The "gown off" rule, 2004-05: Rest In Peace

[David Bean]

Here's some good news, for a change. Over the past year, the perception swept through the Union Debating Society that any Association officer wearing their gown of office would be required to remove it when rising to give a table or floor speech, because, it was considered, when wearing the gown they would be deemed to be speaking in an official capacity, which would prohibit them from airing personal views. I, along with a number of other people, had always considered this to be a piece of nonsense (even if it were true, what practical difference would it make?), but there never seemed to be anything we could do about it.

Well, I'm pleased to report that, as the new sabbatical officer in overall charge of gowns (the cupboard was moved to my office on Friday), I've secured agreement that from now on, anyone wearing a gown of office shall no longer necessarily be presumed to be speaking either in their official capacity, or on behalf of the Association (which they are not entitled to do anyway, as only the Association President constitutionally can).

This removes the Association's bar on officers speaking in their gowns, and since the Standing Orders contain no prohibition on them doing so, it's safe to consider the rule to be dead at last.

[exnihilo]

Well thank God for that. Though an Association ruling will hardly alter a "perception" in and of itself.

[Eliot Wilson]

May that particular piece of absurdity rest in peace. Though, since many people had told Association officers who observed it that they were being tits, will they listen?

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Jason Dunn]

Perhaps contiving to have this printed in the first order paper next semester would be prudent. Otherwise the annoying switching of gowns may linger, carried by the inertia of ignorance.

[exnihilo]

A little forcefulness from the Chair should suffice.

[David Bean]

To be honest, I personally don't see what's wrong with just telling them. For the first couple of debates we can simply find whoever's in a Union gown and tell them about it, and beyond that it can be mentioned at SRC and SSC.

I should point out that if officers are determined to remove their gowns then we can't really stop them, but insofar as people were doing it in the past because they thought they ought to, letting them know that this actually isn't the case should solve most of it. I'd rather not do something like printing it on the order paper because that sort of thing has an annoying tendency to make myths out of this sort of thing, and personally I reckon it's better left to die out of our collective memory.

[RJ Covino]

Quoting David Bean from 23:45, 12th Jul 2005
insofar as people were doing it in the past because they thought they ought to

I think that this statement is a bit on the erroneous side; Union supremos before David had ruled on the matter and those of us who wore Union gowns received instructions to remove them if speaking in an 'unofficial' capacity. Ergo, as an ardent follower of the rules, I only wore them to speak in a Union-y role, such as when I administered the oath to Miss Wilson and Mr Blair before him.

And while I'm pointing out errors, the dating of this thread is off. The gown-off trend began with James North, so far as I can remember, after which it became "tradition", and then "tradition" became dictat.

And so the process begins again.

[Sidebar to David Bean: I hope that the first of my big bags of Postgraduate crap arrived safely to your care this afternoon.]

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[Power corrupts...]

Quoting David Bean from 21:59, 11th Jul 2005
Well, I'm pleased to report that, as the new sabbatical officer in overall charge of gowns (the cupboard was moved to my office on Friday), I've secured agreement that from now on, anyone wearing a gown of office shall no longer necessarily be presumed to be speaking either in their official capacity, or on behalf of the Association (which they are not entitled to do anyway, as only the Association President constitutionally can).

Oh my god, the power and influence you wield is truely awsome. I would like you to know that, upon reading this ruling, I was unable to speak for a good 5 mins due to being so humbled by witnessing the exercise of such power by one mere mortal...


However, were I entitled to an opinion on this I would say that I will miss the passing of any opputunity to shout abuse at Union officers (it might not be the same as a slave whispering in your ear during a triumph, but still...)

[Al]

I still can't understand what the Union not-a-hierarchy hoped to achieve through the rule. A gownless Association officer speaking in a Debate is still an Association officer speaking in a Debate. Or did they have to preface any statement with "I, [insert name and office held], am speaking here in a personal capacity and not as a duly elected officer of the Students' Association"?

[Eliot Wilson]

Well, quite. But don't forget that the line between elected Association officer and feckless nob-jockey is oft a very fine one.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[exnihilo]

It was an absurdity. Wear the damn thing.

[RJ Covino]

Quoting Al from 09:34, 13th Jul 2005
I still can't understand what the Union not-a-hierarchy hoped to achieve through the rule.

I gather that they perceived there to be a potential problem with somebody wearing Union togs spouting a bunch of nonsense (like, for example, calling the Welsh troglodytes or some such), which in turn could land the Union in a heap of Equal Opportunities related trouble that they would have preferred to avoid.

Not that an elected Union officer would ever come up with an offensive speech, of course. Bunch of cunts...

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[David Bean]

Quoting RJ Covino from 00:16, 13th Jul 2005
I think that this statement is a bit on the erroneous side; Union supremos before David had ruled on the matter and those of us who wore Union gowns received instructions to remove them if speaking in an 'unofficial' capacity. Ergo, as an ardent follower of the rules, I only wore them to speak in a Union-y role, such as when I administered the oath to Miss Wilson and Mr Blair before him.

First of all, Laura's a 'her', not a 'him'. That aside, yes, but I think the problem is that those sorts of rules were issued by people who blatantly had no understanding of debates, and didn't realise what a nonsense the whole thing became in its exercise.

And while I'm pointing out errors, the dating of this thread is off. The gown-off trend began with James North, so far as I can remember, after which it became "tradition", and then "tradition" became dictat.

Excellent - that's something else we can blame North for!

[/quote][Sidebar to David Bean: I hope that the first of my big bags of Postgraduate crap arrived safely to your care this afternoon.][/quote]

It did indeed. Many thanks - and all the people rejoiced.

Power corrupts: you are most kind; in the words of Marge Simpson, "I choose to take that literally".

Ralph again: you're right, I think, that that was the worry, though whether making people remove their Association gowns would really solve this problem is another matter. As Al said, the gown doesn't change the nature of the wearer - and it isn't a 'hat', either, in the 'Yes, Minister' sense. And also, as Alex pointed out to me, the only person entitled to speak 'on behalf of the association' is the AP - that's about the only thing that remit has left!

[RJ Covino]

Quoting David Bean from 12:51, 13th Jul 2005
First of all, Laura's a 'her', not a 'him'.

Prove it.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[Ben Reilly]

I believe the rule arose because the gowns were only supposed to be worn when the person was acting in an official capacity.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[RJ Covino]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 18:21, 13th Jul 2005
I believe the rule arose because the gowns were only supposed to be worn when the person was acting in an official capacity.

I've heard you talk some shite over the years, but that's got to take the cake. Well done.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[Ben Reilly]

Quoting RJ Covino from 18:51, 13th Jul 2005

Quoting Ben Reilly from 18:21, 13th Jul 2005
I believe the rule arose because the gowns were only supposed to be worn when the person was acting in an official capacity.

I've heard you talk some shite over the years, but that's got to take the cake. Well done.

How would you describe it then?

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[RJ Covino]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 21:06, 13th Jul 2005

How would you describe it then?

The same way I always have - Association gowns exist for the purpose of identifying those members of the student community who are serving officers, be they sabbatical or otherwise, in situations which call for gowns, such as University Chapel, high table dinners, other University functions such as graduations or other ceremonials (Rectorial Installations, Inaugural Lectures, Founders and Benefactors/other commemoration services), as well as the meetings of the UDS.

You see the gown, you know that the person wearing it is an officer in the Association.

The 'rule' arose from the fear that people wearing the gowns would act irresponsibly and, as such, bring the Association in for unnecessary flack. Perhaps we might just call it a testimony as to the calibre of Union officials which the electorate has been returning of late and call it a day

When James North of sainted memory wanted to make a "controversial" speech, which 9 times out of 10 was WAY out there in terms of Joe Average Student's politics, he thought it politic to remove the gown so as not to associate the Association with his "out there" world-view that he presented in any of his interminable floor speeches. I'd say he was correct to do so; to ape him and enshrine it as a "rule" less so.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[Ben Reilly]

That's strange. I thought it was, at least partly, brought in to stop people wearing gowns to KK and Strafford functions.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[RJ Covino]

Quoting Ben Reilly from 12:17, 14th Jul 2005
That's strange. I thought it was, at least partly, brought in to stop people wearing gowns to KK and Strafford functions.

Your prejudice against all male clubs blinds you.

There is no problem with wearing them to KK or Strafford events. The President of the Students' Association, if not in the Procession himself, used to appear at some stage all gowned up to "greet" the new Kate. Would you have stopped him doing that? Probably, but that's just you.

The problem with bringing gowns to take the KK annual photo is that the gowns often went missing immediately after the photograph was taken, not due to any inherent evil in the club, but rather to the shiftiness of the student officers.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com