Salterrae • December 2013
Traditions Under Review From Fourth Year Ice Bars to Midnight Run Glitter
By: Kate Motluk
Photography: Rebecca Fallowfield & Donald Belfon
Tradition is rarely uncontentious. Old customs inevitably clash with those of the present, often demanding change. Trinity today exists in a climate more committed than ever before to principles of diversity and equality. As a result, many of our college’s traditions are under review. In most College debates on such issues, two camps have emerged: those who value tradition over all else, and those who would happily see history nixed in the name of progress. The challenge that has faced many student leaders as a result is to refashion these traditions to fall somewhere in between these extremes. Such is the problem currently facing Trinity traditions including formal rushes, Fourth Year Bar, and Initiations Week.
The Rush: The Rush is an integral part of Trinity’s two traditional balls, Saints and Conversat. While the records are hazy on how long the rushes have existed, they hearken back at least to the days of gender segregated residences. The Saints Rush is typically done Sadie Hawkins style: women line up and rush the Men of College at the stroke of midnight. A man chased down by a woman of college in this way is not allowed to refuse her invitation to the Saints Ball. The Conversat Rush simply reverses the gendered direction of the rush, the caveat being that the Women of College are not obliged to accept any particular invitation. The rushes continues to be a well liked tradition, especially as they give Trinity students an excuse to hold a “Rush” party one month in advance of the Saints and Conversat balls proper. The Rush, however, has been criticized as being gender normative. It is restrictive for students who do not feel they fit into the gender categories it formally recognizes, as well as to individuals seeking a date of the same sex. Further, while the custom of men being unable to decline
an impromptu rather than formal and gender designated rush. Rather than having the rush occur at midnight, this format has attendees unaware of when the Rush will happen, and makes them wait instead for a predetermined signal. While this relaxes the women versus men dichotomy of the traditional format, previous attempts to enact it have left many dissatisfied. Often people would be standing directly next to their intended date, or did not recognize the signal until too late. The general consensus was that impromptu rushes failed to capture the essence of the tradition. This year, the Saints Ball executive committee abandoned a traditional rush format after students voiced concerns with the format on the event’s Facebook page. The solution proposed by
Despite logistical
problems, new formats
have potential
is usually ignored, it nonetheless causes discomfort from time to time. Efforts have been made in the past to address these concerns. Several formats have been tried, none with resounding success, but moderate progress has been made in attempting
18
the executive was to split the cluster of students into two gender blind groups. One would be designated the “rusher” line by a coinflip, and the other the “rushees”. This solution was problematic, as one group was significantly larger than the other. The change also displeased some of the hard line traditionalists, who thought the change undermined the original format. Despite logistical problems, new formats have potential. It has been suggested that announcing which side will be the one “rushing” could appease some of the traditionalists, while the vast majority of attendees will likely join in either group happily enough. The method Conversat chooses will determine the direction this tradition is headed.