by Clayton Ruby
May 22, 2001
In the matter of the recent University of Toronto law school marks scandal, lawyer David Scott seeks to "set the record straight" on behalf of his client, Ron Daniels, the dean of law. He stated in The Globe last Wednesday that when they were before the dean, none of the student clients I represented suggested that some of the responsibility for lying about marks rested with the law firms who sought to hire them, or with the law school.
You judge. Here is what I said to the dean on behalf of all my student clients at the very beginning of the hearing.
"The students write the December exams and they are told only that the focus of these exams is on pedagogical purposes. The December tests are described in the Academic Handbook in the following manner: 'The principle purpose of these "fail-safe" tests is to allow students to practise problem-type law school examinations.' After the tests were written and returned, the law school changed the rules in a memorandum dated Jan. 8, 2001, where, for the first time, students were told that the large Bay Street firms would demand the test results as part of the application process. Nonetheless, that memorandum notes that 'at a meeting in December, Faculty Council opposed any issuance of statements of grades for the first-year December tests. Therefore, not only will no statement of grades be issued, but the Records Office will continue its policy of not verifying exam results.'
"The law school created the sense that these are not 'real' grades. First, they are not appealable. Prof. Phillips said at the Faculty Council meeting of Dec. 6, 2000, 'First-year test grades are not "real" grades, since they cannot be appealed.' Second, no transcripts are even issued by the faculty. The Jan. 8, 2001, memorandum just tells the students to 'simply append a piece of paper to your application listing your results.'
"There is intense pressure from the Bay Street law firms. Many students didn't want to, or didn't at first give grades. The law school wrongly permitted these large firms to exert pressure on the first-year students. For example, during a career planning panel discussion held at the law school on Jan. 17, 2001, Mary Jackson, a lawyer from Blakes, and Sarah MacKenzie, a lawyer from Torys, announced that first-year summer job applications would be considered 'incomplete' by the firms unless and until December test results were provided. The dean wrongly allowed these firms to exercise this power and control despite the stated purpose of the test. This pressure was foreshadowed by Prof. Brudner at the Dec. 6 Faculty Council meeting where he said, 'Students will be pressured to give out marks that may not be included in their final marks.' This is not an excuse for cheating, but it contributed to an atmosphere of confusion over those tests, their significance, and to a debate about the legitimacy of the demand for these marks by the Bay Street firms."
Those remarks were made on behalf of every single student whom I represented. I am not surprised that Mr. Scott and Dean Daniels were unable to hear any suggestion that they carry some responsibility in this matter. If you do not understand the influence of the big Bay Street firms and their millions of dollars of donations heaped upon the law faculty, you have understood nothing of significance.
The harsh and unconscionable penalties -- including transcript notations that will prevent the students from getting articling jobs and thus ever qualifying for admittance to the Bar -- are the dean's attempt to prove his loyalty and toughness to the big firms. They are hardly a compassionate judgment on students who made a mistake, withdrew their applications, got no jobs, and have regretted what they did ever since. Clayton Ruby is a Toronto lawyer.