Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Arts Soc and B&L fined 5000 euros
Options
Comments
-
RandomName2 wrote: »There is a difference between the ASAI and the Stazi.
Trust me when I say, the UCD authorities are not the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, UCD doesn't tap phones and destroy and exile political opponents and shave the heads of non-conformists.A student society is not, as far as I know, a commercial enterprise (if ArtSoc itself reported a net profit in its last audit and distributed this profit to its 'staff', then I apologise.)
Not as far as I know either, however this is rather contentious considering the behaviour of some (not all societies) are something akin to a private business.The real debate lies in the extent to which UCD is considered public or private property (which, in reality, is a grey area).
This isn't the debate here, however it is a noteworthy observation to make. I would conclude that UCD is in fact public, for the simple reason that it is financed by the public. However, the management of the place is something needs to be looked at, now that's where the real debate is.If UCD were entirely public property it would merely be subject to national law.
Not necessarily, civil law for example doesn't prohibit a public body from forming its own statutes, e.g. a public school may prohibit the sale of sweets but this isn't explicit in our legal system that prevents or promotes this kind of activity, if it was it would be extremely tedious and time consuming.However, this is clearly not the case, as the college authorities' mandate takes precedence over national law.
No, the college is still restricted by civil law as much as any public body. One could take a challenge against the fines to the district or circuit court, or indeed if you could prove that this was unconstitutional then you'd have something, there's nothing really stopping you. However, the college does operate its own rules and regulations which would be used to counter such claims and hence we're back to where we started.If I am on Grafton Street Hugh Brady can't run up to me and tell me to leave Dublin, for instance, but he would be within his rights (subject to committee approval) to do so in UCD.
No he can't, and your point is?Now why this is the case, and whether it should be the case, is another matter. UCD itself could not survive for a moment without public funding, and is an educational institution established and maintained by the Irish state.
Actually it was established by Cardinal John Henry Newman, became a college of the RUI in the latter half of the 19th century etc... but this is neither here nor there! It is maintained by the exchequer funds and managed by those appointed through the public sector appointments.It is otherwise dependent upon students paying the college for revenue, and also upon various connections with commercial enterprises. This is not the same situation as you would find in a private company; where if employees wished to put up posters for a staff-society, upon the property of the company, that it would be up to the discretion of the company whether or not they wanted such posters to go up. Students aren't paid employees. UCD isn't a private company.
No, you're trying to compare apples with oranges now, because UCD is a public body it isn't allowed to make up it's own rules and regulations regarding the management of the place? This is a ridiculous assertion to make, because it's funded by the exchequer it's at the mercy of the public, sure by this token let's turn UCD into a hospital, it's own rules don't matter at all once the state is financing the place.Moreover, it would be difficult to countenance the idea that a company such as RyanAir, for instance, could reasonably step in and shut down a staff-society, or fine it for behaviour that it independently determines is inappropriate. Of course, it would also be hard to imagine RyanAir funding a staff society :rolleyes:
No it wouldn't it's perfectly acceptable if such a society was contravening its rules and regulations on staff societies.But is UCD funding these societies? Is it merely dolling out tax-payers money which has already been designated for student enterprises? Indeed, does Art-Soc actually require this public funding - and is the fine more a case of withdrawing such funds?
UCD is funding these societies, as are students. However it isn't merely dolling out tax-payers money as this money is taken from the exchequer in the first place and is allocated to such investment. Personally I don't think these societies can expect to have any kind of freedom if they are funded in the first place by the college and are in fact part of the college itself. I think the fine is an arbitrary fine and speculating otherwise isn't going to help, it can't be proven.I am (happily) surprised that the Recognition Committee (which sounds remarkably like something out of 1984
) is half-composed of students, which in my eyes makes its judgments on student affairs far more legitimate.
Exactly! It wasn't the big bad college out to get those pesky kids, it was fellow students on the committee who voted also.
Personally, I think the committee has a great name, maybe they might consider changing it to a ministry, possibly the Ministry of Love! God, wasn't George Orwell a genius!:D0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
That's what they want you to think...
