Onyx8 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I feel bad for kids who pursue unaccredited degrees at TWU because the school IS accredited and the quality of education is the same as you'd get anywhere else plus some Jesus stuff, just not outside of BA programs. My concern is how many of these kids know the BSc they're pursuing there (or law degree or whatever) isn't accredited even though their sister's BA from the same institution is.

No lawyers have yet been given law degrees from TWU afaik, this is why they were trying to get accredited so that they could begin giving out law degrees. Perhaps I have that wrong.

However if a wannabe lawyer managed to get a degree from an unaccredited institution that gave them no access to the bar, I wouldn't have much faith in that person as a lawyer.

No, neither would I and I'm inclined to laugh at someone who didn't check whether their school was accredited or not. I do wonder if the kids getting their BSc in biology from TWU even stopped to consider their school may not be accredited and that their degree won't be recognized by employers or any institutions they apply to.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
How is that analogous?

It is denying access based upon a viewpoint.

No, that only describes your example. TWU's (now hypothetical) law school is being denied accreditation because of its actions, not its viewpoint.

It's worth noting that New Brunswick Law Society accredited TWU, but only on the condition that it drop the discriminatory part of the Covenant. That TWU held an Evangelical Christian viewpoint was not a problem at all.

If there were secular or non-Christian law schools that discriminated against homosexuals and were given accreditation, then you would have a point. But there aren't.

Nicko wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Law Societies have every right to determine the qualifications for entry into their membership, and they're right to consider graduates of a law school that's part of a university that's institutionalized homophobic policies as being unacceptable.

I presume you would be okay if they were to exclude based upon a factor which you are included to as well?

The point is that the body charged with ratifying a qualification has stated that it is not prepared to endorse qualification from universities which advocate or promote discrimination prohibited in law - they have not stated that they're not prepared to ratify qualification on the basis of FACT-MAN-2's personal opinion.

But the university does not advocate/promote discrimination prohibited in law. TWUs policies are - unfortunately - entirely legal.

You're still hung up on the fact that the discrimination is legal. Accrediting bodies do not determine their criteria solely on the legality of a school's policies and actions. In fact, that is not their purview at all. If a school is doing something illegal, then that is a problem for the law enforcement system to worry about, and not the concern of a licensing body.

It is perfectly legal for a school to set up a biology program that teaches creationism and not evolution. There's no law against that if its a private school. But that doesn't mean an accrediting body can't refuse to recognize the program and any "degrees" it might grant. In fact, if the accreditation body didn't refuse to recognize the program, then it wouldn't be doing its job.

So your position, I think, seems to come down to claiming that the Law Societies can only base their accreditation on academic standards, and nothing else. And I disagree with that. I think they must also take ethical and other standards into account. And adopting a policy of non-discrimination for all accredited schools is consistent with this.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I feel bad for kids who pursue unaccredited degrees at TWU because the school IS accredited and the quality of education is the same as you'd get anywhere else plus some Jesus stuff, just not outside of BA programs. My concern is how many of these kids know the BSc they're pursuing there (or law degree or whatever) isn't accredited even though their sister's BA from the same institution is.

Is that the case? Or are you just speaking hypothetically?

Onyx8 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I feel bad for kids who pursue unaccredited degrees at TWU because the school IS accredited and the quality of education is the same as you'd get anywhere else plus some Jesus stuff, just not outside of BA programs. My concern is how many of these kids know the BSc they're pursuing there (or law degree or whatever) isn't accredited even though their sister's BA from the same institution is.

No lawyers have yet been given law degrees from TWU afaik, this is why they were trying to get accredited so that they could begin giving out law degrees. Perhaps I have that wrong.

You are correct.

Shrunk wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I feel bad for kids who pursue unaccredited degrees at TWU because the school IS accredited and the quality of education is the same as you'd get anywhere else plus some Jesus stuff, just not outside of BA programs. My concern is how many of these kids know the BSc they're pursuing there (or law degree or whatever) isn't accredited even though their sister's BA from the same institution is.

