Why Rachael was right – The trial of St. Cuth’s
I hesitate before writing this. I was highly critical of the DSU’s handling of the proposed Israel boycott and was rightly reminded how infuriating it can be for students who get involved in the DSU to be criticised by outsiders like myself who have contributed next to nothing.
I also remember how frustrating it was during my term as President of the Union Society, when time and again I came up against people who had never even been to a DUS event but were happy to perpetuate its largely misconceived negative image.
Nevertheless, I want to commend Rachael Revesz for bringing attention to the shortcomings of our JCR exec in the last edition of Palatinate. Farcical is the only word which I think is applicable to what I have seen of their conduct since I arrived at Durham.
I am aware that many students contribute to the life of the JCR. There was a fantastic atmosphere around the boathouse when I attempted to row last year. The library is an outstanding resource, and it is a credit to the ethos of Cuthbert’s that its running is largely overseen by students. I sing in Cuthberts’ choir, in which the standard of music making is extremely high.
This context, however, serves further to isolate actions of the exec. Vaunting our apparently unique history, they actually fail to realise the aims and ambitions of both our founding members and our current students: that’s why I think the JCR exec is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Let me give an example. In response to Rachael’s criticism of inappropriate questions at hustings, one member of the exec argued: ”If a candidate for Vice President doesn’t have the confidence to change into the incumbent VC’s trousers (as was the result of one question asked recently), how is he/she going to have the confidence to stand up to Senior Management or St. Cuthbert’s Society Council to defend the students and their causes?”
Trying to justify joke questions as an essential tool of the democratic process is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have heard since starting at this university.
I personally believe that light-heartedness has its purposes. It can help to engage apathetic students with their JCRs, testament to which are the informal hustings at Hatfield College which are much better attended than the formal hustings. But the last time I looked, JCR meetings at Cuthbert’s are still as badly attended as ever.
Taking your trousers off does not show competency to be able to sensibly and constructively work with the Senior Management at St. Cuthbert’s; indeed, the exec may be very good at getting naked but they show a complete lack of ability to show the skills which I would hope to see in the JCR.
I would have hoped that the JCR exec would have made particular effort to start building a relationship with the new Principal of the Society from the beginning of this term. Yet in a meeting with second years, two weeks into the job, Professor Towl was already expressing his irritation with the inability of the exec to arrange a time to meet with him.
Having now met Professor Towl on a few occasions, I can express my gladness that in reality it is he and not the students who actually run our Society. This is not in spite of our history: it is because of it. When I asked Professor Towl why he had applied to become Principal, he told me that it was St. Cuthbert’s historical uniqueness which had attracted him.
JCR exec members are forever stressing that the JCR President is the Society’s President and the merits of having a bar which is open 12 hours a day. But those are not the reasons why our new Principal applied; neither are they the reasons which I would give if questioned myself about Cuthbert’s merits. It is St. Cuthbert’s commitment to diversity, notably encouraging applications from international, local and mature students, of which I am proud.
It is Cuthbert’s tradition of seeking to draw such people into one collegiate and friendly environment which I think should be vaulted and nurtured. These are also the reasons that Professor Towl gave for his wanting to join us.
Since the beginning of this term, I think we have seen the potential of how much more St. Cuthbert’s could be under our new Principal’s energetic direction. This was symbolised by two emails which I received yesterday. The first was from the Senior Management, informing me that they would continue to run formals instead of the JCR exec in the wake of the boycott controversy.
They see this as “part of [their] ongoing work to improve the level of service and opportunities for student engagement”. These formals are cheaper, include more than ever, and will be held on a more regular basis than ever before in the Society’s history.
The second email was from Sean Collins, the Society’s President. It appears the Principal had expressed reservations about people getting naked in the bar in the cause of the democratic process. The husts were therefore taking place in the DSU rather than on Society property. Typically, the email was concluded by noting the size of Riverside’s bar.
The email, followed by a similar message via facebook from our Livers’ Out Representative, outlined the Principal’s actions in an unconstructive and negative fashion. Such a public stance cannot facilitate the necessary partnership that should be in place between the Senior Management and the JCR.
I feel that the Principal is working more positively on my behalf, and everyone else in Cuthbert’s, than the JCR exec: exactly the opposite of the case which the latter have tried to present. The dream scenario would be, however, if both could work together.
My fear is that St. Cuthberts’ student body will lose even more power to the Senior Management before our elected leaders realise that being a society, rather than the college which the university would love us to become, is a responsibility to be exercised maturely and not a right to be abused.
36 Comments »
Leave a Reply
Most recently posted
Why all the fuss about Blair’s memoirs?
02-09-10 09:35AM
Hard-hitting Vogue oil spill shoot deemed ...
25-08-10 05:43PM
Stuck for something to read this Summer? Chec...
