Home

TheSinner.net

More controversy: Union Gowns

Welcome to the Union message board. Here's your opportunity to tell us what you think of what we're doing on your behalf. Enjoy! - Oli Walker, Head of Media, Marketing and Design, http://www.YourUnion.netPlease post any requests for advice (about anything) on The Sinner's ADVICE board. Ta!

More controversy: Union Gowns

Postby Grandpa on Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:16 pm

As to the matter of union officers' gowns...I think it is absurd that the union officers are given a gown to wear.

Neither is it that hard to find out who a union officer is, nor to spot them once you do know. Also, if it makes them feel better about themselves, maybe they should ask themselves if they are doing the right job, or truly enjoy what they do.

No university or union bestowed (academic or otherwise) qualifications are given to the officers, other than the title of their position but this is not a qualification in the same sense. If a qualification were given (academic, necessarily) it would then seem suitable to offer the posession of a gown.

However, it is a quirky little 'tradition', if you can call it that - I wonder how long the union/association has been supplying these gowns...?? In fact, I seem to remember someone telling me that the gowns are not actually bought/supplied by the association at all, and thatb they are in fact given by the good grace of officers past?? I could be wrong.

Anyhow, my point remains that it is a pretentious and absurd tradition, one that I would absolutely not follow under the current circumstances.

This is an academic institution - not a playground!


[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]
We are gentlemen that neither in our hearts nor outward eyes envy the great nor shall the low despise.
Grandpa
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:42 am

Re:

Postby Al on Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:59 pm

"I could be wrong."

And the winner of the understatement of the year award is....

Cheap shots aside, the various SRC and Union officers used to be given a gown to wear to identify them at various "gown wearing" events. No qualification? It depends on what you mean by "qualification". For example, the Association President was qualified to wear the gown(s) of the President through being the President. There is no qualification for an undergraduate to wear the red gown or the black gown of divines. No qualification other than the fact that their status as such awards them the "right" to wear the appropriate gown. The same was true of Association officers. Of course, the situation is now slightly different as there appears not to be fixed gowns for the various positions.

SRC and Union officers have been wearing distinct gowns since a very long time. I have never heard of any of the gowns being bought by past officers. The gown of the Rector's Assessor was provided by a former Rector. As far as I know, all the other gowns were bought by the Association.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Midget on Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:49 pm

Grandpa is really scraping the barrel for things to criticise about the Union now. He's having a go at the gowns. What harm have the gowns ever done you Grandpa. Leave off the gowns they never hurt anybody (except when the North Sea wind flicks the red wool into your eyes when you're walking the pier perhaps).

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg Too far.
Midget
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:44 am

Re:

Postby RJ Covino on Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:42 pm

Quoting Al from 14:59, 23rd Dec 2005
SRC and Union officers have been wearing distinct gowns since a very long time.


I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.

Certainly there did exist in the not too distant past a manner of "badge of office" which went with being a Union supremo; that carried on until at least the '50's, I gather from photos. Said badge at that point merely comprised a patch of the University arms sewed onto a regular undergraduate gown (Come to think, I believe this was the case until the '60's as well, at least until the abortion that resulted in the University of Dundee). Amusingly, there's a chap with a secondhand gown inherited from a family member who turns up at Debates now who still wears one of the gowns of this variety.

Photographic evidence shows that the gowns of the black type with coloured facings have been around since at least the early '80's. There is that delightful photo of the Queen receiving the tiny scarlet gown for the newborn Prince William which has the President appearing in the gown I used to wear in an official capacity, the black with maroon facings which survived as the Association President's gown until Stevie Durant's time after which it was replaced by the current monstrosity.

Is that "a long time"? I suspect, as it's younger than "Grandpa," it might not be ancient enough for the whinging set.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com
RJ Covino
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Al on Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:16 pm

I was thinking of the photo you mention when I said "a very long time". You're probably right. It probably isn't a long enough time to satisfy Grandpa's strange sensibilites and curious concerns.

I remember a Senior Student of Sallies wearing a red gown with the patch you describe sewn on. I always assumed he had done it but perhaps he inherited the patch along with his gown...

And I have just noticed that the sentence you quote makes no sense. Ah well. That'll teach me to change the wording of sentences and not check them carefully.

ETA: Actually, I've found - in "St Andrews in Old Photographs - a photo of the installation of Jan Christian Smuts as Rector. The "SRC Representative" seems to be wearing an Association style gown. That would mean there has been at least one distinct Association gown since the 1930s. However, as the photo is obviously in black and white, it's hard to tell for sure.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby The chap on Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:57 am

What's the matter with you? You're a boring and pompous turd.
The chap
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:04 pm

Re:

Postby Al on Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:04 pm

Why thank you!
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Grandpa on Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:30 pm

OK, so let's change the subject a little...

