Playing with numbers
The CU can be criticised for a lot, but not for their funds.
‘Numbers were never my strong suit,’ quipped silky-smooth Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye. I sympathise. The ‘medium’ Sudoku I attempted during a particularly uneventful pub-shift the other day did not look very intimidating, but within fifteen minutes I was reduced to an effing and blinding wreck.
Statistics? A different matter entirely. Statistics are a suit that anyone can play. Disraeli was right to condemn them, not only in their capacity as a rhetorical smokescreen to disguise a bad argument, but because the person brandishing a tight set of statistics does not actually need an argument. Stats have a life of their own; they will, it is often claimed, speak for themselves.
Take, for example, the University of York Christian Union’s financial audit sheet for the years 2006 and 2007. It would be grossly unfair of me to appropriate the figures for the money spent on UYCU’s Minster Ball last January (£17,161 – £10K of which was in fairness, raised through ticket sales) and place them provocatively beside the figure afforded to a ‘homeless project’ (£45). Speaking as a compassionless atheist with a heart of unyielding flint, I do not feel able to pass judgment on the actions of an independent, non-profitable and, for the most part, harmless organisation. Nevertheless the statistics look bad, do they not? Really bad.
On the other hand, my presentation of these ‘facts’ has been unforgivable. I have selected only those statistics that advance my argument and have marshalled them to the worst possible effect. My treatment of the issue has depended entirely on rhetorical sleight of hand and a complete refusal to see the bigger picture.
Here follows my redemption. The CU may be wealthy by the standards of most York societies, but it is not affiliated with YUSU, so there is no question of them being leant upon by the latter, with whom they try to cooperate unofficially. The CU are funded entirely by donations which they spend at their discretion.
Furthermore, they might very well argue that, as an evangelical institution, their first priority is the widespread articulation of God’s word. This explanation, which I would advise them to learn by heart and repeat to their detractors, justifies the CU’s three most expensive annual ventures: the Minster Ball, the ‘House Party’ – a gastronomic, Bible-oriented weekend sojourn in the country – and, finally, a £3,000 expense marked somewhat chillingly as ‘Freshers’.
The CU does not exist simply to funnel money from donors to receivers. Their aims, though often charitable, are not exclusively so. It is also worth considering that a lot of charitable work is voluntary and does not require financial support – working in a night-shelter, for example, would be done gratis. So a figure for how much was spent on a certain CU project does not necessarily denote the real scale of their input.
I am loath to defend the CU, an organisation which, I believe, is benighted and corrosive. Nevertheless, though I revile and mistrust them, I will not see them persecuted on financial grounds. Liberty, as always, is the last word on the subject.
