Invisible Barriers
The law is designed to protect citizens and their right to life. It is the foundation upon which society functions; a framework that upholds the values of the nation and governs how individuals coexist.
For much of the last century, the democratic world was concerned with abolishing the textual gerrymandering of people divided by their social classification. Race, sex, orientation: arbitrary and mostly aesthetic differences expunged out of the law as barriers for citizens making a life.
Now that this literal compartmentalisation of freedoms and privileges is gone, 21st century laws are expected to reflect the intentions of the abolitionists: a set of rules which defines a meritocracy — one with some easily remedied flaws, but which is, for the most part, free for citizens to seize such merits.
The Limitations of Language
But what does it mean for the citizen that the law fails to perceive? In George Orwell’s 1984, the destruction of language is a purposeful destruction of humanity: injustice does not exist if the language for it ceases. Legal language is perhaps the most direct proponent of this power, but it can also be an accomplice in its misuse. Invisibility before the law then, is a form of violence.
Legal language, while it perseveres to capture the full intent of those who draft it, ultimately has a varying effect when siphoned through interpretations by courts, characterised by cultural and individual bias. When language serves as the underlying basis upon which entire communities are built, its absence can reinforce social harms.
Commonsensical Injustice
‘Commonsensical’ injustice operates, as described by Professor Elspeth Van Veeren, by exploiting ‘pervasive, dispersed, interconnected’ insecurities.
To justify the rollback of social support, Ronald Reagan inadvertently vilified black people, specifically black women, through the racist stereotype of the ‘Welfare Queen’: a caricature of a lazy, manipulative mother exploiting government aid. This image stoked white resentment and legitimised welfare cuts which disproportionately harmed Black communities. By framing systemic inequality as individual moral failure, Reagan deployed a tactic of political expediency in which the invisibility of structural racism assisted in deepening its social impact.
As of mid-2025, Donald Trump’s second term in office has been defined by a deliberate shift in federal governance. His administration’s quest to eliminate diversity and inclusion initiatives are framed as a return to meritocracy. Policies such as the nationwide rollback of affirmative action, defunding of DEI programs at universities and large-scale deportations of Americans all exemplify how state power can be weaponised to legitimise exclusion for private aims. There are currently 250 active lawsuits challenging the legality of Trump’s executive orders. By conflating sociopolitical and economic hardship experienced by the American majority with the existence of the minority of non-white immigrants, Trump recycles history’s scapegoat narrative to achieve political power while actively suppressing national systemic pitfalls.
Australia’s Legal Future
‘In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race.’ - Justice Harry Blackmun, Regents of the University of California v Bakke.
Visibility is essential. The legal profession is largely defined by its structural integrity, it is inevitable that the diversity of new entrants would collide with standards supported by its uniformity.
As is typical, the legal profession often equates fairness with sameness, thus cultural barriers are rarely acknowledged outright. This often takes the form of subtle doubts about their competence, tokenistic inclusion in diversity initiatives and workplace cultures that prize conformity.
The expectation to assimilate into predominantly white legal spaces places an additional emotional and cognitive burden on non-conforming practitioners, who must navigate both their professional identity and the unspoken demand to downplay their ‘otherness’. Without active efforts to confront and dismantle these barriers, the law risks reinforcing the very inequities it claims to remedy.
The law came about not to be replete with humanity. It is a document of rules against which humanity checks and measures itself against, and is expected to be edited when understanding of humanity progresses beyond its present efficacy.
Not everyone can rewrite the law, but the effort to be human can be made. In impressing the law, only those most trained in the law and of its principles can alter its texts. But the professionals’ decisions are informed by impressions of their everyday and deepened by the consequences of surrounding efforts.
Assumptions that form society are often formed through human error. But they can also be amended with human effort.
Written by Adelheid Ye
Edited by Adelheid Ye and Ai-Vy Nguyen