TWU Lawschool decision

[Alflives]

36 minutes ago, Monty said:

Everyone is going to have their individual take on this, and they are absolutely welcome to. Like everything in life, nobody will agree all around.

 

In my experience in the time I was at TWU, it was a very accepting and positive experience. My Human Sexuality class was one of the most interesting times, as each group of 4 was tasked with teaching our 3 hour class. One group brought in a woman who had finished transitioning to a man, and he spoke to us for 2 hours, followed by a 1 hour Q&A session. Incredibly, incredibly fascinating.

 

But again, I know the public perception. For every 9 completely reasonable people in the world, there’s 1 nutter that paints the rest in a bad light. Should TWU change the covenant? I don’t know. They have several times throughout the years, so perhaps they’ll have to do it again.

 

Is what it is.

That class you took sounds like one every person should have to take in high school.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

I don't get this whole issue.  The school sets it's guidelines, and kids choose to go, or not go there.  Gay kids can go to TWU can't they?  Is there a restriction on which kids can attend, based on sexuality?  I thought the covenant in question was about not having premarital sex?   I doubt the kids (gay or straight) follow this rule anyway.  

the issue is around the credentials granted to a school. Professional groups like doctors, engineers and lawyers are governed by professional societies that grant accreditation for each school. There are lots of unaccredited schools out there, no one can stop you from starting or going to one, this case doesn't change that, its just kind of a waste of time to get a degree from one because if you can't go take the bar exam or get a P.Eng. designation you probably wasted 4 years in college.

 

So TWU wants it all, they want discriminatory polices AND to be accredited.

[Monty]

21 minutes ago, Alflives said:

That class you took sounds like one every person should have to take in high school.

That class? No. It was a 3rd year Psych course. Not only was it not for the faint of heart (each group taught what they wanted to present, no set topic), but it was also taken by students that had a knack for listening and asking the “right” questions.

 

It was a Human Sexuality course (like all universities) aimed specifically towards those pursuing a career in counselling. 

 

EDIT: But I know what you were alluding to. I just remember my high school, and no way did most kids have the Emotional Intelligence to handle something that delicate. Don’t get me wrong, we don’t give kids nearly enough credit, and parents need to do what they can to prepare their children, but teachers in schools are not professors who specialize in these particular areas.

[Alflives]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the issue is around the credentials granted to a school. Professional groups like doctors, engineers and lawyers are governed by professional societies that grant accreditation for each school. There are lots of unaccredited schools out there, no one can stop you from starting or going to one, this case doesn't change that, its just kind of a waste of time to get a degree from one because if you can't go take the bar exam or get a P.Eng. designation you probably wasted 4 years in college.

 

So TWU wants it all, they want discriminatory polices AND to be accredited.

Seems to me we are losing out on a lot of good lawyers (potentially) coming into our system in BC, because of this issue.  I thought the BC courts actually ruled everything was fine at TWU, and that their decision was overturned by the Canadian court?  Seems to me we should just let the kids who grad write the exams to become practicing lawyers.  They either pass or fail.  It's up to them.   Maybe the BC law society is prejudiced, and has too much power over the lawyers, or potential lawyers?  It seems very unfair to me. 

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Seems to me we are losing out on a lot of good lawyers (potentially) coming into our system in BC, because of this issue.  I thought the BC courts actually ruled everything was fine at TWU, and that their decision was overturned by the Canadian court?  Seems to me we should just let the kids who grad write the exams to become practicing lawyers.  They either pass or fail.  It's up to them.   Maybe the BC law society is prejudiced, and has too much power over the lawyers, or potential lawyers?  It seems very unfair to me. 

well, I guess its a question of whether or not you think a law school should follow the Charter of Rights in order to be accredited. That seems like a very reasonable position to me. Why do you think they shouldn't? (if that's your actual position).

 

Look at an extreme example, would you want an accredited Sharia Law School to operate in Canada? I doubt it.

 

But I also think all religions are dumb except maybe Shinto so it doesn't matter to me.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well, I guess its a question of whether or not you think a law school should follow the Charter of Rights in order to be accredited. That seems like a very reasonable position to me. Why do you think they shouldn't? (if that's your actual position).

 

Look at an extreme example, would you want Sharia Law School to operate in Canada? I doubt it.

 

But I also think all religions are dumb except maybe Shinto so it doesn't matter to me.

I don't really care what the school teaches.  When the graduates write their law exams don't they have to all write a special bar exam made by the Province, and then practice Canadian law?  

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I don't really care what the school teaches.  When the graduates write their law exams don't they have to all write a special bar exam made by the Province, and then practice Canadian law?  

Yup they do.

 

I understand what you're saying, if they can pass the exam and prove they can do the job then whats the problem? The problem is they want to have a discriminatory policy in the first place. Remove that, and there's no problem.

 

The problem isn't with the students, its the admin policy.

 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Monty said:

Everyone is going to have their individual take on this, and they are absolutely welcome to. Like everything in life, nobody will agree all around.

 

In my experience in the time I was at TWU, it was a very accepting and positive experience. My Human Sexuality class was one of the most interesting times, as each group of 4 was tasked with teaching our 3 hour class. One group brought in a woman who had finished transitioning to a man, and he spoke to us for 2 hours, followed by a 1 hour Q&A session. Incredibly, incredibly fascinating.

 

But again, I know the public perception. For every 9 completely reasonable people in the world, there’s 1 nutter that paints the rest in a bad light. Should TWU change the covenant? I don’t know. They have several times throughout the years, so perhaps they’ll have to do it again.

 

Is what it is.

that sounds incredibly interesting.

