Last year the Faculty of Law ordered an examination of the gender perspective of the undergraduate programme of law in Lund. When the report was ready the faculty issued an ultimatum: either censure the sensitive parts or we will not publish.
To what extent is a gender perspective used for law students in Lund? That is the question nine law students were supposed to answer during the spring of 2013. They had been assigned to do the report by the faculty’s Equality and Diversity Committee, who in turn had been asked by the faculty board to work with the question.
The issue of gender perspective for law students had been a debated topic at Juridicum for many years. Already in 2004 students protested against the alienated sense of reality and the lack of critical perspectives of their education. In 2011 an inventory of the course literature for the law students concerning its gender perspective was carried out and through the report it became clear that women appeared as passive housewives or victims.
In 2013 it was time to examine the teaching. The examination was going to be based on interviews with teachers and students at the Faculty of Law and be a foundation for further work concerning gender and diversity. Just like the report about the course literature there were plans to publish it.
Preparatory course in methodology
Before the students started to work on the project they took a special designed course of 4,5 credits to prepare them and give them the right tools for the task. The course was held by Rebecca Sellberg, substituting senior lecturer, in collaboration with the Department of Gender Studies.
“I held an introductory course in research methodology. Together we also discussed what kind of questions to ask and the limitations of the subject,” she says.
After the course the students worked independently with the report. Eight course directors, nine teachers, and eight students were interviewed in total.
Tight deadline
During the summer of 2013 the project group processed the interview material. They worked towards the goal that they would finish the report by the end of the autumn semester.
“Until the end of the summer we had been told that we had until Christmas to finish the report, but suddenly the deadline was moved to September,” one of the students from the project groups says and continues: “We got to know about the new deadline three weeks before it was due. It was a lot of work but we made it.”
Per Norberg, Head of the Equality and Diversity committee Committee cannot remember any deadline being expedited.
“I can’t deny that we asked about when it would be finished but we did definitely not put any undue pressure,” he says.
Experiences of class contempt
The finished report points towards the fact that both students and teachers feel that there is a gender perspective on the teaching but that there is a problem implementing the perspective. The problems observed concerns, among other things, a lack of knowledge among the lecturers, which sometimes can result in the subject being extenuated. Another problem is the lack of time, which results in the perspective being neglected in favour for other things. Finally, a number of students mentioned that they have experienced teachers expressing class contempt
Wanted to hide negative quotes
The findings of the reports were supposed to be presented by some of the students from the project group during a staff day arranged in November. Per Norberg then asked the students not to present the findings about class contempt.
“We thought it felt wrong not to. We are students and have learnt academic honesty so why should there be exceptions if an uncomfortable issue occurs in a report?,” says one of the students from the project group.
“The fact that someone can express class contempt creates an atmosphere where it’s okay to do so. Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to publish it and make it more visible,” says another one of the students.
According to students from the project group it was not until the staff day that they got to know that the report could not be published in its current form.
“We were given an ultimatum to either censure the sensitive parts or not to publish at all.”
“Destroys the image for the public”
Per Norberg sees no problems with the alternatives he gave the students.
“No, I don’t feel that it’s academically dishonest. They made a good and clear report that describes a problem but just because it’s a problem doesn’t mean that we need to make it public.”
Per Norberg thinks the faculty is aware of the fact that there can be an excluding jargon against class and others. But he also thinks that it would be devastating if it was published, for example if someone googles the Faculty of Law in Lund, since it doesn’t give a representative description of reality.
“We are working hard towards the goal that there should be no upper class culture but every time someone writes something about that it destroys the public image we have tried to create,” he says.
Wrote a summary
Since the project group refused to censure their material, the publication of the report was not dealt with by the faculty. Instead the Equality and Diversity Committee has made a conclusion of the report where the choice of words is different. But that report can neither be found published nor online.
“It felt like the purpose was to make the report as invisible as possible,” says one of the students from the project group.
“Do they want a report saying that everything is perfect? That is a very strange point of view, to make a new report until everybody is miraculously approved in all areas. It’s not like we are saying that we present the absolute truth in the report. We have just been showing some teachers and students points of view. ”
No formal decisions
Christia Moëll, Head of the Faculty of Law, says that there have been no formal decisions from the faculty whether or not to make the report public.
“Of course it should be accessible, we have just chosen not to multiply it.”
What Christina Moëll means with accessible is that it is a public document which one can demand to look at. She is also referring to the summary of the report.
“I think it can be of more interest since it is more accessible,” she says.
The fact that there have been discussions concerning the quotes about class contempt is nothing that she is aware of.
“As far as I understood it, everyone agreed that it was a good alternative to make a conclusion in consultation with the faculty,” says Christina Moëll.
Quotes:
[checklist]
The quotes are from the report Norm Criticism at the Undergraduate Programme of Law, which is based on interviews with course directors, professors and students at the undergraduate programme of law.
“I have experienced an interest among some students in the subject. But I have also got the impression that those who teach gender perspectives sometimes experience a threatening atmosphere when they discuss topics related to that. One gets the impressions that the students almost get irritated, and the atmosphere becomes aggressive […]” (Lecturer)
“I have friends with parents who don’t have an academic background who study here. And I have noticed that it can be difficult for them sometimes, that they don’t feel comfortable here.” (Student)
“…there are a few very horrible examples where some lecturers have expressed a class contempt.” (Student)
“[…] there is a great majority who doesn’t take the gender perspective seriously, extenuate it. And then there is a dedicated minority who is passionate about it. (Student)
“[…] I think I have gotten worse at critical thinking since I started here.” (student)
“There is a large amount of students who have never come in contact with a problem or aspects previously, or that don’t understand why gender should be a relevant aspect at all.” (Lecturer)
[/checklist]
