Education and the Law

     In Dean Spade’s lecture he touched on the misunderstanding that we come to believe that everything is done because the laws have been passed. This belief is a part of the top-down belief of power or visibility politics that says that what is said on the larger scale about a group will matter. I completely agree with his point but it was hard for me to formulate how activism would work when a legal end point is no longer the focus. It is not that I do not think it could work I just wonder how it would work. In group discussion on the Spade lecture we were stuck with the idea of how a trickle-up social justice model would function. Being mindful of the un-encompassing nature of laws this model would have to function in a way that it did not depend on the legal system for action. In our current society this would be complicated. Even if you started this model with basic education starting in primary or secondary school this would involve a change in curriculum. This would mean the Ministry of Education would have to decide it was in the ‘interest’ of the children to add this component of education. This is not actually changing the law but I think it is easy to see this as a similar process. Educators who believe in this model would not be able to just start teaching it without facing some sort of ridiculous backlash. Therefore, what we are left with is a very neoliberal idea of being personally responsible for teaching yourself and enacting this trickle-up social justice model. The issue of curriculum change is evident in the fight for teaching about consent, options other than abstinence, and inclusive sexual education. The impact of not receiving this education could be extremely detrimental to adolescents. It is often hilariously sad hearing what people were taught in sex education because it basically amounts to absolutely nothing useful.

     Another part of Spade’s lecture that was thought provoking was the idea of abolishing the coercive norms of family structure; questioning the ideas of health care, inheritance, etc. The current family structure tells us we must marry our partner to have access to their benefits etc. and if we do not marry there is worry of what happens when something bad occurs to one partner (power of attorney, life insurance etc.). This structure leaves us with a narrow definition of partnership. I know there have been laws to assist with some of these issues but again we cannot rely on the passing of laws for all types of justice for all people.

This ended up being quite a mishmash of thoughts so I apologize for clarity issues.