Does anyone know how the wearing of gowns for those in positions in the students' assoc. came around?
We are gentlemen that neither in our hearts nor outward eyes envy the great nor shall the low despise.
Grandpa
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:42 am

Re:

Postby Grandpa on Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:58 pm

Quoting Al[/s]

the various SRC and Union officers used to be given a gown to wear to identify them at various "gown wearing" events.


But why? Why do they need some sort of special badge (read gown) to distinguish them? From what you say it seems that they feel the need to 'fit in' with all the other gown wearing people....who would, in the majority, tend to be academics. Not jumped up bureaucrats.

No qualification? It depends on what you mean by "qualification". For example, the Association President was qualified to wear the gown(s) of the President through being the President.


Yes, he seems to. However, my argument, if you read it, seems to centre around that academic gowns are just that - academic. Where else do we see non-academics wearing gowns (maybe apart from the honourary degree holders - but they still hold a degree (an academic achievement, however come by.


There is no qualification for an undergraduate to wear the red gown or the black gown of divines. No qualification other than the fact that their status as such awards them the "right" to wear the appropriate gown. The same was true of Association officers. Of course, the situation is now slightly different as there appears not to be fixed gowns for the various positions.


Any old iron...

Furthermore, since you state the inherent break from the need to have any particular gown (it seems to be quite logical that any union 'officer' can chose any old gown s/he wishes - yeah, why not, there's no real reason why they have them anyway.)

No qualification for an undergraduate to wear a red/black gown??? Yes there is, and you spelt it out quite well yourself. However, the wearing of an academic gown is done for academic tradition. The wearing of a union gown is done for no such academic reason at all, so it seems.

SRC and Union officers have been wearing distinct gowns since a very long time. I have never heard of any of the gowns being bought by past officers. The gown of the Rector's Assessor was provided by a former Rector. As far as I know, all the other gowns were bought by the Association.


A very long time...what exactly is a very long time? Is it 3 hours spent waiting for the bus? Or a period of years? Well, this seems to have been answered above.

Union gowns - a waste of time?? Maybe, as there still seems to be no reason for them. They seem just to be a cyst on the side of an academic tradition which spans centuries.

I don't wish people would stop wearing them, just wish that there was a real reason for an academic tradition to be adulterated - seeing that it has been, that is.

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]
We are gentlemen that neither in our hearts nor outward eyes envy the great nor shall the low despise.
Grandpa
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:42 am

Re:

Postby Grandpa on Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:04 pm

Quoting The Chap from 10:57, 29th Dec 2005

What's the matter with you? You're a boring and pompous turd.


I'll assume your comment was aimed at me, although it need not have been...

Those who feel either threatened or some other feeling always seem to resort to name calling and are quite the embodiment of that which they spew forth. Their ridiculous and fould nature shows them up for who they are. None of us are perfect, this is obvious, but some of us wish to have a sensible debate about something, not a tennis match using expletives for balls. And Chap - just say 'shut up' (it's a much nicer way of saying how you feel - however antagonised you are feeling at your lack of ability to argue either for or against a particular topic).

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]
We are gentlemen that neither in our hearts nor outward eyes envy the great nor shall the low despise.
Grandpa
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:42 am

Re:

Postby Al on Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:54 pm

I am not sure the red undergraduate gown could be described as an academic gown. It was introduced - if the traditional story is to be believed - to aid the identification of undergraduate students in places where they should not have been. That being the case, what is wrong with Association officers wearing gowns to identify them in places where they should be? Furthermore, I would suggest that the gowns routinely worn by many of the officers of the University are not academic gowns in the truest sense of the word.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Grandpa on Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:11 pm

I see your point, but are all of the older universities' undergrad. gown traditions such? I would have to cast a doubtful eye that they were held to be.

For instance Cambridge uses an archetypal gown which all colleges have their variances on. I suppose an historical debate may exist on the reasons for this, such as ours here, and the argument that they are used for identification may well be valid.

However, Cambridge's gowns are not all different from one another - at least two are, on the authority of The Cambridge University Heraldic & Genealogical Society, exactly the same in depiction. There may even be more.

I would argue that they serve more of a social purpose - that those who are studying be readily recogniseable from those who have reached different levels of academic achievement. Much like the various uniforms of the Church, gowns are used to depict whom has achieved what specific level, and are more a decorative item that practical (at least nowadays, anyhow).

This said, would it not be logical to think that an academic-style gown, bestowed for an essentially non-academic post such as the president of the students' association; even though he/she does have a lot to do with the university, he/she has no formal academic achievement, in the eyes of the university other than that which he/she has studied for. Furthermore, he/she is not even empolyed/appointed by the university, unlike the position of principal...etc...etc.

