Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2014
In my contribution to this discussion or the Arthurs Report twenty years later, I want to talk briefly about the teaching aspect of legal education. I want to be emphatic in my focus on teaching because I fear that teaching is increasingly diminishing as an object of our attention and as a subject of our scholarly work. I fear that, for many of us, teaching is becoming a less and less significant part of our discussions, our hirings, our preoccupations, our energy … To me, this is both short-sighted and sad, particularly for those of us who are committed to a law and society approach to legal education. If we are committed to social change, then education, in the form of teaching and learning, is critically important – that is, what we teach and how we teach, and what we model as teachers and thinkers are important instigators and promoters of change. I make this assertion of a lack of serious interest in law teaching despite the fact that there have been a number of Canadian forums on legal education recently. However, admissions and administrative matters largely overshadowed teaching as issues of primary concern and discussion in the two forums that I attended. I do not think these forums generated the kind of on-the-ground, in-our-work-places re-energization and rethinking of legal education and specifically about teaching that was perhaps hoped for.
1 Consultative Group on Research and Education in Law, Law and Learning. Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 1983)Google Scholar [Arthurs Report].
2 This is not to say that administration, and particularly admissions, are not extremely important aspects of legal education, as well as central to a social change agenda.
3 Ah - therein might lie one of the recurring problems - s/he who pays for the work directs its focus, a situation that has worsened dramatically in the last twenty years in light of corporate funding and sponsorship.
4 Arthurs Report, supra note 1 at v.
5 Ibid. at 3.
6 Ibid. at 59.
7 Ibid.
8 Given that, in legal studies programs, we are not training students for the practice of law and our undergraduate students have just commenced their university studies, the focus of a legal studies program would necessarily be somewhat different from a law school program. Despite these differences in degree and focus, I expect that the perspectives or range of perspectives among the legally trained faculty in a law school and in a legal studies program are very similar. Many of my colleagues at Carleton would no doubt disagree with this statement and would argue quite vehemently that what we do (or should be doing) is substantially different from what goes on in law school. I think this view stems largely from a dated view of law schools and from a lack of interaction with law school colleagues. However, I, personally, do not regard this similarity of perspectives between law schools and law programs as problematic or as disloyal to the legal studies project as I suspect some of my colleagues might.
9 For example, given the proximity between the University of Ottawa and Carleton, I am surprised and saddened by how little interchange there is between the two law institutions.
10 Supra note 1 at 47.
11 Parker, Graham, “Legal Scholarship and Legal Education” (1985) 23 Osgoode Hall L.J. 653.Google Scholar
12 Macdonald, Roderick, “Understanding Civil-Law Scholarship in Quebec” (1985) 23 Osgoode Hall L.J. 573.Google Scholar
13 Arthurs, Harry, “To Know Ourselves: Exploring the Secret Life of Canadian Legal Scholarship” (1985) 23 Osgoode Hall L.J. 403Google Scholar; Hutchinson, Allan, “Telling Tales: (Or Putting the Plural in Pluralism) (1985) 23 Osgoode Hall L.J. 681.Google Scholar
14 Boyle, Christine, “Criminal Law and Procedure: Who Needs Tenure?” (1985) 23 Osgoode Hall L.J. 428 at note 54.Google Scholar
15 Supra note 13 at 406.
16 Supra note 11 at 654.
17 Ibid. at 655.
18 Ibid. at 659.
19 Beverley Baines gave a wonderful paper entitled, “The Canadian Law Teaching Clinic: Canon or Cant?” at the Future of Canadian Legal Education Conference held at the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa in September 2000. The problems that Beverley Baines addressed were individualism, professionalism and diversity/equity.
20 Thornton, Margaret, “Technocentrism in the Law School: Why the Gender and Colour of Law Remain the Same” (1998) 36 Osgoode Hall L.J. 370Google Scholar
21 Anver Saloojee, “Issue Draws Diversity of Opinions” at http://www.caut.ca/english/-bulletin/2002_april/bookshelf/inclusive.asp (May, 2003).
22 Kahn, Sharon and Pavlich, Denis, eds., Academic Freedom and the Inclusive University (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2000).Google Scholar
23 Ibid. at 4.
24 As many others have pointed out, it similarly protects the racist, sexist, ableist, classist, homophobic etc, although these are not my focus here.
25 Supra note 14 at 430.
26 Dr. Nancy Olivieri is a professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Toronto who was threatened with a law suit by the pharmaceutical company who was the corporate sponsor of her clinical drug trials of its drug. The threat of legal action was an attempt to suppress her findings of unexpected risks with the drug. An independent committee of inquiry into the issue found that neither the University nor the Hospital involved provided Olivieri with appropriate support in her conflict with the pharmaceutical company. See http://www.caut.ca/english/publications/news_release/20021113olivieri.asp (May, 2003).
27 University of Toronto revoked the employment contract given to British clinical psychiatrist, Dr. David Healy, after he questioned the role of pharmaceutical companies in medical research. See http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin/2001_oct/news/healy.asp (May, 2003).
28 Dewey, John, “Academic Freedom” in John Dewey: the Middle Works, 1899–1924 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press)Google Scholar as discussed by Scott, Joan, “Academic Freedom as an Ethical Practice” in The Future of Academic Freedom, Menard, Louis ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996) 163 at 168–69.Google Scholar
29 Hutchinson, supra note 13.
