News

‘Delicate Oxford flower’ takes down top criminal barrister

By on
91

Second year Oxford University law student details flaws in 30 years and counting barrister’s argument and signs off with a kiss

Lead12

A feisty law student has called out the top criminal law barrister who suggested that Oxford law students are too “delicate” to study law.

Matthew Scott — a crime specialist at Pump Court Chambers — made his controversial comments over the weekend in response to a newspaper reporting that Oxford law students are given trigger warnings before learning about sensitive legal issues. An anonymous student at the Russell Group university told the Mail on Sunday that, before lectures on sexual offences, students “were warned that the content could be distressing, and were then given the opportunity to leave if [they] needed to.”

Clearly riled by the news, Scott took to social media to label the students as “delicate Oxford flowers” — and one undergrad is not very happy about it.

In a strong worded piece that featured in The Tab yesterday afternoon, Giorgia Litwin claims the use of discretionary trigger warnings is an important step towards understanding and recognising the mental health needs of students, and this should be celebrated. The aspiring lawyer explained that pre-warning students allows:

[P]eople to make a choice for themselves about what they’re comfortable with and where they want to deal with it.

Moreover, suggesting that students should be able to anticipate lecture content — the disgruntled student vented — is “stupid”. She explained:

Yes, sexual offences lectures are going to discuss sexual offences. But as one student pointed out, when you’re going to a lecture on economic loss, you wouldn’t generally anticipate half of it being dedicated to the Hillsborough tragedy.

To round off her scathing attack, Litwin — who is currently in the second year of her studies at St Catherine’s College — claims that she knows “several” highly intelligent law students who would “very much appreciate” trigger warnings in lectures, and that these people are “well-fitted to their choice of degree and future career”. Her article is then signed off with:

Lots of love, a delicate flower x

Shots fired.

91 Comments

Anonymous

Can we not just all be nice to each other?

(22)(12)

Anonymous

Nope.

(3)(2)

Anonymous

Delicate Oxford flowers throw a hissy fit over being called delicate Oxford flowers

(28)(1)

Anonymous

Discretionary trigger warnings are all well and good – but how do these students expect to cope in practice when sexual offences cases or, even, cases arising from a disaster like Hillsborough, land on their desk?

(98)(5)

Katie's wannabe lover

Maybe by working in a different area of law?

(40)(19)

Anonymous

Name an area of law where distressing subject matter doesn’t arise. And before you say commercial law, see the comment below regarding the Sony/Kesha litigation.

(27)(2)

Anonymous

Tax?

(2)(6)

Anonymous

People get murdered within the seven years they made a large dispostion to their children = lovely big estate duty case

(12)(1)

Anonymous

We haven’t had estate duty since 1975

(1)(4)

Anonymous

Estate duty existed in some form or another since 1894

(4)(0)

Mr Pineapples

Property law – nothing human ever happens here

(4)(0)

Anonymous

She already made the point about Economic Loss containing distressing substance, reading carefully should have been added to this list also 🙂

(6)(0)

Anonymous

The point about Hillsborough in tort law underlies exactly the point that is being made. Case law and law reform is often about horrific tragedy. This is not relegated just to criminal law. You find it in tort and contract and family law , in trusts and even in land. People do bad and negligent and careless things that have horrible consequnces and it is only in extreme circumstances that most people will go to court. If you aren’t able to handle such cases, you have my sympathy but don’t become a barrister, or a solicitor or an academic. Don’t study law full stop. No matter what area you are in, you will let down your clients or students or yourself.

(103)(5)

Anonymous

Couldn’t agree more.

(19)(2)

Anonymous

My only question is why should trigger warnings prevent law students from effective study? If it doesn’t bother you it is irrelevant, and if you are triggered there are numerous barriers that will more effectively prevent you from practice than the initial warning at an academic level.

(6)(6)

Shirley

Why are females always “fiesty” and all barristers “top”?

(91)(3)

Anonymous

To get to the other side.

(33)(3)

Anonymous

And why do all of KK’s articles get copied from The Tab?

(6)(1)

Anonymous

You see as many pointless comments on here berating the people writing for LC for using the word ‘top’, as the word ‘top’ is actually used in the bloody articles.

Yes, you would have thought they could use a different word once in a while but do you lot think that you are being original?

(1)(6)

Anonymous

Sorry Alex.