23-08-10 02:34AM
Latest Edition - Issue 719
Click images to read Palatinate online
Dear Will,
I thought I would take the opportunity to respond to your article and try to defend myself and indeed the exec. I do of course take your criticism and it will of course affect my future actions.
My first note is to say that I do agree with your statement, that a comment made by an exec member about dropping your trousers is a necessary skill for dealing with the Senior Management, is completely false and not at all needed.
On the note of the Principal commenting about the exec infuriating him by not arranging a meeting with him, I believe you may have misinterpreted whatever it was he said at this talk, and unfortunately I was not able to attend on that particular occasion, but he did not make comments at the talks where I was present. I believe he may have said he had tried to meet with us but to no avail, however this was not through a lack of trying from either party. Myself, on behalf of the exec tried to schedule a meeting with the Principal as soon as we could as we did, and still do want a good working relationship with him, as it is necessary to the best running of Cuths.
Now you also state that you are happy it is the Principal who runs the Society and not the students, this is not something I have ever stated or believed. It is however the students who run the JCR and indeed many aspects of your life in Cuths.
With regards to formals, I am personally completely in favour of having some more formals within our social calendar as they are events that many members of Cuths thoroughly enjoy and so we should do more to further that. This was indeed something I brought up at the start of my tenure, when Roy Boyne was Principal, but was informed it would need a lot of forward planning and could not simply be introduced. To also comment on formals some more I have never stated I would not like to have more, I have however stated I would not like one a week (and this has been commented to me by a fair number of JCR members) as I believe it would detract from the special atmosphere that formals currently have. However my views are not the most important, if I am informed by the JCR that they would like one a week, then who am I to stop them? My role, one which I try to fulfil to the highest standard, is to act on behalf of the JCR and not myself or indeed that of the Exec.
The Senior Management may, as you say, have created these new formals in light of the JCR boycott controversy; however his explanation to me, one which I agree with entirely, is that students he has spoken to have stated they would enjoy more formals. I would also like to make clear to you, and indeed anyone else who reads this article and is perhaps confused, it was not a decision made by the Exec to boycott formals, it was a decision made by the JCR, and indeed many of the exec did not like the idea of it. An extraordinary JCR meeting was called to discuss how to react to a new set of rules laid down on formals by senior management, an event run by the JCR for the JCR. At this meeting myself and the rest of the exec made sure to keep everything we said factual, so the JCR could make the decision entirely on their own and so we could be seen to be pushing in a certain direction.
The new formals set in place by the Senior Management will indeed be cheaper as this is because they are selling them at a cost price. The formals that have been run in the past have been at the price they were because the excess on top of the cost is put towards Cuths day, of which a lot of Cuths members will know of and I am sure appreciate. If all formals were to be sold at cost, Cuths day would have a massive cut in its budget. The only other alternative to cutting it would be to cut that of the Sports and Societies which exist, something I, and I am sure yourself would never want to see happen.
I must ask though what you mean by “include more than ever” (paragraph 15, line 2) as the formals that have been run in the past often had events on in the evening (also from the extra cost of formals), but these ones will not.
With regards to the email I sent about moving the husts to DSU Riverside cafe, this email was supposed to be in response to one sent by the Principal. I had been told that he had sent an email stating they were cancelled, which as I stated in my email he could not legally do. I have since learned there was no such email and it was in fact a miscommunication. I did never state it was because he did not want us to take our trousers off, at the time I sent it, the information he had given me as to why he wanted them cancelled was in my eyes not sufficient to warrant postpone of a process which had already begun and since no complaint had been made through the appropriate JCR complaints procedures I was bound by our governing documents to continue with the hustings. The elections which were due to take place this week have indeed been postponed due to the situation that occurred, but this was a much easier process as the election hadn’t begun.
On the final note that you state you believe the Principal is working more for your benefit than the JCR Exec I can only hope this is not something you truly believe and it is not something that a lot of members of Cuths believe, as the Exec work tirelessly to try and do what is best for our members, but we can only act on what information is given to us. We welcome all feedback, as I, and others regularly mention, and rarely do we receive any. This does make our jobs harder, as how are we supposed to represent as many of our members as possible and work for the benefit of as many of our members as possible if they don’t tell us what they want or how they want us to act?
Since the new Principal has arrived, we have all been trying to work alongside him and, in particular myself, have been trying to set up a good working relationship. This is however an ongoing process and a relationship that needs to time to develop, so both parties can be satisfied with the workings of the Society as a whole. I believe I can speak for myself and the Principal when I say that we are both doing our best to achieve what is best for the students.
I would just like to finish by trying to regain some credit in explaining some of the aspects the JCR, and not the Society provide to you in order for you to have a better University experience. The JCR supplies, manages and maintains (granted not always to the highest standard, as we are all still students) all of our facilities, such as the library, computer rooms, gyms and music room. All of these facilities are there for all our members benefit and they are continually being upgraded. We have a brand new music room, funded by the JCR, we have a newly equipped weights gym, funded by the JCR and we now have a Wii in Brooks JCR, funded by the JCR.
The senior staff may indeed run St Cuthbert’s Society. but it is the JCR who run your activities and anything you may enjoy, and the JCR is only as effective as those that choose to speak on its behalf, so I urge you and all other JCR members to please (and I can’t stress this enough) please speak to me if you ever have a problem with how the JCR is running and let us know how to make it what you want it to be.
So Will, I thank you for informing me of how you feel about Cuths and indeed the exec, but I do hope that you realise from my response that we are not trying to act in the worst interest of our members, we are simply acting in the way that those who speak to us, tell us to.
I read this article and it raised several issues for me. You say that farcical is the only word you think applicable for our JCR exec given what you have seen since you arrived in Durham. I don’t know whether you are a first year or not, but regardless, I am sure that you are aware that “good pants, bad pants” and other such traditions are called traditions for a reason. This is not the first year that they have been happening in the JCR meetings. As I’m also sure that you are aware, the JCR exec changes every year. I think it is totally unfair to slate the reputation of this years exec, and the individuals within it who work very hard to represent the student body, for what has been going on for years. If you have issues with the way our JCR is run then you should have taken them up with Sean Collins, the JCR president, first. Or indeed any member of the exec. The same goes for Rachael too. The exec can only represent us if we tell them what we want, and by writing articles like this and like the one in the previous edition, demanding change before you have asked for it, you are just embarassing Cuths.
Secondly, on husts. I personally believe that if a candidate does not want to answer a question because they find it embarassing or irrelevant, then they should say so. In your article you quote a response to Rachaels article, the quote about a vice-president needing to be confident enough to do these things in order to fulfill his role, and you disagree with it. Which is fair enough, but I think that a major point has been missed, regardless of whether or not he/she has the confidence to change into someones else clothes, he/she should atleast have the confidence to stand up for themselves and say no. I think that that DOES show competency for these roles. If a candidate does not have to courage or the confidence to just say no infront of their peers, then I do not think that they are suitable for our exec.
Another point, smaller this time. You claim in this article that JCR meetings are as badly attended as ever. I am a first year, and so can only go off what I have seen so far and what I have found from speaking to people older than I am. At every JCR meeting so far this year there has been quorum, something which has not happened in a long time I have found from speaking to a student who reguarly attends JCR meetings, this year and previously.
Ryan Dempsey
JCR member
Would it not be more beneficial to talk to the Exec, or the Principal, about this first? I don’t know if you have, or had tried. As members of the Exec have frequently said, if you do not let them know your thoughts, feelings, or ideas then how are they supposed to do anything about it?
Why is it that the Christian union gets balanced coverage in the comment section, with two opposing views presented side by side, allowing for people to make up their own minds? – And yet here, for the second fortnight running we have another article criticising Cuth’s, especially since I have heard that others have tried to submit opposing views for publication?
Regardless of which side is ‘right’ – an entirely subjective view in any case, this is far from balanced coverage on this issue, which is disappointing to see from a supposedly neutral publication.
I do agree with Alastair on that last point- I personally agree with a fair amount of Rachael and Will’s articles, but there should be a comeback article. I’m aware there has been a strong debate on the first article’s page, but I suspect fewer people read the site than the print version. If no one’s submitted one, fair enough, but if Alastair is right that people have tried, then something should have been published unless they were so incoherent as to be unpublishable.
As for other points: a frequent point raised by the (for want of a better term, I realise criticising Cuths doesn’t make you ‘anti-Cuths’) ‘pro-Cuths’ side is that Rachael and Will should have contacted our exec first before going to the media. I see the point entirely, but the articles have sparked far wider debate than would ever have happened otherwise, which cannot be a bad thing. I suspect a number of people previously not very interested or involved in the society have, on one side or the other, become so through this debate, which surely both sides want. As far as making the society look bad, the spirited defence of it by many surely indicates that there are many who love Cuths. It’s also not true that those who criticise hate Cuths; I’m critical of the society myself, but I don’t hate it.
Quick point on an issue I’ve mentioned before: yes, you CAN say no to the ‘joke’ questions at husts. But even for someone quite confident in public- I’d like to think this includes me- it would be quite hard to in context, as you’d be seen as a ’spoilsport’ or something. My personal opinion is that some of the purely verbal, jokier questions could be kept for the end of a question session (’what sort of house would you be’ is pretty harmless, maybe not ‘what STD would you be’ as I had to answer once), allowing some light-heartedness into proceedings (and there’s plenty of that in parliamentary debate, of course) without humiliating candidates or turning people off the JCR.