Is that the case? Or are you just speaking hypothetically?

Oh, I don't know whether that's happened yet. I'm imagining it happening though and how devastating it would be to kids who, a year and a half in, realise, holy shit, I have to start all over again at a different institution because none of the credits I've earned are transferable.

I'm not sure why they're offering science degrees when they're accredited as a liberal arts university and I certainly hope their law school doesn't go anywhere. I hope it's all over the documentation you have to complete when you apply and accept and register with the school that none of your science credits or even your science degree it's self, if attained at this institution, is accredited and you cannot apply to grad school based on a science degree earned there.

I'm glad all the kids from religious families can go to the University of the Fraser Valley which, while public, is still HEAVILY influenced by the religiosity of being in BC's Bible belt. Lots of areligious people go there and get recognised kinesiology degrees or whatever else at an accredited institution too but if you are really religious and wanting to study science you're family's not particularly reluctant to send you there because, surprise, most of the people attending there did grow up in Christian families.

Shrunk wrote:It is perfectly legal for a school to set up a biology program that teaches creationism and not evolution. There's no law against that if its a private school.

There fucking well should be. It's fraud.

Shrunk wrote:But that doesn't mean an accrediting body can't refuse to recognize the program and any "degrees" it might grant. In fact, if the accreditation body didn't refuse to recognize the program, then it wouldn't be doing its job.

You're absolutely right. Your analogy, however, doesn't work as TWUs proposed curriculum has been recognised as adequate and they have shown themselves willing - from the beginning of this saga - to make any alterations to it deemed necessary.

Shrunk wrote:So your position, I think, seems to come down to claiming that the Law Societies can only base their accreditation on academic standards, and nothing else.

Yep. Their accreditation.

They have a lot more latitude with the individuals seeking to gain - and retain - admission to the bar. And should.

Shrunk wrote:And I disagree with that.

I really have noticed this.

Shrunk wrote:I think they must also take ethical and other standards into account.

They must certainly take the ability of individual graduates to abide by professional legal ethics into account. And do.

And, "other standards"? What, just any rule they think up? If not, where's the line?

Sorry, if you're a private association of lawyers, then you can make up any rule you want. If you are the body - established by Act of Parliament - charged with assessing the ability of a school to produce qualified graduates, then that is what you must do.

Shrunk wrote:And adopting a policy of non-discrimination for all accredited schools is consistent with this.

Aaand we're back to you asserting that a policy that is - for some reason - legal is actually a crime just because you reckon. Discrimination actually means something in law. It's a crime. You don't just - particularly if you're a fucking Law Society - get to make up what it means.

If this makes it to court, the Law Societies are - IMHO - going to lose. I hate seeing fundies win, particularly on a public stage, and particularly when such a victory makes them look like the party that has been discriminated against.

Even if TWU loses, then a precedent will be established in law that would allow Law Societies to refuse accreditation based upon the private political opinions of a majority of their members.

Nicko wrote:

THWOTH wrote:People are not allowed to operate discriminatory practices even if they have discriminatory ideals. If a school of law does not maintain this basic legal principle, and, for example, condones, promotes or supports discrimination on religious grounds then who is actually being ill-served, who is actually being punished?

.

TWU's policies are not illegal discrimination under Canadian law. They fucking well should be, but they aren't.

THWOTH wrote:Is it a 'punishment' to be forbidden from discriminating against others?

Of course not. Pass a law making the discrimination practiced against homosexuals - among others - at TWU illegal, and it's done and dusted. Until then, the belief that TWU's policies constitute unfair discrimination is merely a private political opinion.

That it is an opinion held by a majority of members of the various Law Societies - as well as the majority of members here, including myself - is irrelevant.

THWOTH wrote:Would you want to be represented by a lawyer who had little or no respect for some of your fundamental legal and human rights?

