Central SU event control is not the right way forward
Charlie McQuillen condemns YUSU for its events proposals
In a move designed to ‘promote diversity while reducing fluctuation in the market’, YUSU is once more growing too big for its boots by attempting to centralise control, branding and potentially funding of campus events.
A proposal put forward by wannabe SU President Robbie Dale and Nat Thwaites- McGowan is suggesting the formation of a new Ents committee, where SU representatives and the respective college JCRC’s will have a joint say on the nature of events on campus.
Whilst the duo are presenting this as means of reviving flagging campus events and allowing greater diversity, it appears more likely to be a thinly-disguised attempt to pump already successful events for every penny they are worth, whilst further relegating traditionally less popular venues like Halifax and Alcuin to the role of poor relations.
Broadly, the proposition is based on sound thinking, and is not without some good ideas. It cannot be denied that several colleges are, prone to staging at best unsuccessful and at worst downright lame events.
Alcuin and Halifax are viewed by most students as being either too far away to be worth the journey, or as being soulless and under populated. Derwent and, prior to its closure, Vanbrugh, had the advantage of large central locations in which to provide a range of genres for their patrons, which resulted in better attended, more successful events.
The independence of the JCRC’s in running and funding events has therefore been counter-productive: the rich have got richer, and the poor have got poorer. This is an issue that needs a solution, but this proposal is not it, at least not in its current form. The suggestion that branding and marketing could be centralised to guarantee better quality and coverage is sensible and might be useful, as is the realism about the nature of events; some campus venues are not suited to the events they attempt to host.
The encouragement of greater co-operation between JCRC’s to ensure that events are not in direct competition, or to act as a ‘think tank’ for fresh ideas is also a positive move. What is less reassuring is the inflexibility suggested by the proposal. Individual JCRC’s will no longer be able to run any event they want; ideas will have to be ratified by the committee and if Halifax wished to run an event featuring live bands, they would have to do so in another college earmarked for such events.
In addition, it seems likely that less traditionally popular colleges will be deliberately relegated to holding less high profile events, with lower admission prices. Given that, aside from sports, the bar and its social events help to form the centre of a college’s character, this will inevitably be to the detriment of many.
Although it contains some sensible innovations, the proposal needs to be toned down: it will ultimately compound existing problems by ensuring that those struggling now will continue to do so.
