J'Accuse

 

Centre spread by Michael Piaskoski - the Hearsay Sex Issue 

Before I continue the tale of the small student publication and the giant downtown law firm, I thought I'd mention that a reader of this blog told me that she thought the whole idea of a sex-themed student humour magazine was utterly irredeemable. Talking about sex in the workplace is a form of sexual harassment.

She's right. 

But, in 1992, just to prove we had a ways to go, while I was uncomfortable with the concept, it also had the allure of the taboo. As I told the Jewinskis: "I am, by most accounts, a fairly nice person, with only a few, very small, evil bones in my body."

Those evil bones did not help me with my brief chat with the Dean on that dreadful Wednesday morning. He didn't want to talk over the phone. He wanted to meet in person. The only time we could do that was at 3:00 p.m. on Friday, so I would have a full two days to figure out what else I might do besides pursue a career in law.

After the Dean hung up, I called my fellow editors, gave them the good news about the meeting on Friday, and then went to class.

Back at home around 4:30 p.m., I saw I had four messages on my phone. Three messages were from my co-editor Mike Dunleavy, who said in his first message that he had worked at Fasken Campbell Godfrey as a summer student just a few months before. 

In his second message Mike said he would call the firm himself. He recorded in his third message what he found out:

We decide to put a raunchy picture of Madonna on the cover, and say "SEX is sponsored by Fasken Campbell Godfrey" at the same time that the law firm is undergoing an emotionally-charged sexual harassment policy review and is worried about being seen to have sexist hiring and promotion practices.

The conclusion drawn by the firm was that the editors of The Hearsay had deliberately chosen to mock them.

The fourth message on my phone was from a friend of mine who was articling at Fasken Campbell Godfrey. I called her back first.

She confirmed what Mike had said in his message. The minute our obligatory sponsor's copy showed up at the firm, rumour ran rampant, hysteria flew high.

At the time, to me, this was both terrifying and preposterous.  Whatever else you could say about the questionable content and dreadful writing in The Hearsay, there was no deliberate intention to mock the firm. We had no knowledge of their internal policy reviews ... but I wondered, when I learned Mike had worked there, if we could deny that.

Still, guilt needs to be proven. I felt in my few, small, evil bones that the best way to deal with a tempest in a teapot was to let it blow itself out.

So, even though Mike called and offered to apologize to the firm, and even when my friend called me again and said I could apologize, I stood my ground. I said we had nothing to apologize for. The intended audience of the magazine - the students - had seen nothing wrong with it; our motives were innocent. The law firm over-reacted. In a week none of this would matter.

Of course, the meeting wth the Dean was less than two days away and, according to my friend at the firm, my co-editors and I would be talking to the formidable threesome of the Dean, the senior partner at the firm and, god help me, the President of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

To give you an idea of my raw nerve in the face of such absurdity, this is what I said to my friend:

"Let them bring on the big guns if they want to. I'll just let them keep talking until they convince themselves they are being unbelievable asses. It'll also give me a chance to do some networking. How many opportunities am I going to get to meet the President of the Law Society?"

Next week, the thrilling conclusion to "two days that went down in the history of the firm as the 'least hours billed in a 48-hour period'." 

Thanks for reading!

Have a great week!

Karen

Not my puppy.