Of course not, but to assume that a graduate has no respect for a group of people's fundamental legal and human rights merely because they obtained their degree from TWU is itself discriminatory. No evidence has been advanced in this thread that suggests that TWU graduates are necessarily homophobes. Having a degree from TWU does not mean a person is a homophobic bigot any more than having a degree from a different university means they aren't.

I agree with you in pretty much every regard. I was just trying to strike at JdG's point - whatever it is.

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:So your position, I think, seems to come down to claiming that the Law Societies can only base their accreditation on academic standards, and nothing else.

Yep. Their accreditation.

They have a lot more latitude with the individuals seeking to gain - and retain - admission to the bar. And should.

Shrunk wrote:And I disagree with that.

I really have noticed this.

Shrunk wrote:I think they must also take ethical and other standards into account.

They must certainly take the ability of individual graduates to abide by professional legal ethics into account. And do.

This is another point of disagreement between us. You think the Law Societies are limited to only accrediting individual graduates of a law program. Whereas, to my reading of the relevant legislation, they are also given the power and responsibility of deciding which law schools should be recognized.

And, "other standards"? What, just any rule they think up? If not, where's the line?

The line is drawn at reasonable standards that pertain to the proper running of a law school. It's seems obvious to me that requiring a policy of non-discimination falls within that.

Aaand we're back to you asserting that a policy that is - for some reason - legal is actually a crime just because you reckon. Discrimination actually means something in law. It's a crime. You don't just - particularly if you're a fucking Law Society - get to make up what it means.

Where do you get the idea I think it's a "crime"? I have not so much as suggested that.

But, by your reasoning, a science program that teaches evolution is false and the earth is 6000 years old would have to be accredited, since teaching these things is not a "crime". But I'm sure you don't believe that. So what is different here?

If this makes it to court, the Law Societies are - IMHO - going to lose. I hate seeing fundies win, particularly on a public stage, and particularly when such a victory makes them liook like the party that has been discriminated against.

I don't think so. I think TWU will lose. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the case never even makes it to the Supreme Court, now that the provincial accreditation has been pulled.

Anyway, we'll get our first indication of how this will play out in the courts when the Judicial Review of LSUC's decision begins next week.

Even if TWU loses, then a precedent will be established in law that would allow Law Societies to refuse accreditation based upon the private political opinions of a majority of their members.

No, it would just mean the Law Societies are able to make decisions that they believe to be in the best interests of the profession as a whole. Just like they already are. Opposition to discrimination is not just a "private political opinion". It is a bedrock foundation of our society and its legal system.

Shrunk wrote:Where do you get the idea I think it's a "crime"? I have not so much as suggested that.

Is unfair discrimination not a crime in Canada?

Shrunk wrote:But, by your reasoning, a science program that teaches evolution is false and the earth is 6000 years old would have to be accredited, since teaching these things is not a "crime". But I'm sure you don't believe that. So what is different here?

Refusing to accredit a curriculum that teaches it's students lies is one thing. If the curriculum of TWU's proposed law school failed to teach it's students fundamental principles of law, that would certainly be grounds to refuse accreditation.

That is not the case here.

Shrunk wrote:Opposition to discrimination is not just a "private political opinion". It is a bedrock foundation of our society and its legal system.

Indeed, and this is as it should be. The law in it's majesty, however, has deemed TWU's insane "community covenant" to not be discriminatory. Now, both of us are free to disagree with this, but our opinion that TWU's policies are discriminatory is just that: an opinion.

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Where do you get the idea I think it's a "crime"? I have not so much as suggested that.

Is unfair discrimination not a crime in Canada?

Discrimination is illegal in some circumstances, and not others. TWU's Covenant is not illegal.

Shrunk wrote:But, by your reasoning, a science program that teaches evolution is false and the earth is 6000 years old would have to be accredited, since teaching these things is not a "crime". But I'm sure you don't believe that. So what is different here?

Refusing to accredit a curriculum that teaches it's students lies is one thing. If the curriculum of TWU's proposed law school failed to teach it's students fundamental principles of law, that would certainly be grounds to refuse accreditation.

