Union couldn’t P.U.L.L. it off

The name P.U.L.L. for Friday club nights at the Union clearly hit a sore point with many students.

As its nature was so obviously saturated in sexual innuendo, it is completely understandable why.

Innocently asking your friend, “are you going to P.U.L.L. on Friday?” suddenly takes on a whole new layer of sleaziness. Despite the pretence that the name stood for ‘Postgraduates and Undergraduates Loving Life,’ the name was clearly chosen with this seedy phrase in mind.

It is debatable whether the name would really make students feel uncomfortable whilst in the club.

Once onto the floor and a few drinks down, it’s unlikely anybody would be worrying about the event’s name.

It wouldn’t have been compulsory to pull at P.U.L.L.; the bouncer would not be standing with a check list to make sure all attendees paired off by the end of the night.

But the name P.U.L.L. is simply trashy and cheap. Whether it would actually have an effect is beside the point. Somebody at the Union should have realised that the name did not reflect the classiness we try to maintain here at St Andrews. Somebody should have pulled up a red flag. Somebody should have thought that this sordid name had the potential to genuinely upset and offend people.

Although the reversal of the name back to The Bop is a relief, the situation should never have occurred in the first place. A lesson for the Sabbs: if it’s not broken, don’t try to be clever and fix it.

Why can’t we all get along?

This week’s issue brought a familiar story of conflict between students and locals, an oft-told tale which is well and truly starting to wear thin.

In this instance, a local reverend – Dr Cameron – brought a matter of serious vandalism to the attention of the University. He complained of drunken students jumping on and ultimately damaging his car in the middle of the night. This kind of behaviour is clearly completely unacceptable, especially from students who were accepted to this University based on their intellectual merit.

However, this is also another example of a local rushing to conclusions about all students based on the actions of a small minority. Yes, some students are indeed childish, thoughtless and irresponsible.

Indeed, many of their fellow scholars would tar these selfish students with the same brush as Fife neighbours do. But, this is the case at any University, or even when looking at any large group of people. The fact of the matter is, moral character varies from person to person.

Denting someone’s car is a particularly extreme example of the type of self-indulgent behaviour a few students in our town seem to find acceptable.

We, students and locals alike, have complained about ridiculously loud parties in residential areas and those who choose to walk blindly across the roundabout rather than using the designated crossings.

But the rest of us should not be thrown into this camp without thought.

It’s time for obnoxious individuals like the ones who dented Dr Cameron’s car – then so cowardly and insolently ran away- to realise that they are not the only ones who live in this town and show some respect. As most of us will only be here for a short time, we must consider the effect our actions have on the town’s permanent residents as well as the impression we leave behind.

Yet it is also time for locals to acknowledge that not all students are reprehensible, BMW driving, English delinquents.

Most of us are just sitting with our heads down in the library.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here