gowns

foxybrowne

Writing essay and decided to look at the current college statutes. Although we obviously don't have to wear gowns and caps, the college statutes seem to say that we do. I'm sure this one has been discussed before, but can anyone clarify?

(From THE 1966 CONSOLIDATED STATUTES OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
AND OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN)
http://www.tcd.ie/Secretary/Board/Other_Papers/Statutes-Current.pdf
=================================================
ACADEMIC DRESS
7. The Provost, and every Fellow, Professor, other Academic Officer, Scholar, and other Student shall have a cap and gown, and shall wear them while performing their Academic duties.
8. The caps to be worn by Graduates and Undergraduates shall be black, and of the ordinary academical shape; the cap to be worn by Scholars and ex-Scholars shall be covered in velvet, and all other caps in fine cloth; and the caps of Graduates shall in all cases have a black silk tassel added in the usual manner. Students shall salute the Provost and Fellows by doffing their caps.
9. The gowns to be worn by Undergraduates and by Bachelors shall be made of black stuff, and those worn by Masters and Doctors shall be made of black stuff or black silk, and the gowns for undergraduates, for Bachelors, and for Masters and Doctors, respectively, shall be made according to the patterns heretofore in use in the University; but, from and after their election, Scholars shall have the privilege of wearing a Bachelor's gown, whether they have graduated or not.
=========================================================

The regulations in the current college calander on gowns seem to be the ones in force for us, so does that mean the calander overrides the statutes?

(From College Calander)
http://www.tcd.ie/info/calendar/part1/
=========================================================
Gowns
25 Students are entitled to wear gowns appropriate to their standing within the College precincts. They are required to do so when attending Commencements.
========================================================

Kwekubo

Those statutes don't say you must always wear a gown; they only say that, when and if you do wear one, it must be in-line with these rules.

xeduCat

Actually it says 'shall', which is normally interpreted by lawyers (if not by human beings) as being mandatory (as opposed to 'may'). But don't worry about it too much.

Glad to see that the Statutes are of interest! I am working for a project that will be calling for any suggestions or ideas on what should be kept, changed or removed from the entire statutes. Sections like this are examples of things that may have been enforced/followed at the time of the last major revision (1966) but not so today. So we'll be asking questions like: should we leave those sections in and ensure they are taken seriously, or change them to reflect 'modern practice'?

Watch this space :-D

(Oh, and the Calendar definitely doesn't override the Statutes, but untangling that mess is a big task...)

europerson

xeduCat wrote:

Watch this space :-D

Ooh, exciting! That will be interesting.

King.Penguin

xeduCat wrote:

Actually it says 'shall', which is normally interpreted by lawyers (if not by human beings) as being mandatory (as opposed to 'may'). But don't worry about it too much.

How would you interpret "should"? To me it means I don't have to but I probably "should".

Tacitha

Glad to see that the Statutes are of interest! I am working for a project that will be calling for any suggestions or ideas on what should be kept, changed or removed from the entire statutes. Sections like this are examples of things that may have been enforced/followed at the time of the last major revision (1966) but not so today. So we'll be asking questions like: should we leave those sections in and ensure they are taken seriously, or change them to reflect 'modern practice'?

So can you 'restore' all the apocryphal bits, please? The scholars, the goats, the bales of hay, riding horses through front arch, but particularly the glass of stout when wearing a sword to exams? Slip them in in Latin, maybe?

Kwekubo

xeduCat wrote:

Actually it says 'shall', which is normally interpreted by lawyers (if not by human beings) as being mandatory (as opposed to 'may'). But don't worry about it too much.

Reading it again, I think you're right.

xeduCat wrote:

So we'll be asking questions like: should we leave those sections in and ensure they are taken seriously, or change them to reflect 'modern practice'?

According to a source of mine, back in 1966 "Academic duties" (for the purpose of having to wear gowns anyway) meant arts lectures, exams and Commons. I cannot see those usages making a comeback, quaint though they would be...

foxybrowne

yes, it'd be good to get a definition of academic duties! Checked the Universities Act 1997, and it doesn't seem to override existing college statues, as long as there is no conflict.