"Old boys' drinking club"

[Anon.]

This is a phrase that seems to have been bandied about rather a lot recently. But when has the Union Debating Society ever borne the slightest resemblance to such a body?

The exclusivity implied in the word "club" is clearly nonsense, as membership of the Society is open - and indeed, automatic - to all members of the Students' Association.

The Society has never been just about drinking. The focus of every event I have attended has been on the debate; the drinking is merely a recreational aside. And, in any case, though I genuinely have the utmost affection for Laura, based on my own observations I can't help but feel that if she is berating others for frequent consumption of alcohol during debates, she would do well to look to the beam in her own eye.

And old boys of where, exactly? Dundee High?

[creative]

It's the lack of old boys that seems to be the problem nowadays.

[Al]

"The Society has never been just about drinking. The focus of every event I have attended has been on the debate; the drinking is merely a recreational aside."

Exactly. I think the point of the recent debate is not that the Union Debating Society is an "Old boys' drinking club". Rather, it was to make sure that it does not become one. Or worse, that it is perceived as one.

And - in my opinion - there is nothing wrong with drinking during Debates. And Debates functions will always see some heavy drinking. The problems arise when the drinking gets out of hand and people make fools of themselves or the society.

[Anon.]

Quoting Al from 22:03, 20th May 2005
Exactly. I think the point of the recent debate is not that the Union Debating Society is an "Old boys' drinking club". Rather, it was to make sure that it does not become one.

The days when every member of the Board of Ten was also a member of the Strafford or similar are well and truly over, and I doubt very much that they will ever be again.

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting Anon. from 22:21, 20th May 2005

The days when every member of the Board of Ten was also a member of the Strafford or similar are well and truly over, and I doubt very much that they will ever be again.

Indeed, the Stafford has gone downhill. At Christmas, they forgot the words to Jerusalem. Shame!

[David Bean]

Though I cannot speak for anyone else, there are several general trends that I object to (and have fought against for years), which have been summed up under the name "old boys' drinking club" for the sake of convenience. They include, but are not limited to:

- Male-centric attitides bordering upon mysogeny
- Drunken, disorderly and (paradoxically) ungentlemanly behaviour during Society functions, be they debates, dinners or others
- Disorder in the House, including spurious Points of Order etc., raised with a view to undermining the Convenor (I'm proud to say that I regularly refused to accept Points of Order from certain members on the grounds that I could reasonably predict that they would be nonsense, and it wasn't as though they could do anything about it anyway)
- Stripping debates of serious argumentation or rhetoric
- Stripping debates of genuine wit, in favour of the ubiquitous nob gag
- Exaggerated support for the Conservative Party and other 'traditional' values, especially among those who showed no prior inclination towards it, or are unable to defend their views in the face of reasonable criticism
- Claims of intellectual superiority made by people who clearly have none
- Affectation of certain kinds of mannerism (including strict observance to norms of ettiquette and dress codes) by those who show no compunction in stabbing their friends and colleagues in the back, or who believe that these are more important to the overall wellbeing of the Society than efficient organisation
- Affected creation of new 'traditions' that serve no useful purpose.

Having had my last exam today, and indulged appropriately, I am in no fit state to guarantee that the above list will be entirely accurate or exhaustive. Basically, I don't like people being cocks.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

Look at the side of the bottle and read the label - "Not to be taken literally."

What those using this term - I feel with good justification, as I shall explain in PBL-style bullet points - refer to are the nigh-impenetrable traditions and cliquey exclusivity that the club radiates.

Yes, everyone is a member of the society. But I wonder how many people realise that? I can't count the number of people I've had to tell that, yes, they're quite free to go along. How many move the communication secretary's emails directly to the trash?

And this is before you've even entered the door. A sea of gowns and dinner jackets lies within: whether your view is that the wearing of either is entirely necessary, you can't disagree that it's likely to intimidate anyone who turns up in jeans and T-shirt.

While the rules of the debate itself are hard to get at from a newcommer, I think their necessity is quickly appreciated and their intricacies tolerably rapidly understood, especially as those who are serious about involving themselves will probably already be familiar. However what does trouble me is how the newbie will find their way around the reading of the minutes, the call for the minutes to be taken as read and cries of shame should they take opposition - to consider but one example. While it's vaguely amusing, it's going to leave the uninitiated downright confused and I always feel to start the proceedings in such a manner is potentially damaging to the image of the society. First impressions count - should we really start a serious debate with a show of flippancy? Moving into the debate proper, raise a point that inclines to the left and you will be shouted down by dribbling Thatcherites, many of whom (as I now note David rightly points out) have broadly superficial political views.

