We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
How is this post relevant to law????
The above is a short primer. You can give Pedagogy of the Oppressed a read for greater depth.
In my opinion, any attempt to systematize or officially organize a system for "non-privileged" students will only fail, as strong-arming change by attempting for equality of outcomes seldom works with the government, and would be even worse in a smaller closed setting like a law school, where everyone knows each other.
What I think that anyone claiming to be "non-privileged" needs is an excellent grasp or command of the English Language. The ability to read extensively and comprehend material, the ability to write and draft cohesively, and the ability to speak in English without feeling the need to translate from their mother tongue simultaneously. If you can crack that, you can crack most of the academics and co-curriculars at law school. Even translating what is being said in certain lectures would also help out a lot.
If you want to help someone, help them. Regardless of whether they are "non-privileged" or "privileged". If your batchmate is struggling with the above-mentioned reading, writing, and speaking skills, help them out. Help them understand legal comprehension, help them identify what makes good drafting, and help them with speaking coherently. It can be something overt like literally teaching them how to do this, or something covert like saying yes to proofreading their draft CVs, emails, projects, speeches, etc. Thinking about your batchmate or junior when you come across an opportunity that might benefit them, and sharing the same with them would also help. Help your broke friend attend their moot or something by loaning them some travel money if you can or if you are broke yourself, refer them to potential sponsors.
There is no need to go out of your way to offer help to people who don't ask for it in my opinion. All of you have to do, is just make sure you seem approachable to them. Foster a relationship with your batchmates and juniors that makes them feel at least kind of secure and comfortable so that they don't get anxious to talk to you or ask for help.
In short, no need for any organized effort to help any particular class of people. Help those who need help and ask for help. Make sure you create an environment where anyone can ask you for help. That's all. Make sure you help if you care and don't fret about making others help. All of these things are basic human values or manners, but I write them down here as one tends to get lost in terms of personal values and integrity in law school. Stop seeing the world through the lens of "upper caste, heterosexual, cisgender, male, women, LGBTQ+ persons, Dalits, tribals, Muslims, etc." and start seeing it as those who need help and will ask for it and those who can help and will provide for it, out of their own volition. Trust me, if you wanna stand out amongst the law school crowd, just be a genuinely good person, and you'll be miles ahead, lol :)
You will break caste, religious and sexual homogeneity through quotas. Itβs the only way. But I am a critic of existing reservation policies.
I would suggest a micro-focused reservation policy as follows:
- 20 % SC (including Dalit Christian, excluding Pasmanda Muslim)
-10% Pasmanda Muslim
- 15 % ST (including Christian ST)
- 15 % OBC (excluding rich agricultural castes like Jats and Yadavs)
- 5 % LGBTQ+ persons ( from all castes)
- 2% special quota for Rohingya Muslims with UN refugee cards ( as they are excluded from CAA)
- 3% PWD (from all castes)
- 10% women from EWS category (from all castes)
- No state domicile reservation
I am aware that this leaves only 20% seats in the open merit/pure merit category, but this is already the case in many NLUs, including NUJS and MNLU. Itβs a good enough number, as these people donβt face any social disadvantages. Also, a person in this category is free to apply to Jindal, where there is no such reservation and many such students are doing so.
why are STs being given twice their population share???
why is EWS only for women? and its opening-up to all castes is absurd, since OBC-NCL has similar income criteria, and SC/ST don't even have creamy layer limitations
why are we cutting PwD reservation from 5 to 3? just to get a neat number? its horizontal anyways so your math is bad as well
legally a Pasmanda-Muslim reservation is stupid as it invites conversion hopping, much better to have as OBC sub-categorisation, or SC sub-categorisation when thats legalised
agree with no domicile reservation and exclusion of upper OBCs though
also imagine giving reservation to non-citizens, only slightly less absurd than lavender reservation ( literally just identify as NB and claim quota, you don't have to prove anything )
Jindal is only for the very rich, what you do fucks over the general middle class ( they may not be underprivileged, but they are also not privileged )