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]
We are gentlemen that neither in our hearts nor outward eyes envy the great nor shall the low despise.
Grandpa
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:42 am

Re:

Postby Al on Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:58 pm

I am not sure of your point. You seem to accept that the University has the right to have a set of prescribed gowns for various officials to wear, and yet you deny exactly the same right to the Students' Association. The gowns worn by the various student officers are not "academic" gowns. No one - until now - has ever said that they are. They are gowns of office.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:37 pm

Here we go again, Grandpa, I'm sorry but once more you're talking rubbish and doing it in such a pompously verbose way as to make comprehension a challenge ("I would have to cast a doubtful eye that they were held to be." What?)

The gowns have a more respectable provenance than you might think.

We'll start with the undergraduate gowns - they exist at all the Ancients in Scotland, they're all of a red fabric and they differ slightly from institution to institution. What they do not differ in is their purpose or their antiquity, all having been introduced in the C17th. What Cambridge does is flatly irrelevant as it is an entirely other tradition to that of the Scottish universities.

As I'm sure you are aware, divines wear black gowns because in days of yore a Divinity degree was always a second degree and thus a purple cross was sown to the black gown. Graduates, of course, wear black gowns.

Now, to officer bearers' gowns. They have a longer pedigree than they are being given credit for. They can be definitively dated (through photographs) to the early C20th and may be older still. Initially the Men's Union had a gown for its President and for the three Convenors (Dines, Billiards, Debates), I assume but I don't know for certain that in due course the Womens' Union President also had a special gown. The President, and other officers, of the SRC affixed badges to their undergraduate gowns because they were not officers of a private club (which may give its officers any badge it damned well pleases).

The gowns worn now are newer, yes, but the black ones are Association gowns, which is a relatively new body having been brought into being in the late 1970s and fully unified into a single entity in the 1980s. That new gowns were made is hardly pretension when the component bodies of the Association all but ceased to be and a new one was created. These gowns were not donated by officers, they were donated by The After Many Days Club, an association of alumni who are at least 25 years from their own graduations.

The Assessor's gown was commissioned by me, and made by Ede & Ravenscroft to replace a similar (but lower quality one) which the After Many Days Club had also provided. The first one was made for the first student Assessor in order that he would have appropriate garb for the high office to which he had been appointed - every prior one being an academic with his own festal gown.

And, for the record, the other Unions and Associations of the other Ancients also have gowns for their senior office holders, as Al says, the holding of the office is the qualification. Just as the Principal does not have a degree in Principalling which entitles him to the purple gown, he simply holds the office - or would you rathe he wore his doctoral gown? The Unions felt, rightly, that their officers should be well presented and appropriately attired at official functions, and that they should be garbed distinctively as an office holder.

So, once again you have spouted at length on a subject about which you know little. What a shock.
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby justignorehim on Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:55 am

I can't believe you people even bother replying. Grandpa obviously had a dull holiday, posting on the sinner at length about the rather untopical topic of gowns (who really cares?). And worst of all, some other likewise nutters have given him the time of day. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Grandpa, I can understand, he's bored, lonely, and likes to think of himself as being controversial; that's only to be pitied. The people who reply? More fool you.
justignorehim
 

Re:

Postby hmmmhaveabanana on Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:37 pm

"Anyhow, my point remains that it is a pretentious and absurd tradition"

If you dont like tradition go elsewhere!
hmmmhaveabanana
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:24 pm

Re:

Postby Grandpa on Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:29 pm

Quoting hmmmhaveabanana from 22:37, 16th Jan 2006
"Anyhow, my point remains that it is a pretentious and absurd tradition"

If you dont like tradition go elsewhere!


If you can't read my posts and understand what they are about, please, do noty waste my time by replying to them...

...I said I thought it an absurd and pointless tradition. And i do think so. If you disagree, then disagree, but please don't thwart me for simply having a point of view.

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]
We are gentlemen that neither in our hearts nor outward eyes envy the great nor shall the low despise.
Grandpa
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:42 am

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:47 pm

Even if it's an ignorant point of view? I assume we've convinced you of your error, either that or you've deliberately chosen to ignore facts and hold to your own position regardless. If the latter, I'm heartily glad I've never had to teach you.
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Grandpa on Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:08 am

Quoting exnihilo from 12:47, 21st Jan 2006
Even if it's an ignorant point of view? I assume we've convinced you of your error, either that or you've deliberately chosen to ignore facts and hold to your own position regardless. If the latter, I'm heartily glad I've never had to teach you.



Well, are you so high and mighty that your opinion counts more than anyone else’s? Just because you may be have (a) certain degree(s) in this or that does not mean you are infallible/correct/perfect in your views. Rather, I think I am just not scared to stand up to you and say what I think. If you are glad you never have to teach me, I wonder why – because I shall show I am not ignorant, and I have on many occasion on this website actively thanked you and those around you for enlightening me. That you negate to acknowledge this is, I would say, probably not down to my ignorance, but rather down to your own shortness of civility in such matters.

