposed law school at Trinity Western University. In a historic provincewide poll conducted this month, 5,951 lawyers (about 75 per cent) voted to withdraw accreditation from the school, compared with 2,088 who wanted to maintain the society’s earlier approval of the new law faculty. The referendum required one-third of the 13,530-member profession to participate — practicing, retired and non-practicing lawyers were entitled to vote — and a two-thirds majority of those voting in order to pass and be binding on the society. The governing benchers will discuss the results today and presumably make the about-face official. The Langley-based university’s spokesman, Guy Saffold, said it was disappointed with the vote. “Trinity Western believes in diversity and the rights of all Canadians to their personal beliefs and values,” he said, noting gay and lesbian students attend and graduate from the institution. “A person’s ability to study and practise the law should not be restricted by their faith.” He urged the benchers to reject their promise to respect the referendum result and refrain from withdrawing approval of the school, set to open in 2016. “The benchers still have the opportunity to do the right thing, and we are encouraging them to think very carefully before passing any resolution against TWU,” said Saffold. The benchers originally endorsed the school April 11 but thousands of lawyers rose up in revolt and at a special general meeting June 10 demanded their governors reconsider. At that passionate gathering, an overwhelming number of the lawyers — 3,210 to 968 — demanded the benchers reverse their decision. They objected to the Evangelical institution’s practice of having staff, faculty and students sign a Community Covenant that among other tenets restricts sex to traditional marriage between a man and woman. On Sept. 26, the benchers decided to put the question to the entire membership in the unprecedented plebiscite. Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan, one of the leaders of the movement to reverse the society’s approval of the TWU law school, was ecstatic. “I thought it was a fantastic showing, for the second time, by the legal profession,” he said. “The large return and clear result sends an important message about the core values of the legal profession that include upholding the legal rights of all persons. The clear message to TWU is this: if you wish approval from the legal profession in B.C. you will need to cease your discriminatory practices. The discipline or expulsion of students and staff for private sexual activity is unacceptable.” Law societies in Ontario and Nova Scotia already have taken a stand against the proposed law school over its covenant, triggering litigation. There now are court cases in those provinces and in B.C., which is where the debate will be resolved. It is expected the Supreme Court of Canada will be the final arbiter of the dispute that brings under scrutiny the scope of religious freedom. Although the high bench issued a split ruling in 2001 on a similar dispute involving TWU and B.C. teachers — in which it OK’d the covenant — many believe the issue needs to be revisited, given broad societal changes and the development of civil rights jurisprudence The Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario voted against approving the law school and the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society granted conditional acceptance if the school changes the covenant for law students or allows them to opt out. The 2001 SCC between TWU and the BC College of Teachers is worth a read. I wonder if lawyers really looked at that before voting.. Not sure how the law societies would distinguish their cases from the SCC decision. Assuming the law society of bc could successfully argue that it is acting within its jurisdication under the legal profession act, it wouldn't have concrete evidence that training lawyers in twu would foster discrimination in the legal sector.. perhaps they'd say it wasn't merely because of the discriminatory nature of the covenant that the school was rejected but because the covenant would severely restrict the teaching quality and the proposed curriculum was subpar.. which would not be in the public's best interest.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Wow - a story that makes my respect level for lawyers go up! Time to check the sky for flying pigs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Voted on by and with their peers. No claims of bias can be listened to credibly. Your peers have spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario voted against approving the law school and the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society granted conditional acceptance if the school changes the covenant for law students or allows them to opt out. The 2001 SCC between TWU and the BC College of Teachers is worth a read. I wonder if lawyers really looked at that before voting.. Not sure how the law societies would distinguish their cases from the SCC decision. Assuming the law society of bc could successfully argue that it is acting within its jurisdication under the legal profession act, it wouldn't have concrete evidence that training lawyers in twu would foster discrimination in the legal sector.. perhaps they'd say it wasn't merely because of the discriminatory nature of the covenant that the school was rejected but because the covenant would severely restrict the teaching quality and the proposed curriculum was subpar.. which would not be in the public's best interest.. Professions like lawyers and accountants read everything. Very hard to slip something between them and have them not notice - at least the good ones. More than half have voted. I think that's your answer there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Nothing but a self righteous pat on the back about a procession that means little aside from symbolically You really think people who attend TWU do not have premarital sex? Please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Nothing but a self righteous pat on the back about a procession that means little aside from symbolically You really think people who attend TWU do not have premarital sex? Please Does that really matter? I speed full well knowing the speed limits. Thinking a discriminatory policy is acceptable for a law school is self righteous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.K. Chesterton Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hopefully they appeal and get their law school! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Does that really matter? I speed full well knowing the speed limits. Thinking a discriminatory policy is acceptable for a law school is self righteous. Discriminating who exactly? Are those who are homosexual barred from the school? Are those that have sex (any sex, not just homosexual) kicked out? It's comparable to signing a code of CONDUCT (actions) before starting work, this has nothing to do with being born one way or another Mountain of a mole hill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Discriminating who exactly? Are those who are homosexual barred from the school? Are those that have sex (any sex, not just homosexual) kicked out? It's comparable to signing a code of CONDUCT (actions) before starting work, this has nothing to do with being born one way or another Mountain of a mole hill I can confirm what you are saying, as I attended/graduated from TWU back from 2000-2004. Both heterosexual and homosexual students attended the univesity, and this was never something that was "inforced" while I was there. Having been a Resident Assistant for 2 of my 4 years there, I was always in the know of what was going on at the campus, and had a student "come out of the closet" to in my third year on campus. In all situations, at least to my knowledge, no student was ever kicked off campus for their sexual orientation. The student in my dorm who came out to me, did so because he trusted that I would not only be as supportive to him as I always had been, but that I would not share anything we discussed to anyone else on the campus, unless he wanted me to. From what I recall, I remember two times of students being kicked out. The first time was in my second year university over Christmas when a student broke into roughly 35 dorm rooms and stole tens of thousands of dollars worth electronics and money. The second time was a year later when several students created a pipe bomb that was filled with feces, that went off and did severe damage to a security guards' eyes. Otherwise, students on campus (during my tenure) were only treated with respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Discriminating who exactly? Are those who are homosexual barred from the school? Are those that have sex (any sex, not just homosexual) kicked out? It's comparable to signing a code of CONDUCT (actions) before starting work, this has nothing to do with being born one way or another Mountain of a mole hill Discriminating gay people, who have the same right to find love as you or me. It is NOT comparable to signing a code of conduct before starting work, it is not a private corporation, it is a law school. The fact of the matter is the covenant is discrimination in the eyes of the law. It is for a law school and lawyers struck it down. It reminds of the douche who fought to be allowed to join a ladies only gym. You can choose to accept it, you can choose fight it, but at the end of the day TWU is not getting the accreditation, so it doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I can confirm what you are saying, as I attended/graduated from TWU back from 2000-2004. Both heterosexual and homosexual students attended the univesity, and this was never something that was "inforced" while I was there. Having been a Resident Assistant for 2 of my 4 years there, I was always in the know of what was going on at the campus, and had a student "come out of the closet" to in my third year on campus. In all situations, at least to my knowledge, no student was ever kicked off campus for their sexual orientation. The student in my dorm who came out to me, did so because he trusted that I would not only be as supportive to him as I always had been, but that I would not share anything we discussed to anyone else on the campus, unless he wanted me to. From what I recall, I remember two times of students being kicked out. The first time was in my second year university over Christmas when a student broke into roughly 35 dorm rooms and stole tens of thousands of dollars worth electronics and money. The second time was a year later when several students created a pipe bomb that was filled with feces, that went off and did severe damage to a security guards' eyes. Otherwise, students on campus (during my tenure) were only treated with respect. Then why have a covenant? If it is not enforced, and it is a roadblock to getting accreditation, why not just make it a request, or why not just rely on the morals instilled by the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 From my understanding, you can be gay and attend TWU, you just cannot engage in any premarital sex according to their rule of conduct or covenant. You got to hand it to TWU, they are NOT discriminatory whatsoever ... both gay and hetero premarital sex is against covenant rules. If heteros were allowed premarital sex and gays weren't, then I see the discrimination. So help me to understand, what or who is being discriminated against here? The same rule of conduct or covenant applies to their professional Teachers school (I presume). It doesn't impede the graduates' ability to teach in the public