(10)(0)

Anonymous

Whoever you are I want you to know your comment is on point

(1)(1)

Anonymous

I think that this completely ignores the fact that many students may not want to end up working in fields which contain these issues. It is not damning for a future commercial lawyer to be affected by a lecture on rape etc. Many law students may not even want to work in law at all for that matter! Giving people the option to learn in a manner that is comfortable for them should always be paramount.

(13)(57)

Anonymous

See the Sony/Kesha litigation for an empirical demonstration you are wrong about there being no rape in commercial law.

(33)(1)

Anon

I think that at the moment the court determined there was no rape there.

(4)(6)

Anonymous

Be that as it may, the case concerns an alleged rape, the discussion of which i’m sure is just as ‘triggering’ as there actually being a rape.

(9)(0)

Anonymous

But surely allegations of rape are highly unlikely to have been discussed with the same intricacy in the Sony/Kesha case as they would be in a criminal trial of an alleged rapist…. and isn’t that the point being made?!

(1)(13)

Anonymous

OK but if a commercial barrister were to get a brief like the Kesha one then they WOULD get a trigger warning — their clerk would call them up or their instructions would land on their desk saying you are asked to instruct on the contractual liability of parties under an agency agreement that was terminated after one party accused the other of sexual assault…. And then if you had PTSD you could quite properly decline the instructions on the grounds that you would be triggered and therefore not the best barrister to take them. What’s the problem?

(4)(7)

Anonymous

Well, not sure that student ‘took down’ anyone there. Artistic licence on the part of KK / LC, perhaps.

(41)(0)

pupilbarristerbirmingham

What utter garbage. Matthew Scott hit the nail on the head. I don’t see warnings being given before medical school lectures on oncology or gynaecological conditions or other “distressing” topics. Students at universities are adults who ought to be respected enough to be treated accordingly. You choose to study law at an institute of higher learning dictates that you have chosen to deal with hard hitting and real world topics. Accommodating student “mental health does not translate into sheltering and coddling them from the realities and difficulties of life i.e. sexual offences. Shall we begin censoring newspaper headlines on University campuses and what the BBC news can say if broadcast to students? It is an insult to the vast majority if the intelligent, educated and mature student populace to even consider taking such an approach.

(66)(2)

Anonymous

do you have pupillage?

(4)(5)

pupilbarristerbirmingham

Yes. Relevance?

(6)(0)

Anonymous

I was just wondering because it was unclear from your name

(7)(6)

Anonymous

What about ‘pupil barrister’ is unclear?

(8)(0)

pupilbarristerbirmingham

Ah it appears we have a true comedian amongst us. What a clever and unique way to deviate from the intellectually stimulating discussion being had by those around you. Truly, bravo!

(4)(6)

Not Amused

I see this as controlling behaviour. What they are saying is “we must be in charge” “we must make all the devisions” “you must do as we say”.

It is extremely unattractive in such privileged people. They need to grow up and learn more about duties and less about rights. Or we are breeding the little Hitlers of tomorrow.

(22)(2)

Anonymous

Eh? How on earth does having a warning before a lecture control anyone? You do know it is literally just the lecturer sending an email before the class saying I am going to be discussing X topic today in some detail? And I’m not following what the privilege is in being a survivor of rape or child abuse. What is really unattractive the suggestion people who have been abused are just pretending to be upset or triggered by discussions of sex crimes in order to control others.

(4)(5)

Anonymous

In related news: a few years ago Harvard law students tried removing rape law from the criminal law module because it was too triggery.

Also, it’s usually not those who have been raped and suffer PSTD from it who are demanding these warnings, it is campus leftist / radical feminist activists who are trying to institute such practices.

(6)(1)

Anonymous

I don’t believe that about the Harvard students. Googled it and it comes up with a few right wing blogs, linking to a Harvard professor complaining that trigger warnings made it hard to teach sexual offenses law.

How on earth do you know who has been raped and who suffers PTSD? :S

(0)(0)

botzarelli

An irony in attaching trigger warnings to Law lectures is that they are most likely to occur in the sorts of subjects and practice areas those who might be triggered will find most appealing professionally if they wish to use their legal training to assist in justice in the areas they have been affected by personally. I’d be surprised if many had their hearts set on careers specialising in the carriage of goods by sea (although the International Trade option at Oxford is fantastic).

(7)(0)

Anonymous

I heard that Oxford law students can only watch CBeebies, lest they shit their pants and cry at the sight of any other television program, or words read in a book, which may not have trigger warnings

(34)(0)

Just Anonymous

I agree with pupilbarristerbirmingham and NA. This is all about control, ideology and emotion – as opposed to objective evidence-based reality.