We'll start with the undergraduate gowns


that's (implicitly) off topic as I am not talking about undergraduate gowns, simply union ones, but I will expand

Now, to officer bearers' gowns


that's more like it

They can be definitively dated (through photographs) to the early C20th and may be older still.


Yes, they may be older, but since I assume that you have found/know of no photos or evidence to the contrary I shall postulate that they are not much or considerably older than C20th.

the black ones are Association gowns, which is a relatively new body having been brought into being in the late 1970s and fully unified into a single entity in the 1980s.


My statement that they are pretentious, I think, still holds:

Gowns for all office-holding positions that I can think of (those in the wider public sphere included alongside those used by 'ancient' universities as you say [s](although the use of the word ancient is probably inappropriate as it refers to much older entities – but it’s use is probably a matter of style and fashion, rather than of unerring correctness, so I shall dispense with my pedantry)[/s] are all used in the tradition that these were actually the official uniforms of those wearing them, as we know.

Now, that a university Principal, or other office holder wears such dress dates back not to the 1930's (or maybe longer), but most unequivocally back centuries if not further back into the echelons of history with a use begun by those echelons privileged by such history to wear them.

That any essentially corporate body no more than 26 or 27 yrs in age chooses to use such attire I think partially inappropriate. Why so? Because the history of this union does not span back centuries.

Of course, the kindly commissioned Assessor's gown I would argue does deserve it's own right of existence as it has a direct bearing on the running of the University Court. The same may be said of other office holders that sit at Court. You might see my point (though I doubt it) if I say that any use of gowns with disregard for direct and unambiguous links to an organisations, shall we say, 'ancient' history is unsuitable.

In this light, I would defend 'new' universities' rights to use gowns, as the tradition has spanned in history amongst other universities.

I would not defend any recently-formed business of specifically non-academic/historic significance if it wanted to use them for it's affairs. The Students' Assoc. is one of these such businesses, essentially owned/controlled by the university (although I understand this is a grey area and debateable - please, don't bore me with the specifics - it's not important here), it was not formed for a specific academic purpose. It was formed to represent students, but any group of students may represent itself and does not necessarily need an association of students to do so. Some may even say in jest that an association of students just makes things more complicated. Parts of Organisational Theory would say just this, with no jest included.

The Association is not an academic body. It is at best representational and social. The university is an academic body - it primarily teaches, whereas the Association tries to represent, but doesn't really get very far (in my opinion - yes, you will disagree, but lets not go there too).

So, all in all, the Association is not a specifically academic or extended historic body, and as such should not use/condone the use of gowns by those amongst its ranks who do not have any direct and official business with the University Court (or other such academic dress-wearing group).

Admittedly, my original statement implied the use of all gowns was incorrect - I was wrong to imply that.

[s]Once again you have assumed I know nothing. Once again I have displayed that I have a different opinion based on (I assume) different views of 'what is'. It is only my final view on matters that is normative - and very simply so indeed. Maybe it is a good idea to remember what I am – a student. That means I am learning, and whilst you show absolutely no lenience for the mistakes I make, and ridicule me at every possible opportunity (and, what’s worse, in your own free time as well – just imagine how you’d make a student feel (bearing in mind that most are younger and thus possibly more sensitive than I am) if you treated them in the same manner? I doubt you ever would, seriously I do doubt that). But what I would ask is that you display tolerance for those who may not have your level of experience and understanding. If they try to argue with you, stop and think that it may not be a direct attack on you but rather simply a display of most probably a different point of view (which I would say everyone is entitled to). If you could do this for those who are trying to learn – at possibly a greater effort than those younger students - then I think we would all benefit.[/s]


[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]
We are gentlemen that neither in our hearts nor outward eyes envy the great nor shall the low despise.
Grandpa
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:42 am

Re:

Postby Al on Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:08 am

I say again (for what I hope will be the last time) that the gowns worn by officers of the Association are not academic gowns. The gown worn by the Rector's Assessor is not an academic gown. The gown worn by the Rector is not an academic gown. The gown worn by the Principal is not an an academic gown. And so on... They are gowns of office. They are worn so people can identify the people who hold the posts which qualify the wearer to wear the gown. There is no other qualification necessary than that. There is certainly no need for an institution to reach a certain age before its officers are allowed to have traditions. And even if there were, the Association (as the legal inheritor to all things pertaining to the Men's Union) could argue that it qualified on age grounds. Your bizarre prejudice blinds you to these facts.
Al
 
Posts: 3992
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Next

Return to The Students' Association (Union)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron