ASM: Clarifying Rules Regarding Themed Events

Nicholas Buxey

The recent motion at the ASM to make rules surrounding themed events stricter in terms of anti-discrimination, whilst noble, are ultimately misguided. The first thing that has to be taken into account is that stereotypes, whilst sometimes offensive, are a fact of life. There is literally a stereotype for everything and everyone, and to try and deny these would make any kind of themed event very hard to see through.

There are some stereotypes that are more offensive than others, but most societies and Unions would recognise which stereotypes are more likely to cause mass offence, and legislation wouldn’t make any difference. Rather, it would create an environment in which complaints and accusations run rife, distracting the Union from dealing with actual issues of discrimination within the university.

Themed events are the most popular at the SU since they offer unique experiences. In banning the possibility of themed events, the SU runs the risk of making the chances of students going even less likely, as the surrounding clubs would likely compensate, luring more students away. It would also make the student body more apathetic towards the SU thus resulting in an ineffective student council.

What may be considered grossly offensive by one person may be considered a harmless joke by another. Although there are some labels that are universally unpleasant, intelligent and tolerant individuals can identify these. Trying to implement legislation on this subject would lead to rules that are almost unworkable and impossible to implement, as the very idea of what is tolerant would be dictated by subjective judges.

Most stereotypes, especially those based on a country, tend to be only mildly offensive at best, and have some basis in truth. Albeit some labels can encourage an unpleasant discriminatory atmosphere. However, it’s unlikely that dressing as a Mexican would cause an atmosphere that was unpleasant to them. Many minority groups have conflicting or overlapping views, and it would be difficult to define what is truly offensive in everyone’s eyes.

The proposition has good intentions and seeks to create a more harmonious student body but it runs the real risk of having the opposite effects. Effects such as; creating a paranoid and suspicious student body that has no wish to engage with the council, whilst driving many students away from what is actually a very-well equipped SU, seeking themed events off-campus.

Ultimately, seeking to minimise discrimination through legislation is futile, and is unlikely to produce the desired effect.

Max Ethan Rodgers

In simpler terms this motion would allow the SU to mandate the rules concerning sports club and society members dressing up at SU events to be a lot clearer and thus dictating what can and cannot be worn.

The motion does aim to prevent discrimination against characteristics that can offend people such as gender, age and race; however the way in which the motion would have done this is questionable. This confusion was intensified at the meeting, with the proposing speaker advocating that students vote down the motion, which surely must be a first in ASM history. Both the proposing and opposing speakers put forward the view that the meeting was not the time or place to discuss the motion and that it should go back to Student Council, which is probably the best outcome considering the confusion from many ASM speakers regarding the motion’s exact intent.

In my view, one key question, which needs to be clarified before the motion is to be re-presented, is who decides what themes and costumes are offensive? This was not made clear during the debate itself and until such an important point is cleared up, any successors of this motion must also be voted down until it is clarified.

I remember being horrified to see instances, shown in the media, of people in both this country and America dressing in costumes of those such as Jimmy Saville, the Twin Towers and a Boston Marathon bombing victim and I think it can be readily agreed among many that such costumes are undoubtedly offensive and penalties should be instituted. However, my main concern is that while there are costumes that seem unanimously offensive, we also differ on other definitions of offensive. For example, is dressing up as a priest offensive to atheists or not? Is dressing as a ‘nerd’ offensive to the academically intelligent or not?

Until we can all agree on what is offensive and what is not, (which will never happen because we are all different), decisions about what is offensive or not are likely to be left in the hands of a small minority or go through a long, bureaucratic process which will also not work. We should stick to the current system of complaints about costumes being forwarded to the Sabbatical officers rather than seek to regulate costumes based on the individual views of some.

Cindy Asokan

Whilst I agree with the stance that the motion required some amendments, I am defending it fully on principle. Often, ethnic minority students who need the most help will not come forward. Even after facing some form of discrimination,they don’t want to be accused of ‘kicking up a fuss over nothing’ or ‘playing the race card’. I fear that the arguments made in the ASM only serve to reinforce those fears and dissuade students from speaking up on issues of race and seeking help.

What message are we sending to international students and individuals from minority backgrounds when members of the student body argue, completely straight-faced, that their ‘freedom of expression’ is more important than the safety and welfare of other students? To me, it speaks volumes that some students are more concerned that the variety of circling themes for ‘Pop!’ would be compromised, than the welfare of students from minority backgrounds. Every student has a right to feel safe and welcome on campus.

I feel that it was inappropriate that the majority of the student body was given a say on minority issues by being allowed to vote on the motion. The motion should have stayed in Student Council and only be voted on by elected representatives of council. From the outset, the motion was never given fair consideration due to the misrepresentation of the motion through social media.

There was nothing in the motion that does not already exist in the SU’s By-Laws. The proposal was simply meant to clarify these rules and create a simpler complaints procedure.

The motion was actually read and understood by very few people. It was misrepresented as ban on all forms of cultural dress, creating an environment of fear for societies, when most have little to worry about. I would like to point out that nowhere in the motion is the word ‘ban’ used, yet every argument against was based on the notion that students’ ‘freedom of expression’ would be impinged upon should the motion pass. However, ‘freedom of expression’ simply means that an individual is allowed to hold opinions and express them without governmental interference. It does not mean that students can act and dress as offensively as they like without facing any repercussions from the SU or their peers.

This motion would have gone some way towards challenging ignorance and prejudice on campus and I am disappointed that it has been disregarded in such a manner.