Litwin claims that trigger warnings are a “beneficial and valuable step towards recognition and awareness of mental health.”

Well, prove it.

Don’t get hysterical.

Don’t get emotional.

Just show us the objective medical evidence that proves it.

As I have stated previously, all the evidence I am aware of clearly points in the other direction: trigger warnings only serve to infantilise people and render them less likely to operate as functioning adults in a grown-up world.

(43)(1)

Anonymous

It’s called cultural marxism

(4)(1)

Anonymous

But a university lecture isn’t a medical treatment. If you have PTSD of course you will want to seek help to help you deal with triggers. However, that help does not consist in your doctor telling you “just go into triggering situations and deal with them and you’ll soon get over it.” Before you can cope with them it’s perfectly reasonable to want to avoid them or come to terms with them at your own pace — having a panic attack or a flashback in a lecture is not going to help recovery. I also think you might be massively overestimating the amount of psychological help that is available on the NHS. A lot of people who are suffering from PTSD are not going to have any or any substantial mental health support. So they’re trying to muddle through and get over it on their own. Giving them the information to do that can only be helpful. I can’t understand what detriment it could be to other students to know that, for example, there will be discussion of child sex abuse in an upcoming lecture. But for a student who has suffered sexual abuse as a child (of whom there are likely to be one or two in any given lecture hall, sadly) it could be really helpful – so they can avoid the lecture if they know they won’t be able to handle it, or just so they can prepare themselves mentally in advance.

(4)(7)

Anonymous

Paragraphing, my dear.

(7)(2)

Just Anonymous

I asked for evidence. Not assertion. Can you, for example, produce a reputable medical source which suggests that trigger warnings have a non-negligible, beneficial effect on mental health?

(5)(1)

Anonymous

I repeat that a university lecture is not a medical treatment. Even if you were able to provide incontrovertible proof that it’s much better “medically” for rape victims to just go to lectures about rape and get over it already, that doesn’t mean that a rape victim should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they actually want to put themselves through that and whether they think that it’s going to be helpful to their studies to start coming to terms with their trauma in the middle of a lecture hall.

(1)(6)

Anonymous

*shouldn’t

(0)(0)

Just Anonymous

So…no medical evidence then?

(7)(1)

Anonymous

Presumably Ms Litwin and her infantile idiots never read newspapers, watch TV or surf the net.

If they did they would be obviously be wracked insensible with PTSD every time they saw a report on the Hillsborough Inquest…

How has our education system come to this?

(16)(0)

Anonymous

The irony being of course that it’s the people who are too delicate to attend a lecture on Hillsborough that don’t know that they didn’t have a claim for the psychiatric injury suffered.

I don’t think I’d trust a doctor who said that they’d avoided parts of the training for it being too ‘icky’

(14)(0)

Anonymous

Content warnings hurt no one, help vulnerable people, and take all of five seconds. They’re useful because it allows people to prepare themselves before upsetting content, or skip it all together.

They can be overused to the point of parody. But this isn’t going to that extreme.

The point of them is that the enhance academic freedom and participation. Have you ever watched a tv show that had a notice that some content may be upsetting to viewers? Congratulations, that’s an old fashioned content notice.

You ask for research, and I would suggest you explore exposure therapy. In controlled doses people can overcome the serious negative association. Trigger and content warnings make that far easier to do.

Welcome to this crazy new world where we take other people into account.

(8)(22)

Anonymous

You’re a managing partner at a major commercial law firm. A regular client comes to you with a corporate manslaughter case, wanting to know how to proceed, who else get in touch with etc. You, being upset by the details of the deaths, break down and berate them for not warning you about the content. The client, having neither got the advice he wants nor anything indicating you are useful as a lawyer representing his interests, fires the firm and your arse is now on the line.

Content warnings are fine for TV which is a passive undertaking which people do not watch with any expectation of any particular content and without anyone relying on you. Studying and then practicing law is a positive act which involves you eventually asking people to rely on you holding an even temperament and subjugating your own interests to theirs. If you voluntarily put yourself in such a position of trust you better be prepared for the consequences.

(27)(2)

Anonymous

That’s the key – lawyers hold themselves out as being ready to deal with matters, including distressing ones, calmly and effectively.