school system, does it? The Teacher's federation accepts grads from TWU with B.Ed. Bottom line, if you don't like those rules, don't apply to TWU. I don't see how not having sex during law school will negatively affect your ability to practice law when they graduate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Nice to see rationality take over in the last two posts. Thanks Monty and Neversummer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Nice to see rationality take over in the last two posts. Thanks Monty and Neversummer Mine was the 2nd to last, I think you mean 2 out of the last 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Does that really matter? I speed full well knowing the speed limits. Thinking a discriminatory policy is acceptable for a law school is self righteous. There are policies made by boards of directors for institutions & residences to help create an environment where some students can/ will feel more comfortable with dorm living & pursuing their education. It's just another offering...like you know,.. private Catholic schools,....no pets allowed,...or seniors only communities. I think these lawyers have their OWN panties all tied in knots, judgmentally, and this is really much ado about nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 From my understanding, you can be gay and attend TWU, you just cannot engage in any premarital sex according to their rule of conduct or covenant. You got to hand it to TWU, they are NOT discriminatory whatsoever ... both gay and hetero premarital sex is against covenant rules. If heteros were allowed premarital sex and gays weren't, then I see the discrimination. So help me to understand, what or who is being discriminated against here? The same rule of conduct or covenant applies to their professional Teachers school (I presume). It doesn't impede the graduates' ability to teach in the public school system, does it? The Teacher's federation accepts grads from TWU with B.Ed. Bottom line, if you don't like those rules, don't apply to TWU. I don't see how not having sex during law school will negatively affect your ability to practice law when they graduate. From the wording of the article this is true, but gay married couples are also not allowed to have sex. Only heterosexual married couples are allowed to have sex. If only premarital sex were banned, that would be weird and extremely restrictive, but at least not discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 There are policies made by boards of directors for institutions & residences to help create an environment where some students can/ will feel more comfortable with dorm living & persuing their education. It's just another offering...like you know,.. private Catholic schools,....no pets allowed,...or seniors only communities. I think these lawyers have their OWN panties all tied in knots, judgementally, and this is really much ado about nothing. Perhaps I am biased by the stories of my friends who got their degrees there and my time working there. I have read the covenant many times since this came up and I can point out what drives me about it if anyone cares. The bottom line, in my opinion, is it doesn't matter if it is enforced or not, from my old bosses mouth, and I will have to paraphrase, homosexuality is a sin and we are sworn not to sin. Is it any more of sin than smoking a joint or getting wasted? Not for me to decide, but it is spoken about and I did sign a paper saying I wouldn't. I would argue this is not much ado about nothing given the support it received from voting lawyers. I'm really not trying to piss anyone off, I'll back off now, I can agree to disagree and this isn't worth pissing people off over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Entertaining that they think one referendum is an absolute.. and they want to be accredited in law? It fails me to understand why an institution of education for adults would be so preoccupied with the personal lives of people in such an overtly parental way. What does this even have to do with trades or education? Nonetheless, I think it's fair they lose accreditation, if not for the law portion, I'd be satisfied with losing their entire accreditation. They can then turn into a church and worry all they like about who's having sex with who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Hopefully they appeal and get their law school! They will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Tamland Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I can confirm what you are saying, as I attended/graduated from TWU back from 2000-2004. Both heterosexual and homosexual students attended the univesity, and this was never something that was "inforced" while I was there. Having been a Resident Assistant for 2 of my 4 years there, I was always in the know of what was going on at the campus, and had a student "come out of the closet" to in my third year on campus. In all situations, at least to my knowledge, no student was ever kicked off campus for their sexual orientation. The student in my dorm who came out to me, did so because he trusted that I would not only be as supportive to him as I always had been, but that I would not share anything we discussed to anyone else on the campus, unless he wanted me to. From what I recall, I remember two times of students being kicked out. The first time was in my second year university over Christmas when a student broke into roughly 35 dorm rooms and stole tens of thousands of dollars worth electronics and money. The second time was a year later when several students created a pipe bomb that was filled with feces, that went off and did severe damage to a security guards' eyes. Otherwise, students on campus (during my tenure) were only treated with respect. It's a great school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.