No wonder you are thinking of the Marseillaise! (One of my favourites ever since learning it in 3rd form at school). It does indeed seem as if the timing of the Auckland University Vice-Chancellor's proposal is a machination to have it progressed with as little noise and opposition as possible. I appreciate the background you have provided in your article and very much support your and others' opposition to the proposal. Aux armes, David, and Bonne Chance!
Thank you for your clear, discerning and judicious analysis. To adopt your passionate Marseillaise metaphor, bombarding of the Auckland University Vice-Chancellor’s proposal, not only builds insurmountable protective barricades protective of the Law Faculty, but leads the faithful over the ramparts to charge the core of the enemy camp. You provide a tidy, cultural, and historical context for your opposition to any “merger” of the Law and Business faculties and I agree with your identification of the motivation behind the proposal.
In his 1987 report to the New Zealand Law Society "Report on the Reform of Professional Legal Training in New Zealand” Canadian Professor Neil Gold sensibly concluded:
“Law education is both deep and varied. Because law cannot helpfully be abstracted from its social, economic and political milieu, it cannot be truly understood except in the context of human aspiration and endeavour. Yet it is also a practical subject which seeks solutions to difficult problems of policy and justice. In the best of all possible worlds it is a general legal education which prepares graduates to face and adapt to change in all aspects of their lives, but especially throughout their legal careers.”
No wonder you are thinking of the Marseillaise! (One of my favourites ever since learning it in 3rd form at school). It does indeed seem as if the timing of the Auckland University Vice-Chancellor's proposal is a machination to have it progressed with as little noise and opposition as possible. I appreciate the background you have provided in your article and very much support your and others' opposition to the proposal. Aux armes, David, and Bonne Chance!
Thanks for the encouragement Sheryl. Much appreciated.
Another musical piece - perhaps just as martial is La Victoire est nous - a stirring piece more associated with Bonaparte than the pure Revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njw-g09XPmM
Thank you for your clear, discerning and judicious analysis. To adopt your passionate Marseillaise metaphor, bombarding of the Auckland University Vice-Chancellor’s proposal, not only builds insurmountable protective barricades protective of the Law Faculty, but leads the faithful over the ramparts to charge the core of the enemy camp. You provide a tidy, cultural, and historical context for your opposition to any “merger” of the Law and Business faculties and I agree with your identification of the motivation behind the proposal.
In his 1987 report to the New Zealand Law Society "Report on the Reform of Professional Legal Training in New Zealand” Canadian Professor Neil Gold sensibly concluded:
“Law education is both deep and varied. Because law cannot helpfully be abstracted from its social, economic and political milieu, it cannot be truly understood except in the context of human aspiration and endeavour. Yet it is also a practical subject which seeks solutions to difficult problems of policy and justice. In the best of all possible worlds it is a general legal education which prepares graduates to face and adapt to change in all aspects of their lives, but especially throughout their legal careers.”
Thank you for the quotes fromJustice Hammond.
Our legal education did indeed teach us to think critically, and I suspect that no business course will come near to it in rigour.
'If it's not broke, don't fix it' is still a good rule of thumb. And where, oh where, is the evidence that this change is needed?
I too learned the Marseillaise in 4th form French, which I did not take any further, but I've never forgotten them. Stirring stuff.
I concur with the opinion of my learned friend on the wool sack and have nothing to add.
David, have you copied this to the Bar Assn and NZLS executives? A must, I would suggest. Aux armes les advocats!
The Bar Assn is not interested. I don’t know about NZLS. But the more submissions in opposition the better!