Don’t want to go on too much, so my final point is this: I agree, as I’ve said, with a lot of what these articles have said. However, I also agree with Sean Collins thoroughly that the exec can’t do anything if you say nothing (again, I believe the debate inspired by these articles will mean more people will do so). Also, it possibly isn’t advertised enough that there is the staff-student consultative committee as well, on which I sit. This is no way an ‘alternative’ exec and has no decision-making powers, but we are happy to take your comments about the society and report them to the senior staff and senior JCR members (the senior tutor, bursar, president, VP, and principal all sit on the SSCC). At the last meeting, we discussed, how to make Parsons Field more involved (a suggestion was an exec member for PF, for example), provision of non-alcohol-related events (Wii tournament, etc.) and other things. None of the non-senior-staff/JCR SSCC members are part of the exec (I don’t know any of the exec beyond Sean and Tom from meetings), so there’s no ‘clique’ about us.
Anyway- I, for one, am very glad this debate has happened and continues to happen. Proof it were needed that the controversial is often a very good thing.
Thom you make a number of good points, one of which I have addressed in an earlier response to the article overall. However I do just want to point one thing out and that is that you discussed getting an Exec member for Parson’s Field at the SSCC? This concerns me hugely, primarily because a large number of the Exec DO live there. Jill Chapman (Welfare) and Tom Smith (VP) both live on the ground for of Block I and Alan Bowman (MILP Chair) and Alison Monks (Postgraduate Rep) all live in Brooks House also. Their phone numbers are clearly advertised on the cuths.com site and in Freshers’ Handbooks.
I have a very short point to make relating to the recent husts.
If you had attended said events, then you would have seen several people who run for positions do manage to say “no” when asked to take part in such things as “good pants bad pants”.
It has in fact been the case that in some of the elections, for example the one for Social Chair, that the candidate who ran for the position and did not get their pants out got the most votes, and has been elected. So for all you think it would be hard to stand up infront of people and say “no” it has been done, on more than one occasion and those who resisted getting ther pants out, were not at a disadvantage.
Yes, this has sparked debate and interest – but how many people will simply read the hard-copy of Palatinate, base their views on one side of the arguement, and not see any of the responses to it? I think that is the problem.
I could not agree more. Hence why I feel that Palatinate is not the forum for discussions about the internal functioning of the JCR. One article was sufficient to spark off debate and to give people the confidence to voice their concerns. Two articles is just excessive.
In terms of both sides of the debate being represented, responses to Rachael’s article were published in the hard copy of the editorial page in last week’s Palatinate. It is also true that whilst Will came forward to support Rachael in writing his comment, no one did so on behalf of Cuths’ exec – I know that if they did so, in the spirit of debate Palatinate would be more than happy to have included it in the comments section.
The Palatinate printed ONE response, which the author had intended to be read in context with a later response. To be honest, most people hoped it would blow over by the next issue – I for one didn’t submit an article for this reason.
From a personal point of view, I would like to say I entirely agree with what Sean and what Ryan have said in response to this article. I did not agree with all of Rachael’s article, although I fully respect the debate it sparked off and we have had a lot of feedback both positive and negative in the light of it. A number of what people perceive to be problems with our JCR have been highlighted and I for one, as a representative member of the Executive, am very driven towards change if that is what the majority within the JCR want.
However, I do not see what purpose this article has served other than to reiterate Rachael’s points, fresh with more factual inaccuracies, and to kick the Exec whilst it’s down and trying to make changes already. If you felt like this, Will, you could very easily have contacted the Exec in the light of Rachael’s article, as you were invited to and as so many other students did. You say we are irrelevant and yet you belong to Cuth’s choir, a junior society of the JCR and one overseen by the Sports and Societies Chair – an Exec Member. You compliment our library, which is overseen by an Exec member. With reference to Sean’s point, I am not entirely convinced that you are aware of just how much the JCR Exec does on behalf of the JCR in order to contribute to student experience. If you would like to get a clearer idea, you are more than welcome to attend any Exec meeting on a Sunday Night from 6pm in the House 8 Conference Room and see what is talk about. Funnily enough, the Exec does not spend three to six hours every Sunday night “getting naked”.
I am sure you have taken some of Professor Towl’s comments completely out of context. You seem to champion him as a better representative than us, yet I am sure he would be displeased to see you pitting us against him like this when we are in fact striving for the good relationship you have cited as being so important. The transition from one Principal to another is a very difficult time, particularly when the new one comes from outside of the University. At the end of last term, we all met up with Professor Towl informally to get to know him and ever since that point we have striven to have a good working relationship with him. Indeed, the Exec is currently trying to find a structure for meetings and working together which works well for both parties; the previous structure under Professor Boyne worked well but Professor Towl is a different man and works differently. Accommodating this in the space of seven weeks has not been easy, particularly when he also has departmental commitments outside of the Society. I feel confident that by next term we will have a system which works better. Please do not presume however to know about the Exec’s relationship with the Principal based merely on one or two comments he may have made in passing and having not even deigned to ask a member of the Exec about it. That is quite simply bad research on your part and does not represent a balanced view, or, if a balanced view was not your intention, even one based on factual evidence.