That is not the case here.

Again, on this we disagree. I think a school's accreditation should depend on more than it's academic standards. If, for instance, the building was full of asbestos and presented a cancer risk, the school should be required to correct that before being allowed to continue operating.

Shrunk wrote:Opposition to discrimination is not just a "private political opinion". It is a bedrock foundation of our society and its legal system.

Indeed, and this is as it should be. The law in it's majesty, however, has deemed TWU's insane "community covenant" to not be discriminatory. Now, both of us are free to disagree with this, but our opinion that TWU's policies are discriminatory is just that: an opinion.

No, it is a fact that it is discriminatory, to anyone who understands the meaning of the term. It just so happens that this discrimination is legal within a specific, narrowly defined context. You are suggesting that this context be expanded to encompass the entire system of legal education, which is not a private religious context, but a secular and public one. That's where I think you're wrong.

Shrunk wrote:Again, on this we disagree. I think a school's accreditation should depend on more than it's academic standards. If, for instance, the building was full of asbestos and presented a cancer risk, the school should be required to correct that before being allowed to continue operating.

Of course.

What would be unacceptable would be to only bar the school from teaching law, whilst allowing all students not studying that subject to continue to be exposed to the asbestos.

Also, an asbestos-riddled building would hardly be the job of Law Societies to correct, would it?

Shrunk wrote:No, it is a fact that it is discriminatory, to anyone who understands the meaning of the term. It just so happens that this discrimination is legal within a specific, narrowly defined context.

Unfortunately, the issue we are discussing falls within that "specific, narrowly defined context."

Shrunk wrote:You are suggesting that this context be expanded to encompass the entire system of legal education, which is not a private religious context, but a secular and public one. That's where I think you're wrong.

Which is odd, because I'm arguing the opposite: that requiring the students of a degree-granting educational institution to sign an ideological statement as a precondition of enrollment should be legally regarded as discrimination, even in the "specific, narrowly defined context" they currently have a loophole for.

It's just that, currently, TWU does have that loophole. They've tested the loophole in court before and it seemed to work.

Close the loophole. Help all the students of TWU, as opposed to forcing those who want to study law there go elsewhere or forcing those that can only study there to give up on law.

For anyone interested, video of the Nova Scotia judicial review is available at this linke below (I mistakenly said above it was a review of the LSUC decision that was under review this month). I haven't watched it, myself

http://courts.ns.ca/Webcasts/webcasts_a ... trials.htm

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled in favour of TWU. At this point, the decision has no practical effect, since approval of the school itself has been withdrawn by the BC gov't. But we'll see if it is a harbinger of future decisions. The judge seems to have used much of the same reasoning that you have, Nicko, so we'll have to chalk up one point for you.

Here is the text of the full decision.

http://www.courts.ns.ca/Decisions_Of_Co ... nssc25.pdf

Shrunk wrote:The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled in favour of TWU. At this point, the decision has no practical effect, since approval of the school itself has been withdrawn by the BC gov't. But we'll see if it is a harbinger of future decisions. The judge seems to have used much of the same reasoning that you have, Nicko, so we'll have to chalk up one point for you.

Here is the text of the full decision.

http://www.courts.ns.ca/Decisions_Of_Co ... nssc25.pdf

Hopefully, the Canadians who organised in this instance can stay organised and direct their activism towards reform of education law. I'm sure TWU has not heard the last from people who find their policies abhorrent.

Nicko wrote:Which is odd, because I'm arguing the opposite: that requiring the students of a degree-granting educational institution to sign an ideological statement as a precondition of enrollment should be legally regarded as discrimination...

It is discrimination, in a sense, because it excludes those who would like to go but do not sign the statement, but why think that such a practice is unjustly discriminatory?

It's well accepted that religious educational institutions have the right to exist and that the ethos of these institutions depend upon a communal belief, attitude and code of conduct, something which can be enforced for the sake of the purpose and efficiency of the school itself. Such schools do not exist merely to issue degrees, but to also transmit religious perspectives, social connections as well as allow for believers to congregate as a community of teachers and learners. Once you allow for people to act contrary to these religious teachings and codes of conduct, you frustrate the purpose of the school. Do you take issue?

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled in favour of TWU. At this point, the decision has no practical effect, since approval of the school itself has been withdrawn by the BC gov't. But we'll see if it is a harbinger of future decisions. The judge seems to have used much of the same reasoning that you have, Nicko, so we'll have to chalk up one point for you.

Here is the text of the full decision.

http://www.courts.ns.ca/Decisions_Of_Co ... nssc25.pdf

Hopefully, the Canadians who organised in this instance can stay organised and direct their activism towards reform of education law. I'm sure TWU has not heard the last from people who find their policies abhorrent.

Education law is not the main barrier. You'd likely need to "reform" the constitution.

Nicko wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Law Societies have every right to determine the qualifications for entry into their membership, and they're right to consider graduates of a law school that's part of a university that's institutionalized homophobic policies as being unacceptable.

I presume you would be okay if they were to exclude based upon a factor which you are included to as well?

The point is that the body charged with ratifying a qualification has stated that it is not prepared to endorse qualification from universities which advocate or promote discrimination prohibited in law - they have not stated that they're not prepared to ratify qualification on the basis of FACT-MAN-2's personal opinion.

But the university does not advocate/promote discrimination prohibited in law. TWUs policies are - unfortunately - entirely legal.

Why is it "unfortunately" legal? One of the pains of living within a liberal pluralist society is that some concessions have to be made to those with very different viewpoints from your own, those that enforce certain codes of conduct and ideologies. Otherwise, the social contract is frustrated, differences and conflicts become inflamed, and then civility is affected. This contract serves to lessen alienation, radicalization and hostility, something that minorities depend upon. It serves them well.

A part of this concession is to allow religious groups to congregate, worship and conduct themselves to much of their liking. Society allows them to form private institutions to transmit their beliefs through education and live to a communal code of conduct, just like the countless private religious schools of the secondary and elementary grade levels. If you start attacking these allowances, you destabilize the contract that affords civility within a pluralistic, liberal society, and this is something quite contrary to the interests of minorities, whether they are homosexual or secular, or whatever other relevancy.

Life in a pluralist society is life in a shaky, unstable boat. You will do well to approach it with ease.

Mackson wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled in favour of TWU. At this point, the decision has no practical effect, since approval of the school itself has been withdrawn by the BC gov't. But we'll see if it is a harbinger of future decisions. The judge seems to have used much of the same reasoning that you have, Nicko, so we'll have to chalk up one point for you.

Here is the text of the full decision.

http://www.courts.ns.ca/Decisions_Of_Co ... nssc25.pdf

Hopefully, the Canadians who organised in this instance can stay organised and direct their activism towards reform of education law. I'm sure TWU has not heard the last from people who find their policies abhorrent.

Education law is not the main barrier. You'd likely need to "reform" the constitution.

Yes. That is unlikely, and undesirable. Also, IMHO, not necessary in order to prevent TWU from being accredited by provincial law societies.

Hearings on TWU's appeal of the LSUC's decision to deny accreditation has just wrapped. The decision likely won't be announced for a few months. One of TWU's lawyers didn't get a very sympathetic reception when he complained the school was itself the victim of bigotry:

In oral arguments Thursday, TWU lawyer Robert Staley told the three-judge panel that a transcript of the debate on the issue by LSUC benchers — they denied accreditation in a 28-21 vote — revealed “statements of bigotry and intolerance.”

Justice Ian Nordheimer didn’t like the sound of that.

“It does nothing for your argument to label some of the leading members of this profession as bigots,” he chastised Staley.

“I don’t say it lightly,” the lawyer replied.

“You shouldn’t have said it at all,” countered the judge.