The Post Modernist Dilemma

Recently I decided to run for the position of Bencher of the Law Society #bencherelections2019.

What are we taught as lawyers?

As lawyers, we are taught to take positions, see both sides, advocate or debate for either parties’ interest in a matter.

Sometimes we can go too far.  Is it the competitive need to win, to prove ourselves in the eyes of our peers, a jury, a judge or the court of public opinion?

Post-modernist theory

Post-modernist theory (largely infused in our university/college-bound young adults) teaches that everyone’s viewpoint is valid, everyone’s experience should be viewed from their own set of experiences.  Everyone’s narrative and story are important.

Post-modernist theory teaches that everyone’s narrative and story are important.

The problem is that as a consequence anyone who is feeling less fortunate or as if the system has failed them must be experiencing the evils of a current system.

What happens when affirmative action programs go too far?

What happens when affirmative action programs go too far? What if they start to create and shut down the narrative of traditionally non-marginalized groups? Or fail to reward hard work and merit for some other metric?

How do we strike a fair balance between enhancing opportunities, acknowledging narratives and ensuring two wrongs don’t make a right?

What is the right metric for us as a country, as a province, a region, a city, a community, an organization or as a family?  Merit, I.Q., Skin Color, Race, Religion, Culture, Sex.

They can’t all be equally important.