As far as the situation with the cancellation of the hustings goes, Professor Towl, as you may know, received some complaints about the JCR Meetings. We do not as yet know what the precise nature of these were and obviously know no names. However, as the complaints were made to him and not through our own JCR grievance procedure and we only received information about the husts being “cancelled” on the afternoon of the day before they were scheduled to go ahead, there was no way we could cancel or postpone them. Nominations had been closed, it would have been unfair on the candidates and our governing documents do not allow us to move a hust unless there is sufficient reason presented to us. A complaint, the details of which we knew nothing, could unfortunately not constitute sufficient reason. The “cancelling” of the husts would have been in breach of the Education Act 1994, which I recommend you peruse if you have the time. My message to the Livers Out Facebook Group merely laid out the facts and stated that the President of the Society would not be allowing the JCR’s democracy to be tampered with. There is nothing negative about this – it is a statement of fact. Granted, this was not one of the best moments as far as communication between the Exec and the Principal was concerned. I am not going to launch into a chronology of who spoke to whom and when. I can however assure you that on the Friday following the husts, Sean and Professor Towl had a meeting where all of this was discussed amicably and the husts for the next set of positions, which were supposed to take place this week, have been postponed in light of their discussion. If you want to know what happened in more detail, I know Sean will be happy to fill you in and I am sure that Professor Towl will give you a very similar story. It may have helped for you to ask some of these people what went on before publishing an article where you purport to know such information.
You talk about the formals and say: “The Senior Management, [informed] me [by email] that they would continue to run formals instead of the JCR exec in the wake of the boycott controversy.” This was not what the email said at all. The Principal has indeed requested that more formals be arranged and this is in response to the fact that he has, admirably, spent a lot of time talking to students about what they would like to see within Cuth’s. As Sean says, however, this had nothing to do with the boycott, which was reversed back in January in order for the Norton Formal to go ahead. The boycott was in fact rescinded also because the Principal made a number of concessions which Professor Boyne felt he could not. These were the things which we were fighting for last year and the reason why the JCR mandated us to tell the Senior Management we were boycotting them. The new formals are being done at cost price, will include wine and, from what I can gather, will essentially consist of Cuth’s dinner in a suit with an SCR High Table. They will not be more inclusive than ever. In fact, the fact that the tickets are being sold at the Bailey during mealtimes means Freshers will end up getting priority over the tickets and the fact that there are no JCR members allowed on High Table (Exec or otherwise) means there is less space in the hall for people. There will also be no entertainment afterwards for anybody who could not attend the formals and no money from them will go towards Cuth’s Day (I realise I am reiterating Sean’s points, but I feel these differences cannot be stressed enough). Under the JCR, formal tickets were sold at the time which we felt would be convenient for the majority of people, not during weekdays when people have lectures and not in the dining hall so that Freshers get priority. The food was of higher quality than the stuff served up at dinnertime (it remains to be seen if it will be from now on), the hall was decorated, there was a special atmosphere and, yes, tickets were more expensive but all of that money went towards providing an amazing Cuth’s Day.
If those are things which you are happy to sacrifice, Will, then that is entirely your prerogative. I genuinely have my doubts, however, as to whether the rest of the JCR will agree with you, particularly those who remember last year’s formals. Could I also stress that the Principal has organised these formals at the last minute; it is still not decided who will organise the formals for the rest of the year and the email which the Principal sent round made no statement on that matter. Once again you have misrepresented the facts.
As far as the hustings go and your amusing comic strip, as well as your quote from one of my responses to Rachael’s article, I have the following to say. Firstly is that, if you read further down the page on the comments on that original article, you will see that I apologised profusely for some of my original comments. Those who are interested please feel free to have a look. You will also see my comments which pose the question “is it acceptable for the Exec to tell people that they are not allowed to ask certain questions in the husts?”. Personally I do not think it is, but I have already spelled my views out on that matter. I do agree with Ryan and Rachel though when I say that you do need to be able to say “no”. I take Thom’s point that you may be seen as a “spoil-sport”, however I have seen more than one occasion where somebody has refused to answer a question and anybody who has made any form of comment has been silenced by the Chair. I am confident that this will always be the case. Unfortunately it is not our place to tell people that they’re not allowed to be disappointed if somebody refuses to answer a silly question. We’re also not allowed to tell them that it can’t influence their voting. People have their own minds and their own voices. The JCR is a body of adults and the Exec merely run the facilities and representative side on behalf of said adults. I cannot stress enough that it is not the place of the Exec to tell people how to behave or how to think. Exec members are not special and not more important than anyone else. They are JCR members and within JCR meetings and day to day life, that is how they function. The only difference is that Exec members take on extra responsibilities to aid the smooth running of the JCR. Please remember that as it is an extremely important point. You are very quick to criticise the Exec’s abilities to represent, yet by writing yet another article about this you have once again bypassed them or given them a chance to prove themselves.
