Trinity Hall's June Event Committee was accused of allowing homophobic discrimination last night as it emerged that they banned male couples from riding on the swings together.
The attraction's policy was strictly enforced despite multiple complaints from the June Event's gay attendees. Guests were left to speculate about the motives behind the decision.
One of the couples turned away from the attraction included a final-year law student, who told The Tab: "It was outrageous. We identified ourselves as a gay couple but were told we would not be permitted to ride together. This breaks about a dozen anti-discrimination and human rights laws."
Another guest said: "In desperation, I asked if my boyfriend and I would be let on if we found a pair of girls to double up with. It was humiliating."
Members of the June Event security team were aware of the problem and told an undercover Tab reporter: "We've had several complaints and we've passed each one on to the Committee, but they have insisted: it's mixed couples only."
The revelation will come as an embarrassment to the College, whose alumni include early socialist Edward Carpenter, a leading advocate of homosexual equality. Carpenter graduated from Trinity Hall in 1862 and was one of the first people to risk expressing his views publicly despite the illegality of homosexuality.
Despite being in contact with The Tab, the June Event Committee had not provided us with a comment by the time of going to press. The LGBT section of Trinity Hall's website continues to claim that "Fostering a safe and accepting community is important to the entire MCR."
Pairs of girls were allowed.
[...] Tit Hall Accused Of Homophobia Same sex couples. A swing too far for Tit. Hall? [...]
This policy was unfortunate for those it affected but not homophobic. It was made by the man who ran the swing boats, not the committee, and was designed to make it easier to turn away overly boisterous pairs of strong, heavy men (of any sexuality) who could have damaged the ride – easier to have a blanket rule than to argue out a judgement with each group. The discrimination was based on gender rather than sexuality.
Also, those rides are usually designed for children. The thinking behind what they were doing is sensible, it is just a shame they implemented the policy in a heavy-handed way and that that has caused offence.
juneeventworker – Surely you're not advocating a policy that unfairly discriminates solely on the grounds of, it’s “easier"? Or because it wasn’t intentionally directed at a minority group and therefore, it’s okay.
Surely it’s the committees responsibility to ensure that all contractors for future events operate fair, non-discrimatory policies and apply a little common sense.
Erm, well why not just make a 'no drunk riding' rule instead of one based on gender that can easily be interpreted by both the media and guests as homophobia? The committee should have had some balls and told the operator that his policy was dumb.
Language straight from the 1950s. This is clearly designed to discriminate and
from somebody who clearly couldn't care less and the College should take
careful stock of their reputation (and is probably liable to prosecution, which I would not advocate but would understand).
Why was there a fairground ride there that couldn't take people's weight anyway?
It is a known fact that gay people break fairground rides. It's not homophobia, it's just sensiblele.
"Or because it wasn’t intentionally directed at a minority group and therefore, it’s okay." – the policy also prevented two heterosexual male friends from enjoying the ride together. The fact that two gay men couldn't go on the ride together is irrelevant frankly. It prevents a gay and a straight man partaking in the ride together as well, come to think of it. Seriously.
The policy didn't discriminate against homosexual couples it discriminated all males. Single, heterosexual males couldn't go on the ride with other male friends, however, the article doesn't seem to mention that they were discriminated against…
Generally men weigh more than women and the structures have technical limitations in regards to weight. It can't be feasibly expected that operators should be able to guess, or ask, people's weights, as that may too cause offence. When there are rowers and rugby players at the event who weigh in excess of 100kg, it makes it difficult to limit weights on the event using judgement. Surely if you explicitly limit weights you are still discriminating against people who are heavier than others? You wouldn't want a situation where a couple try to get on together for the operators to use judgement and say "No you're too heavy".
Surely a blanket policy which, although may be excessive in a few situations, is favourable than people being singled out as being too heavy.
I've experienced this policy at all Swing Boat rides…. it's certainly not just tit hall.
Would they have turned down fat girls?
i saw one massive girl on it….i was disgusted
[...] Tit Hall Accused Of Homophobia Same sex couples. A swing too far for Tit. Hall? [...]
Those following this story may find it interesting to turn to page 15 of today's (19/06/10) Daily Telegraph.
Anyone got a scan / link to the Telegraph article?
I would suggest that the outraged gay gentleman in question purchases a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. Being asked to comply with the same safety rule as every other student at the college ball would hardly seem to be discrimination. What the gentleman in question actually expressed was a demand that as a gay person, he did not need to comply with rules in place for his safety, but should instead be allowed carte blanche to set his own rules based purely on the fact that he was gay.
I wonder, if the operator was browbeaten into allowing all male couples to ride together and the ride subsequently collapsed and killed someone, would it be a reasonable defence in court that they hadn't wished to upset gay men? I very much doubt it.
They called me a queer-o and pushed me off the swings. I hate tit hall
Does Cambridge University or Tit Hall have a policy against homophobic discrimation? If so where can I find a link?
A little bit of common sense here would go a long way. As many commentators have pointed out, this policy was not discriminatory to homosexual men per se, but rather was discriminatory against the male sex as a whole. This discrimination was undetaken it seems on the grounds of health and safety.
The problem occurs when we have a shameful misrepresentation of the facts (*cough* shitty TAB *cough*), and we adopt the ridiculous ideology that any discrimination of any kind is intrinsically immoral. Is this any different to theme park rides that discriminate on the basis of height or age?