 

All TWU has to do is change their charter to an "aspiration" instead of a policy and all this goes away.

 

 

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Yup they do.

 

I understand what you're saying, if they can pass the exam and prove they can do the job then whats the problem? The problem is they want to have a discriminatory policy in the first place. Remove that, and there's no problem.

 

The problem isn't with the students, its the admin policy.

 

thank's Jimmy.  This makes sense now:)

[ForsbergTheGreat]

13 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

And that's the whole point that you clearly can't grasp - many people are okay with companies supporting vile stuff, because many people believe in vile stuff. Being openly discriminatory can be a beacon to scum to support one of their own. Therefore, it's absurd to categorically state that "companies will go out of business because people will stop shopping there". 

 

I know math isn't your strong suit, but losing two stores in an area, but opening 10 in another is good for business. 

 

Anyway, chewing a point this thoroughly for you is a waste of both our times. You're clearly not moved by evidence. Keep on keepin' on you soldier of unbridled capitalism.

You’re right, anyone’s who thinks 10 extra stores is some how better than 12 isn’t worth wasting time on debating with. KOS, who’s a uni drop out, has a better understanding of numbers. I’ve seen 8 year olds with better math skills. Bahaha good day and good riddance. 

[Emmetts]

Warhippy can you please explain how Governments in debt is bad capitalism if capitalism at all. Please and thank you, you were replying very quickly to the Trump thread.

[JM_]

45 minutes ago, Emmetts said:

Warhippy can you please explain how Governments in debt is bad capitalism if capitalism at all. Please and thank you, you were replying very quickly to the Trump thread.

1. That makes no sense whatsoever.

2. Has nothing to do with TWU.

 

Try to stay on topic. 

[Emmetts]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

1. That makes no sense whatsoever.

2. Has nothing to do with TWU.

 

Try to stay on topic. 

On Page 2 of this Thread Champ.

 

Warhippy

• Canucks Hall-of-Famer
•  
• 
• Members
•  20,309
• 25,830 posts
• Location: Penticton BC

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted Friday at 03:57 PM (edited)

  On 6/15/2018 at 2:02 PM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

And who cares. Let capitalism take its corse. All those companies would be doing is turning away business. Which in itself is a terrible business plan. I personally say let private business have the right to serve who ever they want.

Capitalism has taken its course

 

We see endless governments deeply in debt

We see people unable to afford to own homes or even eat while being gainfully employed

We see corporations wielding more power than governments

We see monopolys and oligarchs or corptocracys

 

Capitalism has had its chance and essentially failed because only the supremely naive or essentially the stupid believe in a system predicated on "infinite growth" and a trickle down system

 

All you're suggesting is the rise of once again segregation and open bigotry based on bias, prejudice hatred and racism which in all honesty is frigging dumb.  Because only corporations would essentially serve everyone while small and private business would only serve those who their bias allowed.  The advent of social media would essentially give people a nice heads up on who frequent vs not.  The inevitable death of the mom and pop shop would be complete in due time

 

Todays decision by the supreme court is essentially nothing more than telling Trinity they cannot exclude based on bigotry and instead must accept everyone equally based on simple human rights and equality.  The sad thing is how angry everyone is, especially the religious right.  Which in itself isn't surprising as them good god fearing folk seem to be the most hateful bunch of yokels this side of hardcore radical islam

Edited Friday at 04:03 PM by Warhippy

•  

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Emmetts said:

On Page 2 of this Thread Champ.

•  

"champ" 

[kingofsurrey]

9 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You’re right, anyone’s who thinks 10 extra stores is some how better than 12 isn’t worth wasting time on debating with. KOS, who’s a uni drop out, has a better understanding of numbers. I’ve seen 8 year olds with better math skills. Bahaha good day and good riddance. 

People that want to exclude their neighbour  and  refuse service to fellow canadians need to be confronted and stood up to.    

 

Canada is a great country and acceptance / tolerance is  a big part of that.

 

By the way i am not a Uni drop up.  Stop by my place and you can have a look at my UBC degree.   Liked UBC but a bit big for my tastes.. would have prefered UVIC or maybe uni back east if i was to do it over again..

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

People that want to exclude their neighbour  and  refuse service to fellow canadians need to be confronted and stood up to.    

 

Yet in another thread you were claiming YOUR neighbor province Alberta shouldn’t be allowed to drive, vacation or own property in B.C.    You sure lead by example.  Haha. 

[kingofsurrey]

7 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Yet in another thread you were claiming YOUR neighbor province Alberta shouldn’t be allowed to drive, vacation or own property in B.C.    You sure lead by example.  Haha. 

Non residence tax on vacation property is what i was talking about.. but feel free to make up whatever you need. 

BC is in a housing crisis right now. 

[Alflives]

17 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

People that want to exclude their neighbour  and  refuse service to fellow canadians need to be confronted and stood up to.    

 

Canada is a great country and acceptance / tolerance is  a big part of that.

 

By the way i am not a Uni drop up.  Stop by my place and you can have a look at my UBC degree.   Liked UBC but a bit big for my tastes.. would have prefered UVIC or maybe uni back east if i was to do it over again..

TWU is a good school, isn't it?

[kingofsurrey]

12 minutes ago, Alflives said:

TWU is a good school, isn't it?

Education without diversity is not real life  education.

[Alflives]

14 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Education without diversity is not real life  education.

I agree.  I just see our current post secondary system as not including those who can't afford it. Don't you think that our Universities are already (kind of) closed to diversity based on economics?  What about all the kids who don't have the funds to go to post secondary school?  

I don't think the tax payers should be paying for these students either.  Unless those student loans are completely 100% going to be paid back, they should not be available.