Thank you for providing such an enlightening article. Please allow me to stress that, although I am a member of the JCR Executive, the views expressed in this response are mine alone.
Tom Fletcher
JCR Member 2007 – Present
I am a big supporter of opinion columns and I completely agree with freedom of speech. However, it is disappointing to see that Palatinate continually publish items in the Comment section without initiating the relevant fact-checking. No opinion should ever have to be retracted, if it is opinion alone which is being put forward, but when an opinion is stated and then backed up by a supposedly factual statement which is actually inaccurate, it becomes defamatory. I believe that Palatinate, being Durham University’s most-read news organ, has a responsibility to avoid influencing the views of students by making statements which are just wrong. As Tom Fletcher has shown, Will Day’s article is full of factual inaccuracies which he has used to back up his opinions. These are opinions which may well affect other people’s perception of those whom he is attacking, and although he has every right to hold those opinions he does not have the right, by law in fact, to support them in print with falsehoods which mislead his readership.
Dear All,
First let me give some context to why I wrote this article. I went on the Palatinate website well over a week ago, and read Rachael’s article. I was horrified by some of the inflammatory responses to her, especially Tom Fletcher’s first post, which he signed off as a member of the exec. I have now revisited that page and see the very sensible posts by Matthew Glover and Sean Collins. I am also glad to see that Tom has apologised. In retrospect, I would have toned down the language of my article had I seen these before writing it and having now read it in print personally disagree with the sweeping nature of some of my points. At the time, though, I felt that Rachael was getting a bit of a tough time, and that her comments were not being dealt with constructively. I also suspect that Palatinate decided to publish my article because of some rude and aggressive comments which were also made about the editorial team after publishing the first article.
I should finally point out that as a comment article, there was no requirement for me either to research or factual check my article. I was writing as an ordinary, albeit at the time angry, JCR member. From my point of view, as I wrote in the article, I was getting emails from the JCR implying that there had been a bust up with the new Principal at the same time as getting emails from Senior Management informing me that they were trying to improve the student experience at Cuth’s.
Will
I do not have anything against comment articles or those that write them. I have little knowledge of the newspaper system but feel that if something is printed or worded as fact then it should be researched and proven correct. It is frankly ridiculous that there is no requirement to do so.
There is a requirement to do so. The British laws on libel require put the onus on the author and on the publication to ensure that anything they state as fact is in fact correct. Opinions are fine but if you then back them up with a statement which you claim is factual, the law requires it to be so. If somebody prints a statement about you as a piece of supposedly “factual” evidence to back up a defamatory opinion, then the fact that it is an opinion is irrelevant because you have influenced the readership’s thinking on the matter using evidence which is simply wrong. It IS libel and in British law the onus is on the author and the publication to prove that, after a significant amount of background research, they believed all the stated facts to be true at the time of publication. If they cannot prove this, then under British law they have committed libel and are subject to the justice system. The fact that an item is in a comment column is absolutely irrelevant when defamatory statements are made based on untruths.
I’d just like to respond to the points about editorial conduct. As far as I can see, there are two issues on that score – accuracy and balance. Incidentally, I’d appreciate it if people who are helpfully issuing legal advice on this thread to use their name.
On accuracy, as far as I’m aware the only defamatory information which is deemed to be inaccurate concerns the interpretation of an email by Sean Collins and relating to Professor Towl’s reasons for moving a meeting. We will of course print a retraction on this point in the next edition. Under British libel law (which in my opinion is authoritarian, but that’s another question) we do have to prove the truth of defamatory content. It would seem to me extraordinarily petty to take Palatinate (ie – the DSU) to court on this very small point, and I cannot imagine that this would be of any help to the reputation of Cuth’s JCR Exec. I don’t know if it would stand up in court. If there are any other inaccuracies, then if someone could outline them clearly in a brief post or email I’d greatly appreciate it. We will print retractions on any inaccuracies, but people should bear in mind that the law only potentially comes into play if the information in question is defamatory (so would not apply, for instance, to misinformation about the history of Cuth’s).
As to balance, I have received no response articles or requests to write such articles from any single individual. We did however publish a response on the subject in the last edition, extracted from the thread of Rachael’s article. We can only publish what we receive. Anyone who would like to write an article can email comment@palatinate.org.uk. I personally have no interest whatsoever in Cuth’s JCR, and certainly do not have any kind of vendetta against the exec.
