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.