The decision to refuse male-male couples on the swing boats at Trinity Hall's June Event has caused a bit of a stir in Cambridge. In fact, it's caused a bit of a stir further afield too, if my phone conversation with the Daily Telegraph this afternoon is anything to go by. And, the story has been further propelled by the refusal of the June Event Committee to issue any kind of statement or apology. Guests and interested observers have been left to speculate for themselves why gay couples were turned away from the ride, despite numerous complaints, and why they were forced to rope in female friends to double up with them if they wanted to ride at the same time.
I can hardly express total surprise at the furore, since I was the one who broke the story for The Tab yesterday. I wrote a deliberately provocative piece in response to genuine outrage from a number of Tit Hall's guests. But is it just a storm in a swing boat? And, should I have been more cautious before deploying words like 'homophobia'?
Let's think about this logically: does anyone actually believe that the Tit Hall June Event Committee are homophobic? That they made specific provision to exclude male-male couples from one of their attractions?
The answer must surely be: no. Perhaps the Committee thought it best that drunken rowers and rugby players should be prevented from damaging hired equipment and costing the College money. Or, perhaps it was the swing supplier who insisted on the rule, as one gay couple turned away from the ride suggested to The Tab by email today. It surely cannot be the case that a deliberate decision was made to exclude homosexual couples.
Yet the fact is that a number of gay couples felt – in their own words – 'humiliated', 'outraged', 'appalled', 'shocked' and 'upset'. Since writing yesterday's report, I've heard of a further three couples who felt uncomfortable about the policy. Having identified themselves as homosexuals - while asking themselves, no doubt, why they should have to – they rightly assumed that any 'security' policy precluding two men sharing a boat would be set aside.
The exclusion of gay couples might not have been the purpose of the restriction, but it was an inevitable consequence of it. It could, and probably should, have been foreseen. I mean, you only need to pop your head round the door of Revs on a Tuesday night to be reminded how many gays there are in this town. And, it's difficult to imagine that the hire company has never encountered similar problems before.
And yet, I have to be honest: I'm finding it difficult to get too excited either way about the 'homophobic' element of this story. Much more interesting to my mind is the PR disaster brewing because the Committee refuse to answer any questions about the incident. What started as a borderline error of judgement is threatening to turn into a minor scandal – the story has already appeared in The Telegraph - because no one will come out and say: 'It was a mistake and we're deeply sorry for any offence caused. We hope our guests realise this was a safety requirement and had nothing whatsoever to do with our guests' sexuality.'
Why have they offered no explanation for what happened? Why haven't they issued an apology? If, as appears to be the case, this is simply an unfortunate and unforeseen consequence of a security precaution, why are we hearing nothing from them? Don't they care that at least ten of their guests left the June Event feeling humiliated, angry and upset?
We live in an oversensitive age. Every minority group – and I'm a reluctant member of a few of them – seems on the look-out for opportunities to take offence and make a fuss. But, given the level of offence caused and the scale of the reaction to this story, there is clearly a case for the Committee to answer. How curious that no one at Trinity Hall agrees.
Well said
"Having identified themselves as homosexuals – while asking themselves, no doubt, why they should have to – they rightly assumed that any 'security' policy precluding two men sharing a boat would be set aside"
Surely this itself is contradictory. The policy should have been set aside for gay couples and not two straight male friends….? How does that express equal opportunities if gay couples are to become the exception from the rule.
gays being oversensitive again!!!!
I was told on the night that the policy was because boys are "more competitive" and therefore more likely to cause damage. This isn't homophobia, it's sexism. As far as I'm concerned, same difference – discrimination is discrimination.
Also, it was the company policy, not the committee's policy. But good point, the committee should have released a statement.
Sounds like you're just sh*t stirring mate
So basically what is being said is that Gay couples should have the right to ignore any and all safety requirements, irrespective of the fact that EVERY other person at the ball was subject to the same restriction. Should this right be only for fairground rides, or should Gay men have the express right to ignore any safety regulations they don't particularly agree with?
As to it being homophobia, from reading your article, the only people who made it a Gay issue, was the gentleman who demanded the right to ride with his partner, as far as I was aware, the guy operating the swing boats was not asking people their sexual orientation before deciding if they could ride the swings.