(11)(0)

Anonymous

Ok but no one is arguing for content warnings for managing partners. They’re arguing for them for students. Who are not presenting themselves as offering a service to anyone, but are there for their own benefit, to get as much as they can out of the course. Do you really think that a student is going to learn more by going to a lecture and having a panic attack because they have a flashback of childhood abuse than by skipping that lecture and concentrating on the rest of the course?

(3)(9)

Anonymous

I wouldn’t stop a lecturer from making voluntarily announcing at the beginning of a tort lecture: “the law in this area has been shaped by the tragedy at Hillsborough”, and accept that this is helpful/harmless to students, but I don’t see how it can be acceptable for a student to skip a core component of a compulsory module.

If you can’t cope with learning that material, you are not ready to qualify as a lawyer. This may be harsh, but like so much about the law, it is fair.

(8)(1)

Anonymous

Sorry, what law degree did you do that you had to learn every part of every course that you did? No one learns the entire course for their degree – they concentrate on certain topics. And not going to a lecture is not the same as skipping that part of the course. It’s skipping the lecture. Something which (and I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you) students do on a regular basis.

(1)(5)

Anonymous

Is this what you call ‘taking down’? Pfffttt

(9)(0)

Anonymous

In their simple minds, yes.

(4)(0)

Tough skin

Hold on for a moment! We’re talking about the legal profession here, not a monotonous, production-line career with parts you can pause and or skip. Effective advocates must be ready for anything. Any case that lands on their desk. Any twist that case may take. Any unanticipated questions the judge may ask. You don’t get a choice but must nevertheless thrive in those circumstances. So why do some students feel they must be given that choice at undergraduate level. It’s silly. If you cannot deal with the unexpected – bearing in mind it’s already history at the point of encounter – how do they expect to survive in law. As a solicitor, you’re not going to be warned before a client comes to your office seeking defence on a rape or serious GBH case. Nor will you be warned at the Bar before the brief arrives. So what real benefit is there in these pre-lecture warnings? You would only be cheating yourself out of a necessary learning experience, whilst deluding yourself that you could make it in the profession being that sensitive.

(10)(1)

Anonymous

Not all law students intend to practice law. Not all lawyers do criminal law.

(0)(4)

Coganleak

Law students should be given a trigger warning if a lecture is likely to contain exclusively boring material, with no mention of suborning a dog to bugger one’s wife or consensual sandpapering of testicles. “Warning: this lecture is concerned with the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows. It’s going to be seriously fucking boring, when it’s such a nice day outside.”

(20)(0)

Anonymous

Perhaps people could stop assuming that “triggers” are a life-long disability stopping you from functioning normally. Imagine you’ve just suffered from a suicide in your family and your medical law module starts to cover assisted suicide, wouldn’t you prefer to study the material at home where you can be upset in peace and not listen to the usual idiotic and offensive ideas some students spout for the sake of being alternative?

You could also consider the fact that understanding triggers and things likely to radically change someone’s ability to cope with a subject is actually a very useful client skill, including in commercial law.

Well done to those commenting for perpetuating the stereotype that all lawyers are machines who can’t empathise.

(4)(13)

Anonymous

Trigger warnings are just the sharp and visible tip of the a very large iceberg that is endemic at modern universities and which is disrupting free speech and the free exchange of ideas. It is the publicly acceptable PR sanitized end of the same philosophy which has shut down abortion, feminism and race debates at Oxford University.

If you aren’t medically able to deal with university life due to severe trauma then take a longer break from uni on the advice of a qualified medical professional after they have looked at the evidence and reached a scientific conclusion not based on ‘feels’. Requiring the rest of the uni to wrap itself in cotton wool.

Nothing wrong with a lawyer being able to empathize and/or sympathize with other’s problems. Its probably why a lot of people become lawyers. Unfortunately what a grieving or emotionally distressed client needs is not a lawyer who breaks down with them, but one who can both understand their view and act calmly and rationally.

(13)(2)

Anonymous

Trigger warnings are just the sharp and visible tip of the a very large iceberg that is endemic at modern universities and which is disrupting free speech and the free exchange of ideas. It is the publicly acceptable PR sanitized end of the same philosophy which has shut down abortion, feminism and race debates at Oxford University.

If you aren’t medically able to deal with university life due to severe trauma then take a longer break from uni on the advice of a qualified medical professional after they have looked at the evidence and reached a scientific conclusion not based on ‘feels’. Don’t require the rest of the uni to wrap itself in cotton wool.