There is tradition, but some are fun and central to the society's identity, some are - well - silly and pointless and you're in danger of it becomming little more than a get-together of friends, running through the same jokes each time. Something that is eventually doomed to fester and die, starved of the oxygen of intelligent debate by cancerous injokes and biases. I personally would rather have a debating society that looks forward rather than back; focus on the debate, be bold and progressive in your term card, strive to make yourselves open to the outsider and worry less about those who would whine if the walls are not panelled with oak.


PS: Kudos to Mr Comedy for posting at 007 o'clock. And with just one arm, too!

[hr]

Will Watson. Medical Student. Cake Lover.

[exnihilo]

I, oddly, agree with most of what has been said above. Certainly in the few I've been back to over the last couple of years, I've noticed these trends. That said, the Society has always been subject to trends, up and down, and each year tends to have its own character.

The chamber, obviously, is the responsibility of the Convenor, but it is also the responsibility of the Board and of those who would consider themselves 'senior' members to behave properly and to encourage others likewise. It's the duty of these people to talk to new people rather than simply arriving, sitting in a corner drinking, and then clearing off afterwards. I've said it a million times - you need to foster a sense of society.

There is also a tremendous amount to be said for getting information out quickly about when debates are being held, and to get some sort of guide out before the start of the year that will give people the information they need - that they will be members, that they're encouraged to speak and not act as an audience, where debates are held, broad rules of conduct and so forth.

Things will not change overnight, if you want to erode the stupid 'traditions' then whining about them is the wrong way to do it. Be vocal on some of them, vote 'Nay' at the minutes, and be less vocal on others 'don't say ooooh', and others will follow and some of the circus-like aspects will wither. I'm sure there's a lot more I could say - I know there is, I've advised about seven convenors and innumerable others over the years - but I must dash off.

[Bryn]

Quoting Dave the Explosive Newt from 04:09, 21st May 2005How many move the communication secretary's emails directly to the trash?

How rude! After I work so hard composing them every week.

Quoting exnihilo from 07:44, 21st May 2005There is also a tremendous amount to be said for getting information out quickly about when debates are being held, and to get some sort of guide out before the start of the year that will give people the information they need - that they will be members, that they're encouraged to speak and not act as an audience, where debates are held, broad rules of conduct and so forth.

Said guide is nearly finished, and I will make damn sure it is out in time.

[hr]

http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Laura]

Donald, it's a long time since I've been pissed, never mind pissed at a debate- and I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to imply.

[tintin]

Perhaps the Debating Society should be using its position to encourage sensible drinking rather than the message that routine over-indulgence is socially acceptable. People don't need to be drunk at a Debate or indeed any other social function to enjoy it, and I don't think that condoning consumption of alcohol in a Debate is a terribly good thing. If someone is Parliament behaves as if drunk there is complete uproar - but at the UDS it's used as an excuse for silliness and it's almost seen as a point of pride to be drunk before entering the Chamber. Public displays of drunkenness are disgraceful.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/mat_salleh

[Mr Comedy]

Firstly, let it be made quite clear that our society has a much lower quotinent of muppetry in than many others. Seeing as I have been to several, we don't have the following:

- A president who raises toasts to his favourite dictatorial regime (TCD Phil)
- Someone who has been banned from the society's IV team due to alcohol abuse, depsite being their best speaker (Birmingham)
- Invasions from people trying to upset the debate (Oxford)
- A president who wouldn't let people speak in the parlimentary unless they were voting conservative (Oxford again, 1970s)

I must admit, I am not taken with the whole new idea that the society has hit upon of vilifing several regular attendees of the society because they don't prescribe to their political views or their relentless search for mandated political correctness. Take it from a graduand kids - its always been like this, and in fact, it is less offensive than it has been in the past. Any society that can have me as the most offensive speaker at the table has rather softened since the days of Bibby and co.

Alcohol abuse, muppetry and all the other things that Bean mentioned is par for the course in debating. However, I must raise objection to some of the points Bean made, and point them out to be errant gibberish.

Male centric attitudes bordering on mysogeny
Actually, we are not an offensive society in this regard, and although there are some things that have been said in the past, there is no-one in the society who is actually a male chauvinist. Normally the girls give as good as they get (Kylie Murray, Phoebe Stoves and Kizzie - I'm looking at you).

Drunken, disorderly and (paradoxically) ungentlemanly behaviour during Society functions, be they debates, dinners or others
Firstly, I must refute this particular nonsensical view that because someone is in a dinner suit that they are gentlemanly. Status, dress and whatnot are not indicators of behaviour. Secondly, there are habitual drunks in all societies, and believe it or not, some of us associate with other societies and groups outside of debating. You'd be hard pushed to find a sports team that drank less than the society. Its something that you will get, so deal with it. By all means, if someone totally ruins dinner, then ban them from attending the next one. If they ruin the debate to the point where the Serjant has to get involved, then ban them from attending LPH for a month for bringing the society into disrepute. However, you cannot on one hand hold up that we welcome everyone to come and express their views, and on the other, prescribe behavioural protocols. And here comes the analysis.
If we complain about someone shouting from the floor, then that's fine - if we do it in the debate. The convenor takes order in the debate. If she feels unable to stop a table speaker saying 'cunt' multiple times, then that's fine, as long as then we don't have the inevitable post on the sinner critising it afterwards. If order is not maintained in the house, then that is the sole responsibility of the convenor, as enshrined in the standing orders of the house. You can't then have a go at people afterwards, as that is not how it works.

Stripping debates of serious argumentation or rhetoric
- Stripping debates of genuine wit, in favour of the ubiquitous nob gag

There are several debates stripped of serious argumentation and rhetoric. What's actually funny is when someone makes salient points about the debate, and puts relevant humour in. I point you to my speech in the Magistrands as a case in point. I'm not going to deny that cock jokes are extremely funny however. If this humour isn't high-brow enough for you, then I apologise. Go hang out with intellectuals who frown on such base behaviour. Although I have caught you snickering along to some of the jokes yourself, and even attempting to crack a few.
If we pride ourselves on free speech, let people say what they like.

Exaggerated support for the Conservative Party

It just happens that several people in St Andrews vote Conservative. However, exaggeration is what we do best. I see no complaint when people brand other people Tory bastards, complain that Thatcher is better off dead, or that Tories can suck my cock. It goes both ways. And the notion that people cannot hold a view unless they can defend it in an intellectual manner is the highest form of faschism, Mr Bean. And no prior inclination is important? You forget that people come here from the age of 16, and may still be forming their political views. Just because they thought that the Lib Dems could run the country in first year and have since seen the light, then that's not a problem. It ought to be encouraged.

Affectation of certain kinds of mannerism (including strict observance to norms of ettiquette and dress codes)
What in hell's name is wrong with that? If people want to dress in dinner jackets, raise the loyal toast and act as twats, then I have no problem with it. I know that this is something that happens across society, and deal with it.

Basically, I don't like people being cocks.

Neither do I, although coming on the Sinner every bloody week and having a go at these elements in our society is not the way to go forward. It happens - deal with it. Either you have a society that allows free speech for everyone, regardless of background, ethnicity, political views and religious expression, or you don't.
If you want a club where you can exclude people who are drunk, vote Conservative, have a risque sense of humour, then you can do that. Disafiilate from the Students' Association and become a society like the CU, where you have to agree to certain things to join. If you want a society for free speech, then deal with it. Although I find it odd that David will vehemently defend the right of racists to speak both in the society and the SRC, and then moan about other people exercise their right to free speech. It smacks of hypocrisy.
I have enjoyed my time in the UDS immensely, and I associate some of my best memories (and memories I only found out about the subsequent morning) with the society that I will take away from St Andrews. However, I'm not sure that I want to be in a society that is so determined to destroy itself by alienating its most staunch supporters and those who have spent many hours of their life judging at IVs, speaking, helping with hospitality, travelling to schools competitions, manning stalls at events, coming to Board meetings to lend a hand etc.
Bear in mind that the people you invoke have done more for the society than many others that come on a regular basis before you put them off coming altogether. That's being a cock.

I would also like it noted that it took me 1hr 24m to make this post one-handed.

[R T]

I don't think you should get steaming drunk when debating, simply because most people when very drumk aren't funny, but it is perfectly possible to be mildly drunk when speaking and still be the best speaker in the room (Wilson, Vinton and Joss to name but three, not that i'm saying that they're drunk often, obviously they're not). Indeed I have been to debates which were so rubbish and the standard of oratory so poor, that the only thing that saved it were the interventions of the drunks, not simply because they were funny, but because they were still capable of speaking well.

[Jason Dunn]

Quoting David Bean from 03:50, 21st May 2005
Affected creation of new 'traditions' that serve no useful purpose.

Do traditions ever serve a purpose? A tradition is simply a repeated behaviour that is repeated because of the inherant fun in undertaking it; it carries not benefit whatever.

One wouldn't describe looking both ways before crossing the road as a tradition. Though it is repeated the fact that it has a purpose disqualifies it, by definition, from being a tradition.

To assert that a tradition is bad because it serves no purpose is a strange conclusion indeed.

[tintin]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 13:51, 21st May 2005
Alcohol abuse, muppetry and all the other things that Bean mentioned is par for the course in debating....Secondly, there are habitual drunks in all societies, and believe it or not, some of us associate with other societies and groups outside of debating. You'd be hard pushed to find a sports team that drank less than the society. Its something that you will get, so deal with it....However, you cannot on one hand hold up that we welcome everyone to come and express their views, and on the other, prescribe behavioural protocols.

I am sure alcohol abuse may be par for the course in debating, but it really doesn't have to be. A small amount of alcohol like a sherry beforehand or something loosens everyone up and makes them more relaxed; some people can find it nerve-wracking talking in front of large numbers of people. That is fine; I have no problem with the idea of pre-Debate drinks and indeed think it's rather a nice thing to do.

What I personally have a problem with is the irresponsible and infantile promotion of alcohol, (not only in Debates but in all areas of life - in UK society as a whole we have an extraordinary attitude towards alcohol). One might indeed be hard-pressed to find a sports team that drank less. But we seem to forget that something like the Debating Society is very high-profile and its influence is quite wide within the University and beyond; people look up to and respect what they say. To continually have such an august institution harping on about how great alcohol is, (and bearing in mind that it is part of the Students' Association (I'm bound to get someone correcting me on some minor technical point with that comment) which is supposed to have student's welfare at its heart) is quite irresponsible. I am sure the Students' Association does not actively promote people getting completely wasted at functions run by it.

I think that it is entirely possible to welcome everyone to express their views - that is after all the point of a Debating Society. But of course you need some sort of behavioural protocols - there are some 'behavioural protocols' already in place e.g. length of time people are allowed to speak, the Procession in etc. Similarly, the possession of alcohol within the Chamber could be perhaps sanctioned, as could its promotion as totally essential at social functions.

Remember that gentlemen hold their drink, and don't rant on about how completely wasted they were or are, at a public debate.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/mat_salleh

[exnihilo]

Quoting Mr Comedy from 13:51, 21st May 2005
Take it from a graduand kids - its always been like this, and in fact, it is less offensive than it has been in the past. Any society that can have me as the most offensive speaker at the table has rather softened since the days of Bibby and co.

What??

Quoting R T from 13:02, 21st May 2005It is perfectly possible to be mildly drunk when speaking and still be the best speaker in the room (Wilson, Vinton and Joss to name but three, not that i'm saying that they're drunk often, obviously they're not).

You are most kind.

[David Bean]

Firstly, in response to Will's point, one thing I REALLY hate is when people shout 'shame!' whenever anyone votes aye to the minutes being taken as read. It's a stupid idea, and never used to happen: perhaps one or two used to call it out for a joke, but these days everyone does it as though it's just one of the things that you say, and it isn't. STFU, a$$holes.

Secondly, Vinton's post made me smile, especially when he began criticising my arguments with the phrase "Take it from a graduand kids - its always been like this, and in fact, it is less offensive than it has been in the past". Don't know if you've noticed, Davey Boy, but I'm as much a graduand as you are, and I think I've been involved in this society roughly twice as long as you have (discounting the several years I spent coming along to Courier finals, etc. whilst I was still at school). So there's really no need to be condescending.

However, just to respond briefly to your responses (I knew I was going to get pilloried, incidentally - that's why I wrote the post):

- Mysogeny: yes there is. Look at the way the likes of Kirsty and Laura have been treated over the past few months - and I'm not talking about legitimate criticism and debates about their job performance, but the most serious personal slurs that you must have realised have gone on.

- People in dinner suits aren't automatically gentlemen? Duh. Dunno whose ass you pulled that one out of.

- Glad to see that you agree that habitual drunks and disorderlies should be prevented from bringing the Society into further disrepute, nice to know we're of a mind on that one.

- The Convenor is in charge again: duh number two, and if you think that's analysis, you must have been coached by Laura Smith. I do have some clue as to what the Convenor's job is, having, you know, done it for a year, but the thing is I'm not the Convenor any more so I can complain about bad behaviour in the House as much as I damn well please.

