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

[do you know who I am?]

Quoting exnihilo from 11:22, 22nd Jul 2005

Quoting cain from 04:30, 22nd Jul 2005
Then it should be added to your wikipedia entry.

I should like to make it clear that that entry has nothing whatsoever to do with me, indeed I didn't even know it existed until recently when the URL was sent to me. It is a shame that whoever did write it doesn't seem to know as much about me as he or she thinks.

Perhaps that's all there *is* to know...

[exnihilo]

Specifically, I was talking about the "now known as" part, but as the number of people who will ever look at the entry is perishingly small, I don't care. Thanks for the support, though, and for the pointless edit that I'm confident you made to that page.

I've asked that the entry be deleted from Wikipedia, and I hope it will be and that nobody will think they're somehow doing me a favour by putting it there. I'm completely uninterested in having a page out there which any wanker with half an inch of brain can use to insult me.

[Bonnie]

The policy of the SRC remains that Association gowns should not be worn to the KK photograph. (Not only was James North censured but Rory O'Hare made up rules for the respect of gowns, including a warning not to use them for Hallowe'en Superman costumes.) As for all other KK events, the Association considers the KK to be discriminatory and severs all ties to the KK but may work with it for specifc events if the SSC deems the evetns non-discriminating. I do believe the KK photograph-oh, let's get pedantic- is a discriminatory KK event. Thus wearing the Association gown to a KK photograph is against SRC policy.
You may be right about Yabroff not getting the same censuring, but we can deal with that if that ever comes. Until then, the SRC of 2003 clearly said that Association gowns were not to be worn for the photograph.

Now, for the thing about wearing gowns at UDS events, if you are wearing an Association gown and partake in "behaviour unbecoming of a member", expect disciplinary action. Wearing an Association gown is a priviledge and honour most students do not have for themselves but quite a few will see someone wearing one. The gown does single one out of the crowd as someone of stature (however infintesimal that increase in stature may be). Let us show proper respect for the Association, the University, ourselves, and indeed the House while wearing the gown.
For gosh sakes, look at Dave Vinton! Can you just imagine what an impressionable first year would have thought about the Association if he saw Vinton spouting all of his shite while wearing his gown?! For the sake of the reputation of the Association and Univeristy DON'T let people just wear them willy-nilly or else stupid pricks will argue that they can wear them all of the time--think Tweedles.

Quoting RJ Covino from 15:22, 14th Jul 2005

Quoting Ben Reilly from 15:00, 14th Jul 2005
How is stating that I thought that was partly why it was brought in (which was before my time) showing prejudice?

Because it is indicative of a belief commonly held and, in my opinion, wrongly so, that Association gowns shouldn't be worn to such events because they are all-male in nature.

Surely if it was the President of the SA who was welcoming Kate, then he/she was acting as President? In what way does that conflict with what I've said?

In your previous post you said that the rule was brought in to stop people wearing gowns to KK functions. The KK procession, in its prior incarnation before the new era of community involvement came in, was a KK function, regardless of whether the President was acting qua President. Or, perhaps, you are advocating the position that Association gowns just cannot be worn by KK members to KK functions? In which case it'd be a clear example of a double standard.

If there is nothing wrong with SA gowns being worn to KK or Strafford events, why do I recall a motion of censure by the SRC in May 2003 against officers who had worn their gowns for a KK photograph?

Well, it was c. 2003 that the nonsense which is under discussion here began, so I think the answer is self-apparent. A motion of censure by the SRC does not make something wrong, it is merely indicative of the will of a certain group of student officers at a given time. Were, say, the current President to have worn the AP Elect gown to this year's KK photograph or his Presidential attire to next year's, I doubt you would procure the same result.

[hr]

http://www.ralphcovino.com

[hr]

I love cheese.

[Bonnie]

Sadly, there was a nice red one just for that purpose. That was until the beginning of my tenure as Director fo Services when I said, "Fuck it, we have three red gowns and three sabbaticals. Let's have the red gowns be for sabbaticals." Simon and Ben agreed.
Thus the President-elect gown died.

Quoting from 19:07, 14th Jul 2005

Quoting RJ Covino from 15:22, 14th Jul 2005
Were, say, the current President to have worn the AP Elect gown to this year's KK photograph

Please tell that this is a figure of speech and we don't have an actual gown for someone during the time that they are AP elect?

[hr]

I love cheese.

[Bonnie]

By that logic, if Alex leaves a news article lying on your desk, that makes you the press officer.

Quoting David Bean from 02:33, 19th Jul 2005
Yeah, they're in my office, so I'm the one who's going to be issuing the bloody things and keeping the register. Doesn't exactly take a PhD in Common Sense to work that one out, does it?

[hr]

I love cheese.

[Eliot Wilson]

I never cease to be amazed by the Association's high opinion of itself.

[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]

I'm not convinced that the KK photograph (or, really, any of the events they put on) is in itself discriminatory (please note correct word!). The membership policy of the Club is, that's about it. Anyone can go to jazz nights, the ball, anyone can be in the procession, go to the panto, etc.

