Skip to content

Debate rages at LSUC over accreditation of TWU law degrees

|Written By Yamri Taddese

Virtually all Law Society of Upper Canada benchers who spoke at a special Convocation this morning said Trinity Western University’s Christian covenant includes discriminatory elements that will have impact on access to the legal profession.

TWU’s covenant ‘smacks of another era’ and ‘it’s so clearly discriminatory,’ argued Bencher Paul Schabas.

The university is seeking accreditation of its proposed law school, which will require students to subscribe to a community covenant banning “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

To bencher Paul Schabas, the decision on whether or not to accredit the law school is a no brainer. TWU’s covenant “smacks of another era” and “it’s so clearly discriminatory,” he said, adding that the law society would be participating in that discrimination if it accredits TWU’s law school.

Schabas reminded benchers that just recently, they unanimously endorsed a motion to denounce Uganda’s anti-gay laws. “But do we not apply the same commitment to human rights at home?” he asked.

Bencher Janet Minor asked Convocation to consider the impact of accrediting a school that limits its pool of applicants based on values other than merit. If the law society accredits TWU’s law school, “it would be the first time we legitimized differential standards to admission to the profession,” she said.

To some, the debate over accrediting the law school despite its covenant was reminiscent of historic discrimination toward minorities in other forms. Aboriginal bencher Susan Hare said faith-based institutions have in the past justified maltreatment of Aboriginal Canadians as well.

In an emotional speech, Chinese-Canadian Bencher Avvy Go reminded Convocation about the Chinese head tax and discrimination that historically targeted Chinese lawyers. “Today, I hope our social values have changed,” she said, noting no one should be barred from going to law school due to their race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Ex-officio Bencher Clayton Ruby called TWU’s provision on gays “hateful” and urged benchers to reject it. He added the Christian faith does not require its followers to found a law school and that rejecting the law school will not impinge on religious freedom.

Ruby suggested no religion promotes discrimination against gays. “If you do, you’re on your own,” he said.

Gerald Swaye, also an ex-officio bencher who has served on Convocation for nearly two decades, said the controversy over accrediting TWU’s proposed law school is one of the most significant questions the law society has ever had to consider.

“Discrimination in any institution is just plain wrong in this day and age,” he said.

Some benchers also considered the disadvantages of rejecting TWU’s bid for approval. Bill McDowell said it is important, too, that the legal profession promotes diversity that includes people of minority faith. But he also said TWU’s covenant misses the point that being gay “isn’t what LGBT people do, it’s who they are at the core.”

TWU’s president and chancellor were present at Convocation as observers. The school will be given a chance to respond in writing to the concerns raised at today’s meeting before a final decision is made on its accreditation on April 24.

The debate continues this afternoon. Watch the webcast here.

Update Apr. 11: The Law Society of British Columbia voted today to accept TWU law school graduates 20:6

  • Lawyer

    Reg D. Hornberger
    "it would be the first time we legitimized differential standards to admission to the profession": What about letting native Indians in to law school with lower GPAs and LSAT scores than are allowed for other entrants? This happens at virtually all law schools in Canada.
  • RE: Debate rages at LSUC over accreditation of TWU law degrees

    Robert Peterson
    The majority of LSBC benches drew the conclusion that the 2001 Supreme Court of Canada decision re TWU applied. However, they offered no analysis of why it does (in other words reasons off their decision). Drawing that conclusion upon reading materials and then voting does not, in my respectful view, meet the requirement of considering the issue and rendering a decision. For instance, how did the LSBC analyze 2001TWU in light of newer case law that shows the courts Charter analysis was flawed on the belief/conduct issue? How did it confront the Whatcott decision. In my view the LSBC had a discussion but did not provide any reasons for its decision.
  • RE: Debate rages at LSUC over accreditation of TWU law degrees

    Paul Loreto
    In Ontario the law society is giving this matter more dedicated consideration. The BC law society meeting, on the other hand, reflects people who are mostly uncomfortable with the matter before them and while most were informed a number of them were unprepared and relied on the comments of others to determine their views.

SPECIAL REPORTS



Save

SUBSCRIBE TO LEGAL FEEDS

BY EMAIL

AWARDS

  • clawbies 2015
    clawbies 2014
  • clawbies 2013
    clawbies 2012
  • clawbies 2011
    clawbies 2010