- I AM an intellectual who frowns on base behaviour, haven't you noticed? Who said I was laughing WITH you on those cock jokes? And of course I made some in return - it's called playing to the gallery; I actually wanted to win the bloody thing.

- Attacking people who mouth off a lot of Tory claptrap without being able to back it up is the highest form of fascism now, is it? Thank God for that; I won't have to bother staging a coup with my two dozen brigades of black-shirted peeps if I've already achieved the highest form of fascism, 'cause you know that's what I was aiming for. This is the university, Dave, whose Conservative and Unionist Society genially toasted General Pinochet and appartheid - not in 1984, but in 2004! And I don't think it's political correctness (which you of all people should know all about) to say that this is an absolute disgrace. And these are the people who then think it's clever to try to undermine the Convenor and disrupt our debates. That's what I call being a cock.

- See, the problem with cutting off half a sentence and then attacking the other half is that you don't engage with what the person actually said. Laura Smith's influence was obviously worse than I thought, poor chap. No, let me repeat what I actually said:

"Affectation of certain kinds of mannerism (including strict observance to norms of ettiquette and dress codes) BY THOSE WHO show no compunction in stabbing their friends and colleagues in the back, or who believe that these are more important to the overall wellbeing of the Society than efficient organisation" (emphasis added).

Ettiquette shouldn't have to be affected by someone who really has it. But the thing is that these people, myself, I hope, included, don't then turn round and start stabbing backs, drinking themselves into oblivion, creating disorder and being incompetent in everything else they do and thinking that all this sort of behaviour is acceptable. The people I'm objecting to do exactly that. It's blatant hypocrisy - it's Walter Mitty fantasism, and I think it's about time someone called a spade a spade.

Finally, to Jason: I think you're quite right that being amusing and fun is as much of a purpose as a tradition needs, but for me a lot of this derives from the fact that the traditions are, in some real sense, traditions - things, at least, that stem back from the days before I came here. Moreover, they became traditional in the first place by virtue of some special quality that makes them worth repeating - whether it's a particularly witty joke, or provision for sponteneity (as with the debate over the minutes, which is traditional in form but changes in content each time). I don't mean to say that we should never innovate or try to create new lasting practices, but simply that there would have to be something similarly special about them that would make them repeating, and I haven't seen any of this in any of the more recent attempts. These have seemed to me to be rather ad hoc, and traditions shouldn't be like that. Why not stick with what we've got as long as it remains good, and wait until something as good, or better, comes along?

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting R T from 13:02, 21st May 2005
...it is perfectly possible to be mildly drunk when speaking and still be the best speaker in the room (Wilson, Vinton and Joss to name but three, not that i'm saying that they're drunk often, obviously they're not).

Thankyou, that is a tremendous compliment to be mentioned in the company of such brilliant orators.

The Convenor is in charge again: duh number two, and if you think that's analysis, you must have been coached by Laura Smith.

And if you think that is dealing with the arguments that I made, then you must have been coached by David Bridges.

[Tweedle-Dum]

Quoting David Bean from 17:02, 21st May 2005 STFU, a$$holes.

Why not just swear, everyone knows what you mean, and covering it up with dollar signs doesn't make you the

intellectual

you claim to be, it merely weakens the excellent argument you went on to make.

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

[Stuart]

Quoting David Bean from 17:02, 21st May 2005
Firstly, in response to Will's point, one thing I REALLY hate is when people shout 'shame!' whenever anyone votes aye to the minutes being taken as read. It's a stupid idea, and never used to happen: perhaps one or two used to call it out for a joke, but these days everyone does it as though it's just one of the things that you say, and it isn't. STFU, a$$holes.

David, while I bow to your better knowledge, I have to admit that I always thought that it was one of the things that you say, as much as the shouting of 'resign' or 'liberal' are. Certainly it's been par for the course at most of the debates I've attended, and I'm sure most people, like me, assumed that it was traditional. Therefore I really take exception to being labelled an a$$hole. Nevertheless, I will bare in mind what you said, should I attend another debate at LPH.

This is the university, Dave, whose Conservative and Unionist Society genially toasted General Pinochet and appartheid - not in 1984, but in 2004!

Ahem......The views expressed by members of the University of St Andrews Conservative and Unionist Association, or indeed those claiming to be, are not necessarily the views of the Association, or the Scottish Conservative and Unionst Party, to which it is affiliated.

However, I am more than happy to detail why we should be grateful for the cooperation of the Pinochet government at the time of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, and why his later arrest in London on the order of a jumped-up Spanish judge was an outrage.