By the logic you are employing any hall photo or any other club or department photo should also have a ban on Association gowns - only those people in that club, hall or department are allowed in the picture. That's directly analogous to the KK. Your complaint is not with the fact of someone's membership, it is with the method of member selection.

This is what has always annoyed me about some of the ridiculously petty Association policies on things like this.

[Al]

In honour of the ongoing debate over the exact role of the Director of Stuff, I have written a song entitled "What Does Da DoSDA Do?" Actually, the title is as far as I got. Ah well, the intention was there...

[Challenge them constantly]

Quoting Bonnie from 07:42, 2nd Sep 2005
The gown does single one out of the crowd as someone of stature (however infintesimal that increase in stature may be). Let us show proper respect for the Association, the University, ourselves, and indeed the House while wearing the gown.

If there are people in this university who show more respect to someone they don't know, simply because they are wearing a gown, then it is sad that they were admitted to the university.

Blind Deference is, at best, intellectually contemptible. Other than the courtesy that civilized people extent to each other normally, someone wearing a gown is not entitled to anything more until they have justified that they deserve more respect.
I've lost count of the number of academics, politicians, officers, and office holders I’ve met in my life who mistakenly think that simply holding an office or rank automatically means that we should defer to them and accept what they say without question.

In the case of the Union it is even more absurd to claim that they deserve respect simply when wearing a gown. For the overwhelming majority of students, the Union is a social club and nothing more (certainly they've achieved nothing in 'welfare' issues that have impacted me such tuition and residence fees)

When union offices have gone that extra mile for people in need (as, I imagine, the welfare officer does from time to time), I expect that those concerned will show them the due respect and thanks that they deserve for actually having done something, not because they wear some robe...

[BenEsq]

All this fuss about gowns. Don't be fashion victims!
Why not engage in a discussion on something else? Such as, person example's actions or words were effective or not effective in line with their aims - perhaps something might have been done better/this different way to make it more relevant/applicable to a greater number/range of students?

Come out of the internet and engage in real conversations with real people! Criticise an office holder's policies/actions in a public forum or their own committees, where they can be held accountable if shown to be lacking. Show people why you think something isn't being done properly and how you could do it better. St Andrews really isn't large enough for the signifcant mass of pure commentators and non-doers that we seem to have.

I mean no criticism of the medium of communication that starts www., but really, please, come be vocal in person.

I agree that people place far too much importance on the Union, as many do other groups, without caring enough about what it actually does. Perhaps some groups don't take criticism well? However, I speak for the SSC and say that it invites constructive criticism. Indeed, it is the medium through which criticism of and ideas for student activity can be chanelled quite effectively.

Let people's individual efforts be recognised in every aspect of the realm of "extra-curricular" and marvel when people are able to coordinate together to make things worthwhile happen. Perhaps something worthwhile would be actual Uni or Association certified recognition of people's efforts?

I know that I'm not the most traditionalist amongst the student body, and I appreciate that some people do genuinely care about gowns. I don't want to stop that, I just think that it would be great if people could care as much and do stuff about other things as well.

Disclaimer - This is, as always, my own humble opinion. It is meant in a friendly non-offensive tone. If you think I'm speaking rubbish, tell me why in a non-offensive way. Or better yet, if you've ever thought something could happen with societies that isn't yet - email me or/and come by for a coffee to chat about it.

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[Tom Plant]

| for want of a less parliamentary term. Some readers may like to remember that debates are emphatically not fora for the expression of one's own opinions or of any organisation to which belong: a good debater will often speak in favour of a motion which completely contradicts her own opinion. A debate is a game of argument, and the words of its players are not necessarily to be taken as representative of personal sentiment.

It follows that the wearing of an Association gown should in no wise be read as indicative of Union support for its wearer's arbitrarily expressed sentiments. Nor should one wearing such a gown feel confined to spout Association propaganda. It simply marks the wearer as a student officer who engages in the sport of debate, showing that officers do not spend all their time cooped up in the Union looking for errors in the latest SRC minutes. It also reveals them to students who may seldom venture into the Union building.

So sport your Association gowns with pride wherever you can, and show that officers are involved in non-Union aspects of student life | some people would have us all scrap our noble attire and wear bloody shell suits...

[Jono]

Gown or no gown, an officer represents the union. Leaving the gown on or off during debates really makes no difference! However, in the event an officer turns out to be a complete neo-fascist it’s really the fault of the student body for electing him/her in the first place!

[exnihilo]

Democratically, it would be the "will" of the student body rather than the "fault".

[Eliot Wilson]

There is an argument that a neo-fascist might be more welcome than some of the witless, drooling morons the students regularly elect to office in the Association.

[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."

[Jono]

Quoting Eliot Wilson from 11:38, 20th Feb 2006
There is an argument that a neo-fascist might be more welcome than some of the witless, drooling morons the students regularly elect to office in the Association.

[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."

Possibly. But then again, being a neo fascist doesn't nessicarily make you competant!