Nothing wrong with a lawyer being able to empathize and/or sympathize with other’s problems. Its probably why a lot of people become lawyers. Unfortunately what a grieving or emotionally distressed client needs is not a lawyer who breaks down with them, but one who can both understand their view and act calmly and rationally.

(2)(0)

Danger Mouser Chief Agitator & Rabble Rouser

I do not possess in my head the cranial space required for the eye-roll I’m about to undertake.

Oxford lol.

(3)(0)

Lord Lyle of the Sane

Why are there mental people at Oxford?

(0)(0)

Not Amused

Being exceptionally clever in our society is a huge burden. It takes an inevitable toll. When you then add in to the mix the fact that for a lot of these young people, going to Oxbridge is the first time they have ever met anyone as bright as them (and people brighter than them) and a colossal amount of stress – you get a heady mix.

I have always thought our attitude to the super bright is inherently unfair. On the one hand we despise them, while the super able at sport or music are raised up on pedestals. On the other we delight in tearing them down if they show the slightest weakness – if they lack a practical skills, make a typo or aren’t pretty.

We need a sense of balance. The way we currently are you would think the UK had been enslaved for a thousand years by tyrannical Mary Beards and dotty professors who had subjugated the masses who in turn had only just thrown off their oppressive yoke. Give the super bright a break.

(7)(3)

Anonymous

r/iamverysmart

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Call the wambulance.

(3)(0)

Unfazed stoic

I don’t care about trigger warnings because they don’t apply to me. So why does everyone else care so much? If it doesn’t apply to you, just shrug and move on, no? Be happy that you don’t have a recent / past trauma or whatever? If people want to be sensitive (or ‘human’) and avoid certain topics for whatever reason then that’s their prerogative, it’s their career. Whether that will help them with their studies or career or not isn’t really anyone else’s business.

Personally I’d always advocate a stoic approach but also I appreciate we’re not all the same.

It’s like saying mitigating personal circumstances should prevent people from being successful lawyers – what a ridiculous notion. There’s also so much more to a law career than what you do or don’t do at law school.

Also, lol that everyone assumes law students only want to work in criminal law, or even wants to be a lawyer.

(9)(6)

Anonymous

Finally someone sees sense!!

(3)(3)

Anonymous

The problem is that studying law should prepare you for your career. Living in a safe space won’t do that.

Also going to uni should prepare you for adult life. There are no trigger warnings once you’re an adult and you’re out in the world. You have to find develop ways to cope with unexpected things, and trigger warnings stop you from developing those coping mechanisms.

(6)(1)

Unfazed stoic

Just because someone appreciates a trigger warning for maybe one particular thing (say, someone who experienced long term sexual abuse as minor, who would maybe struggle to deal with looking at a certain case) doesn’t mean they spend their life living in a ‘safe space’? They could be an absoloute epic warrior of a person in every other area of their life.

Everyone has their one or two little (or big) things that’s an issue for them at some point in their life, because we’re humans wrought with all kinds of issues and neuroses. Everyone has triggers for something, big or small.

I agree that trigger warnings can go too far, and to be honest, I personally detest them on social media. Triggers are also entirely subjective and it’s not something that can easily be managed.

However I don’t agree that people requesting trigger warnings for a handful of things beause some people would benefit from that (and let’s face it, no one will be disadvantaged by a trigger warning) is such a bad thing nor that they should be branded delicate flowers. Survivors of trauma are generally the opposite anyway.

If someone doesn’t learn to be an adult at uni, or is inadequately prepared for their career post law school, it’s hardly going to be because of trigger warnings – it will be for a range of other reasons.

Anyway my points are:

1) wanting a trigger warning doesn’t make someone a delicate flower – it just means they’re delicate / sensitive on a particular topic (which everyone is at some point)
2) trigger warnings don’t hurt anyone personally
3) people will still be neurotic, attention seeking and want to hide in their ‘safe space’ whether trigger warnings are in operation or not if they want to
4) it’s sensible for people to be able to make an informed choice on something based on mitigating circumstances.

(2)(5)

Ellipsis

I believe the issue is, as an advocate, it is not about you and your peccadilloes, its about the client.

Though it is understandable that each individual may have different “triggers”, for the most part when advocating those are irrelevant. The client is paying and expecting a professional service tailored to their pressing needs.

Either you service the client, or someone else will. You can still express your displeasure of those triggers on your own time away from the client.