I saw the new uniforms they were considering for Pulse Security recently, something like this:
Not as intimidating as the black but the hat really adds that "I hate students quality!" I'm starting to have my doubts about whether UCD doesn't have sympathies to the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit...;)0 -
-
-
As has been stated, UCD is private property.
Why would UCD fund an external social club?
The conditions of their funding and the use of their facilities is that you abide by their terms of service.
My point is that I don't like the content of the advertising poster or the idea of a Virgin ball. I furthered my argument by stating that the board were right to censor the poster.
Without meaning to sound mimic-like, apart from your unusual arguments and misinformed points, I don't really understand what you are trying to say.
I've no feelings about Art Soc specifically. I've attended their event in the past and enjoyed them. I'm sure I will again in the future.
So UCD is private property... that just happens to be a national university funded by the tax payer.
Okay, okay - let's run with the idea that UCD can hypothetically refuse to allow any student society to exist, just on arbitrary grounds, or to put up any advertising of any kind. Let's go with the idea that they are, you know, not answerable to students (or the public in general).
Right.
Now does UCD give money to the societies?
No... err let me rephrase that...
Does UCD give some of the tax-payers' money it receives to societies?
Yes.
Does it do so voluntarily?
I don't know. I wouldn't imagine so - but I actually don't know.
Should a society like ArtsSoc actually receive these public funds?
Probably not - between advertising, ticket sales and membership costs (which they should increase to a reasonable level) they should be easily able to break even without having to dip into public funds.
If this was the case - what great service would UCD be granting ArtsSoc in that case?
Allowing (that's right - allowing) some posters to be put up on its private property. Neither Arts Soc nor B&L tend to use ucd's property for any other purpose. Presumably ucd would still be able to fine a society that put up these posters if they didn't like these posters (for any reason, whatsoever). Surely in this circumstance a fine would just be theft? Never mind, we are going with the idea that ucd is being generous allowing posters in the first place.
But whether or not this should be the case - whether or not public servants - sorry, sorry, 'administrators' of an academic institution should actually involve themselves in non-academia. Surely the customers of ucd (the students, would you believe) should have authority of over student affairs. Yes, ucd has authority over student affairs, but -morally- should they have this authority? Who grants them this authority? Well, they are given de facto independence by the government, but mostly it is dependent upon our complacency and cooperation (we are the customer, after all).
Because, all this has nothing to do with the content of the poster. The reason for a fine was arbitrary - the Recognition Committee could use any reason it liked to fine a society for a particular poster. Indeed, it doesn't need any reason at all to fine a society. It can, as one or two people here have advocated, fine ArtSoc into the ground. Even if ArtsSoc didn't put a poster on the sacred property of ucd and instead e-mailed their posters, could they and would they still be fined? Again, I do not know for certain, but I would imagine it would be the case.
What is perhaps the worst aspect of this is the fact that ucd is attempting to take the moral high ground in this sort of situation. It is using censorship as its shield and fines as its sword on a crusade to defend the moral integrity of students
.
You may not have liked the Virgin Ball posters, but did a single student complain about them? Would any student have been made vulnerable or behave in an un-catholic fashion because of these posters? Who knows, who cares - it's what the Recognition Committee's say that goes.
And that's the bottom line. We don't have a say. They do. And I think the authority on this matter should lie with us. Full stop.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
I haven't read everything, becuase it was too long and I wasn't arsed.
If your offended by posters around UCD, current or previous, then your lying, or born in the 50's, and you just don't like societies. Just wanted to get that one out of the way.
Second of all, societies like Artssoc and B&L, are non-profitable organisations, with the intentions to provide entertainment for the college. I will admit that 90% of this entertainment involves drinking. Without them, you'd have no 3euro pints or shots, or concession prices to clubs which most people do enjoy. We're not here to relay intelligent thoughts about the facts of life, it's a college society.
Choppy(who will remain anonymous) is right, maybe a small(very small) fine was in order, but the society didn't have any intentions of forcing people to lose their virginity. If you think societies are forcing people to buy you tickets, then you need to step away from the 3x4 area societies use to sell tickets for events. At the end of the day, they're not here to harm anyone, they're here to provide a small service, which people avail of, but sometimes make small mistakes.
There are 2 sides to college, educational and social, both are as important as another, and if you disagree, enjoy your desk job.0
Advertisement