Comment Editor
I just wanted to clarify that it was never the JCR Executive that were threatening to sue Palatinate. I did indeed contact the editor to inform him that a member of the JCR was considering pursuing a libel case but it was not a notification from the Executive
Thank you
The following was misposted to this week’s editorial page by accident (fat fingers and an iPhone don’t always mix). I apologise for the effective double posting.
As one of the JCR’s longest standing contributing members, I have seen many Executives come and go. I have seen many husts, and in fact have run many as SRO (2002-03 and 2005-06). I understand, therefore, the difficult balancing act these positions of responsibility require. When I helped to write the election rules in 2002, I was acutely aware of the tightrope I was walking. The first responsibility of an SRO is to ensure that elections are fair, unbiased and reflect the will of the JCR. A large part of that is being aware of the social situation. In an environment as compact as the Society, or Durham as a whole, tensions over the serious matter of choosing one’s representatives can run high. Due to this, I am very conscious of people’s need to blow off steam and relax. I believe it is a mistake to confuse frivolity with a lack of concientiousness on the part of the JCR. A body which can pick representatives well yet maintaining its humour and not factionslising is a body to be proud of.
I am also in a position to appreciate fair criticism. When changes have been needed to our structures, I have always been one of the first to propose it and devote my time to working through the details of implementing that change. I wrote the motion that introduced Standing Committee as an oversight on the JCR’s procedures and democracy, and introduced a grievance procedure (policy document 2) to allow complaints and allegations to be dealt with fairly and thoroughly without needlessly factionalising our members and exposing people to trial by stocks. I am currently assisting the JCR deal with the ramifications of the Charities Act 2006. Many of the justified criticisms of our procedures (and ‘our’ here means all members) have been noted previously and I am confident the JCR will address them. However long experience has taught me the value of being considerate and viewing rules holistically rather than piecemeal. Once the JCR decides on a direction, I am sure the Exec – as it has so many times – will push to make it a reality.
Just out of interest Will, since this artical refers to exec and their actions, have you spoken to them at all in the build up to this artical??
I think this thread if nothing else shows how active Cuth’s JCR is, and like I said in a post on the first article, hopefully all of this discussion, whether positive or negative, can be used to benefit the JCR and not just criticise it.
I don’t think I can add much to this particular discussion, and have now e-mailed the comment editor with an article to reach the whole student population, as opposed to the relatively few, and mainly Cuth’s, students who will read this. (I realise it won’t necessarily get published, but hopefully one article “pro-Cuth’s” will).
But I do think the point needs to made again that there are a lot more than 2 students at Cuth’s, and I think it unfair that the rest of the university will now have a set view of what we think of our JCR/Exec, or how we operate as a Society. Actually, many of us strongly disagree – as seen with the above comments – and I would just like to state publicly (ish) that most of us think the Exec are doing a damned good job, and I hope they don’t feel too disheartened by the articles. After all, I’m not sure I could put in as much effort as they do, and in the face of such public criticism from Cuth’s members remain considerate of all views, and even encourage further comment.
Since when can you speak for ‘most of us’?
I feel Dan’s comment is showing how ridiculas this is getting.
Victoria wrote how she and those she has spoken to feel. I for one agree with her.
She certainly speaks for me, unlike some of the content on this website.
I’m glad Victoria speaks for the anonymous en masse
The name “Dan” is not particularly revealing as to your own identity. Please stop being petty. It’s not conducive to sensible debate.
People are witholding their identity because they are afraid that anything they say will get twisted into another abrasive article.
She certainly speaks for us. All your base are belong to cuths
Victoria, it is not just me and Will who have these opinions: apart from these on-line threads, I have only received supportive comments. I’m afraid that neither of us is qualified to state the majority’s view.
Dan – sorry, I wasn’t too clear in my wording, I simply meant most of us who disagree with the article or specific points raised in it. This may be an assumption, but surely it is a logical one to make, that if you disagree with Will that the JCR Exec are doing such a bad job you therefore think they are doing a good job. I will make sure I write things a lot clearer next time, but all I can say is, it was late at night and I simply didn’t consider the wording enough.
The point of my comment was that the two articles together give the impression that the majority do think this as no-one has publicly contested it, apart from on this thread obviously. I’m not doubting that there are others who agree with Will and Rachael, I just wanted to really make it clear that there are a number of students in Cuth’s who don’t follow that view. (This is why I put in that I had written an article, as I realise anyone could retaliate with “If you’re so bothered, write an article so people see the other side”, and whether it is published or not I have at least tried, as I’m sure will others). Will’s comment on here for example – very few students will actually read that, so they will have an even more one-sided view, and I just wanted to show the effects this will have.
