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?
She states that her interest lies in Legal method.
She had appeared in the interview conducted in June 2023 for tenured position and was given a 3 year contract, while she expected a tenured position.
Or is she claiming that because of her identity claims she should be untouchable and allowed to continue in a contractual position even if that actually hurts the university ? Or that because she’s taught it for four years she has some territorial claim and should get to teach it forever ? Has she been barred from applying to the permanent position?
It’s a yearly renewable contract and that practice actually harms universities. Even if she is “well loved”, it’s still a government university and we should consider what’s good for the institution. I’m also failing to see the illegality here. But hey- maybe nalsar lawyers take the law less seriously than popularity.
Your views?