We don't need an alternative

We shouldn't force YUSU to rush things.

The motion for an 'Alternative Fresher's Week' (AFW) was definitely a positive step in raising the awareness of more inclusive Freshers' programmes and even for events throughout term time. That being said, with Freshers’ Week/Fortnight being such a vital time of the year in ensuring our students hit the ground running, in my opinion, the motion is not an answer to whatever problems may be seen with the current system.

Although it appeared to be nice and inclusive, the motion lacked all kinds of substantial planning and consultation. Personally, I had a 20-minute chat with its writer prior to discovering it was to be a UGM several weeks later. Consequently, to discover upon reading that this motion had the apparent backing of the college chairs, I was both surprised and insulted. As far as I know, all of the Chairs have opposed the motion.

I felt the motion seemed incredibly defeatist with regard to what colleges can offer and dangerous in its potential to mandate YUSU to promote the AFW to the same level as other Freshers’ Week programmes, vaguely-worded as it is. I also felt that such a proposal undermines those colleges who do indeed break their backs to provide alternative events for their students. Speaking on Vanbrugh's behalf, I know I can say that we could indeed scrap the so-called mainstream events centred around bar crawls and campus events and still have a Fresher's Fortnight which is rammed full of other, so-called “alternative” activities.

What's more, with such an 'equal promotion' involving leaflets being sent to our prospective students along with details for the “mainstream” events,, how would they perceive it all? I myself, before coming to uni, would've deemed myself as 'alternative', and so if I had been to receive a leaflet for that week, and then the college one, I'd choose the former. With hindsight, this would've been prohibitive to my college and university experience for all kinds of reasons. The college system provides that vital spine of welfare provision with our administrators, provost, welfare tutors and STYCs for guidance and protection (nothing of the sort was even suggested in this motion). Additionally, it provides the perfect environment for social and personal development amongst people of varied backgrounds and interests – something that university is partly about. Pre-setting myself to a certain group before I'd even got here is something that I reckon I would have regretted. I am sure that as partly a result of this, the YUSU Freshers’ Fair (the chance for societies to have their say) comes in a week after students move in.

Another niggling problem I have with this is the claim that they want to work with colleges. There has been no indication of this, and even if there was, it is way too late in the game. Already, the Vanbrugh JCRC and others are 8 or 9 weeks into their planning for Freshers’ Week/Fortnight. This is either blatant ignorance or sheer naivety - probably a mix of the two. There are people out there who for their sadly poor time during Freshers’, do hold a genuine grudge against the 'college system'; and there are others, such as Roxanne Kovacs, the author of this motion, who genuinely wanted to add to something that works well already.

Following this, it is worth mentioning that the opposition from each college Chair to this motion was not a case of blind militancy and simple defence of the status quo. We are each happy to work with societies - it would make our lives so much easier – however, there are ways and means to do this. Vanbrugh works frequently with the CU and the Red Frogs because they approach us informally, set up sound relationships and familiarity, and they ask us personally; “what can we do for you?” Going to the UGM stage with barely any consultation appears confrontational and dismissive of JCRCs’ efforts.

The final immediate issue surrounding this motion was we didn't have a clue who was behind it, and the only response given was that societies were 'in talks'. HP Muggle Soc publicly announced their non-involvement in the plans, contrary to rumours – and DougSog, which was mentioned to me in that initial 20 minute chat, have said nothing of it. Again, this added to the looseness of it all. Fresher's Week/Fortnight is pivotal to the student experience and it shouldn't be rushed by those organising it.

Myself, and the Goodricke Chair, Nacho Hernando, have since met Roxanne and two supporters of the motion for a chat about the issues raised, and we have agreed that whatever happens they will, in future, work through the colleges via informal meetings – so that next year, such an idea will be much more viable and productive. This is great news, because for festivals such as Halloween and Bonfire Night, societies such as People & Planet can do some cracking outdoors events that are a little more off-the-wall than the standard 'Warm up to Bonfire Night Zombie Themed Bar Crawl'.

In my opinion, an AFW would be unproductive. If the motion is passed, YUSU will be mandated to push a Pandora's Box of policy through. In my opinion, such a case will lead either to negligence of duty in ignoring the whole thing or implementing it halfheartedly, or (more likely) they will do their job and rush through an AFW that could be not as well-thought out or organised as it should be. Personally, I think we should save them - and our current and prospective students - the hassle and the risk.

I will say though, that because of this motion, colleges and societies have agreed to work together in a more productive and educated way for the foreseeable future.

The thoughts and views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of the yorker or its affiliated members.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.