(3)(1)

Anonymous

[Scene: a prospective trainee is being interviewed at a Big Law firm]

Interviewer (A Pale Male, but he is a multimillionaire) – As you will know, lawyers here often work under considerable pressure, from sometimes difficult and demanding clients. Do you think you could cope with that?

Miss Petal Flower – I don’t mind, as long as the firm lets its lawyers make a choice for themselves about what they’re comfortable with and where they want to deal with it.

[Interview ends at this point]

(10)(1)

Sandman

Shouldn’t law undergraduates be smart enough to work out for themselves that a lecture on sexual offences will contain references that some viewers might find disturbing???

IMHO, the main thing that needs a trigger warning is when they tell the students about pupillage statistics.

(9)(0)

Glad to have been a 20th century kid

No one likes a smart-ass!

It’s this generation’s penchant for being cosseted and wrapped in cotton wool that manifests itself in the onsie fashion.

You can even buy nappies for teenagers in supermarkets these days- I kid ye not! I was buying some for my 18 month old and saw some for AGE 8-15!

No hope at all for this delicate flower generation.

(2)(0)

Wag

They’re Dry Nights- for bed wetters.

Quite appropriate really.

I wonder if they’re available in the Oxford University merchandise shops?

(0)(1)

Anonymous

I would warn a pupil barrister or mini-pupil if there was gory photographs in a brief; not so they can “opt out” but so they are not taken by surprise; we forget that the reaction after the first time we read /hear about unpleasant stuff is very different to the reaction to the same type of material after the 5th or 6th time and so on.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong in marking up for students that the next topic is, for example, sexual offences. If a student has a profound reason to opt out of that session, that is a pastoral matter & such a person should be supported.

(7)(0)

Anonymous

“Were”, not “was”- sorry

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Oxford is full of ABDL’s

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Abduls?

Bit racist isn’t it?

(0)(0)

Mrs. Mongoose

‘Takes Down Top Criminal Barrister?’ Where and how, exactly? Katie King has clearly led a sheltered life if she thinks this was worth column space.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

OK, as somebody who was raped…

I think they’re a bunch of crap and am not clear on why there is so much focus on them rather than things that would actually help rape survivors like counselling/other medical treatment, the police not being negligent and improving cultural attitudes of victim blaming etc.

I also can’t stand to be around the people who push trigger warnings. They’re very self righteous and eager to police people’s behaviour and I’m genuinely scared of them.

But you know… https://media1.giphy.com/media/k9XrZaAJuQyMU/200_s.gif

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Here’s an idea. The universities’ law faculties should make available – via website, course prospectus etc – a short list of sexually violent, gory or emotionally difficult cases and invite prospective applicants to read them. If a potential law student is unable to cope with any of the cases he or she can find a different course to apply for. Then the courses themselves can run as they always have: adults teaching adults, with no ‘trigger warnings’ or other ludicrous responsibility-denying bullshit.

And I reckon the number of applications will go up.

Sorted.

(3)(1)

Paul Summerfield

If I turned down instructions based on “distressing material” then I would not have any instructions. When you have a healthcare professional who has down something “rather distressing” and needs advice and representation then you can turn them away and hope they find somebody or you can deal with it. It is about being able to objectively view the material in front if you and if you have an issue, being able to deal with it effectively i.e. fellow colleague for advice or have another professional you can confide in. If you seek out the correct support mechanisms and then use them, you will be fine. If you do not, then it is your downfall. Although I do not take anything from the argument that University’s must consider undergraduate wellbeing, there are ways of doing this without being “namby pamby.” For example – put in place effective support structures. It is what you do in real life, with a real job, that has an impact on real people. How on Earth can a law undergraduate learn how to start to deal with those matters which are not all about “skipping through a field of wild flowers in the mountains” if they are not exposed to them at an undergraduate level? I think I will retrain as a post-graduate law counsellor. If law undergraduates are molly-coddled in this fashion, I foresee plenty of work on the horizon.

(2)(2)

Paul Summerfield

Green grocers apostrophe above – oops. Let the grammar police take me down.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

I’m sorry. If you really feel you need “trigger warnings” before certain lectures in criminal or family law, you are clearly not cut out for practice in either area. You wouldn’t last 10 minutes.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

If Litwin’s surprisingly badly written piece is what passes for an elite student’s considered argument the rest of us can relax.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

I’d hardly call it a ‘take down’ Katie…

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Anyone who gets upset about the content of law lectures really isn’t cut out to be a lawyer.

Just face facts. You cant pick and choose what issues a client comes to you with.

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.