Rachael I hope my comments didn’t seem too hostile (?), that wasn’t my intention at all; I may not agree with all your points but I do admire you for stating your case and defending it to a lot of criticism, not all constructive, and think it sparked off a lot of debate that can only help Cuth’s. I know the other thread did get heated to say the least, but I’m not attacking yours and Will’s rights to publish an opinion, I just want to balance it out. As a Fresher, maybe I am clueless to what 2nd/3rd years think, and it could turn out that the majority of students disagree with everything I’m saying, (although I too only received supportive comments from my online response, though obviously it was on a much smaller scale!). However, the right place to find out is obviously in a JCR meeting when the ‘majority view’ can actually be seen, as opposed to just inferred by either side (I will just say that yes I did do this, but unintentionally). And I use the word ‘side’ very hesitantly as in my view we’re all Cuth’s students, this shouldn’t necessarily be about sides, and even the word implies personal attacks when this should be an objective debate.
Just to reiterate though, any views I have expressed have been my own, and those I have picked up admittedly mostly from Freshers, if that has any impact on them, by speaking to people in Brooks bar, over lunch/dinner and in our kitchen. I will quite happily admit some of my friends disagree with me and agree with Rachael and Will entirely, but at least just as many have felt the opposite, and the majority of those have then said they felt the Exec are doing a good job. I would never even dream of speaking on behalf of the whole of Cuth’s, or even the majority, especially when I know I happen to agree with some points. Maybe my original point wasn’t explained well enough, and a simple “I, and a number of other Cuth’s students, do not agree with this article” would have been effective, but I doubt I would have managed to get off lightly by just saying that!
A sizeable majority at Cuths are shocked and outraged by the recent erratic behaviour of the fledgling principal. His explosive outburst at the last meeting has only served to undermine his ability to work on behalf of the society in any way shape or form.
all your base are belong to cuths
I have to agree, no matter what I think of the Exec or the articles, the Principle’s behaviour is just ridiculous. After all we’re paying to have a Principle to serve the Society and JCR, yet in my eyes he isn’t fulfilling his role. I’m sure it isn’t on purpose, he seems to have good intentions, but by not consulting the Exec or even the rest of the student body, and by refusing to listen to them, how can he know what to do to best serve the needs of the JCR?
Hopefully lots of people will now come to the JCR meeting on Tuesday…!
google cuths resist multiply
I both agree and disagree with the articles of Will and Rachael. But my overriding feeling is one of complete apathy, which is slightly disappointing. I’d like to have a strong opinion one way or the other, but in actual fact, along with quite a lot of the members of SCS who I have discussed this with, I actually don’t care.
I have never met Graham Towl. I don’t know what he looks like. I would have gone to his introductory talk, but he helpfully scheduled it when I had a lecture. I’m sure he’s perfectly pleasant.
Similarly, I have only ever been to one JCR meeting. This was well over two hours long, in an incredibly hot and stuffy Brooks bar, where I had to sit on the floor, squashed between an ItBox and some sweaty guy, probably through sheer boredom, doing his chemistry homework. Additionally, sending everyone an agenda of no less than 22 pages is not particularly persuasive. I don’t find the exec unapproachable. If I had a problem or a concern, I wouldn’t hesitate to contact them, because I know they would take my communication seriously, just as they take their own positions (perhaps a little too) seriously. Just don’t ask me to go to the meetings. Being on the exec for two societies, I have never experienced such painful proceedings in any other meeting.
Formals are an ongoing issue. I’m not sure why. I’m not particularly concerned why. But why have the people concerned not been able to resolve it? Similarly, trouser-dropping has caused something of a rumpus among some students. Again, I actually don’t care.
I just hope that the new term will bring a bit a resolve and unity between the rather factious elements of St Cuthbert’s Society. Until then, I’ll have to remain disinterested.
You can’t be that apathetic if you’re posting on this discussion forum. I agree with Victoria, maybe you should give the JCR meeting a chance tomorrow?
So how about you come to the JCR meeting tomorrow at 7:30pm and see if the JCR exec can interest you and get rid of your apathy?
I can understand why you’d be unimpressed by that meeting, I’d guess most students if they have been to one went to the budgets one last term and lets be honest sitting around deciding how much money each society gets isn’t exactly thrilling.
But tomorrow is an extraordinary meeting, and if this one can’t fire up your interest, now we have something to properly discuss and fight for, then fair enough you can remain disinterested forever more.
This isn’t just to Eric, it’s to all Cuth’s people, whether “pro” or “anti” Exec/JCR/Principal; we can’t resolve things through a newspaper comment section, so let’s do things properly like Rachel originally called for and try and bring resolve and unity to the JCR by sorting it out ourselves. Otherwise, I don’t see how any complaints can be taken seriously if people won’t attempt to offer positive criticism and change as well as negative and won’t turn up to such an important JCR meeting, the one way we actually get to have a say.
See you all tomorrow at 7:30 in Bailey Bar, hopefully..!