What about two boisterous and heavy girls or a boy and a girl using the swings? Surely it would have been better to call for restraint when using the ride or face expulsion?
"Surely it would have been better to call for restraint when using the ride or face expulsion? "
Have you ever worked in a job where you try to inform 2 large drunken people that you are expelling them from something, Patrick Swayze in roadhouse was a work of fiction, you are more likely to end up with a smack in the mouth from them, similarly to suddenly make exceptions to the mixed ride rule for 1 couple after operating mixed couples all night, would leave all those you prevented from riding together earlier in the evening wanting to know why you stopped them.
safety isn't an issue. Sid Sussex allowed 2 males at a time onto the boats. They were probably both supplied by the same supplier.
the decision needs to be justified, and all the toffs at TitHall who are so far up their own asses they are practically inside out, should release a statement.
shit college
Because another set of swing boats operated with 2 males means exactly nothing. The argument here is not about whether it is safe to put 2 men in one boat on a ride. Its about the fact that a petulant young man has decided that the rules don't apply to him personally, and for no better reason than that he is Gay. When I visit the middle east, I am not allowed to drink alcohol, I am not being discriminated against, I am being asked to follow the same rules as everybody else. As far as I can ascertain, the young man with the problem was not singled out for special treatment, he was not picked on or treat differently to anyone else, he made the statement that he was gay and then attempted to use it as a weapon to force the operator to give in to him.
Gay men, quite rightly should have the same rights as everyone else, however to suggest that rules which are in place and designed to apply to everybody, should be set aside for them because they are gay is nonsense. If the operator had decided to allow a heterosexual man a special priviledge, that he refused to gay men, then there would be immediate screams of discrimination, yet when he tries to treat everyone the same, he still gets lambasted.
So what should they have done otherwise, just ban the fatties? I'm sure in this silly world of PC that would have gone down just as bad. Why don't we just close down the hire company for having discriminatory swings while we're at it? Jesus, why are people getting upset?!?!?! They're only f**king swings!!!! The way you describe it, it sounds like the gays all congregated round them, pointing out loudly that they were gay, and feeling embarassed…
I (male) went on a swing boat with my friend (male) and afterwards they had to re-nail it back into the ground. We were very drunk and obnoxious. Fair enough no male couples on the boats.
Is the answer to all of your questions: because they are very hung over undergraduates whom you have caught up in a national media frenzy to feed your own narcissism?
It makes you wonder what 'Butlins' would do? Maybe cite- Health and Safety,or perhaps it would finish up in the 'Human Rights' Court?
Reading this and the original article I was shocked by the number of idiots who have asked why gay couples felt they should be exempt from health and safety restrictions. The point is that balls are very much events for couples, not just groups of friends, and the committee should not have booked a ride whose safety restrictions excluded male gay couples.
@Colin
Hits nail on head – this is self-indulgent media wankery. In fact, this whole website is parochial puerile piss
I acknowledge my mistake in ever coming here
boisterous people should have been removed from the event IF they caused damage. the 'no male couples allowed' thing was a lazy rule implemented by the college to save the effort of dealing with rowdy guests. However, the main problem is that it does not take into account how many gay couples there were at the event. Its not homophobia, just another case of homosexuals being forgotten.
The college didn't mean it to be offensive, but they didn't think enough.
The debate about whether it's homophobic or not is not particularly helpful, since it assumes that we all have the same definition of homophobia – I'm sure we don't. The more pertinent question is whether the rule "no male couples" is discriminatory ('directly' or 'indirectly') and, if so, whether it is necessary.
'Direct' discrimination is what most people seem to be concerned with in this story – were the rules made specifically on the basis that people were gay? They almost certainly weren't, though I wouldn't put it past anyone, even supposedly 'enlightened' Cambridge undergrads.
'Indirect' discrimination is the other side of the coin – were the rules made thoughtlessly, in such a way that the inevitable consequence was to systematically exclude same-sex male couples? Yes, they clearly were.
So while the people making the rules may not consciously be homophobes, and may have had no ill-will towards anyone, the outcome of their decisions was, as a matter of fact, discriminatory. Other colleges allowing male couples demonstrates that it is not necessary, so the rules shouldn't have been in place (indirectly discriminatory + unnecessary = wrong).