Cambridge Uni Students Burn Money in Front of Homeless Person

For example they could eat cheaper food, buy fewer books, write their notes in smaller handwriting, or buy their clothes at jumble sales, to save up £200 over the course of the academic year. And although Cambridge students aren't allowed to do paid work during termtime without special dispensation (unlike most undergraduates elsewhere in Britain, some of whom work in supermarkets), I don't think there is a University regulation that forbids them from begging on the streets either. So the message to poorer students is this. You want to go to a May Ball with the posh kids? And you've got some kind of problem with skivvying for them, picking up the rubbish they chuck on the ground? Then plan ahead, eat less, and save up!

His LinkedIn says he's an intern with a media company in London now, so he landed back on earth apparently

Practically all colleges write to their student members at that time of year to say don't damage the university and college brands by abusing alcohol until you vomit in the street, and don't otherwise behave as if you and your mates own the world where commoners can see you - because a journo might put you in the papers if you do.

An earth where it is possible to live with one's rent exceeding one's salary (if any).


Posted from TSR Mobile

Out of interest are the Uni or more likely the college taking disciplinary action against the person concerned? I gathered there were people at Pembroke posting on the thread. I only asked as someone bumped it.

The College. Cambridge University's disciplinary processes are very cumbersome and tend to be invoked only if there is no alternative.


Posted from TSR Mobile

The College. Cambridge University's disciplinary processes are very cumbersome and tend to be invoked only if there is no alternative.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Pembroke have said:

The incident involving Ronald Coyne burning a £20 note in front of a homeless person is now subject to a University disciplinary investigation, according to a statement released today by Pembroke College.

On the College's Facebook page, the statement reads: "We are aware of an incident that took place in the early hours of Thursday 2nd February 2017. This incident has been referred to the University's disciplinary process. We cannot comment further while this process is underway."



Posted from TSR Mobile

I am clearly wrong on this.

However, the University is going to have a job putting the square peg of this student's behaviour into either of the round holes of:-

1 No member of the University shall intentionally or recklessly disrupt or impede or attempt to disrupt or impede the activities and functions of the University, or any part thereof, or of any College.

This was never intended to catch the activities of persuading rich benefactors to give Cambridge money or of persuading poor teenagers to apply to study there.

No member of the University shall engage in harassment in the course of an academic, sporting, social, cultural, or other activity either within the Precincts of the University or elsewhere in the context of her or his membership of the University or in circumstances where the victim of the harassment is a member, officer, or employee of the University or a College. Harassment shall include single or repeated incidents involving unwanted and unwarranted conduct towards another person which is reasonably likely to have the effect of (i) violating that other’s dignity or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for that other.

Was this behaviour in the course of a social activity or following a social activity? Was the behaviour in the context of his membership of the University? Clearly the Ordinance envisages a member of the University harassing within the Precincts of the University but not in the context of his membership of the University.

Isn't there a more general "behaviour likely to bring the university into disrepute"?

Unis are private charities. As part of enrolling you agree to abide by their rules and regs. Oxbridge have comprehensive rules and regs or rather the colleges do. If you behave in a manner which reflects badly on them, then they arent going to be pleased. They didnt ask to be dragged into it. Wait and see what action they take.

Again, my point wasn't over the legal minutiae of what the university is legally allowed to do, but rather over what I think they ought to be allowed to do.

Do I agree with his behaviour? No, but it wasn't criminal, it wasn't done in the context of his being a student (which is to say it wasn't done in his college, lecture hall, tutorial etc.). He was a private citizen who did something dickish. I think it is an overreach for any institution to punish him for that. I'm well aware that Oxford and Cambridge are famously controlling over their students personal lives, but I don't think we can draw an is from an ought. Just because these universities ARE this way doesn't mean they should be or that it is right for them to be.

If there is, I couldn't find it

I'm surprised there isnt a more general disrepute rule. Thanks for posting what you found. I wonder if the person in question is busy scouring the rules? I will wait and see what the uni decide to do, its old news now.

Interestingly Pembroke has a much more apt rule:-

"In practice, alcohol consumption, to excess, produces more social damage thanany other factor. Routinely, we impose sanctions for this when it extends to
the level of infringing the liberty, or well-being, of others. These sanctions can
be quite severe. It is only logical, therefore, if we impose sanctions upon other
forms of substance abuse."

I suspect academics are wary of the "bringing into disrepute" type charge because of the concern that it may be used to limit academic freedom.

I misread. I missed the fact the rules were from the Uni. I thought Pembroke were in a much better position to issue any sanction. I do feel it is yesterdays news, but will be interesting to see how it pans out. Surely all the attention on the student concerned must have a massive impact on his studies? Maybe he could do with the extra time? I dont think it will have a long lasting effect on his career.

Pembroke are in a better position to act but it appears from what
Doonesbury posted the university is taking the lead.

I dont know the way these things are handled. I had assumed it would be Pembroke, but if the uni is dealing, then wouldnt that be even more serious? They must have an idea what they are looking at. It is still a strange thing to do unless it was for a bet/ initiation. Also odd that he spent years working at a homeless charity, which i'm assuming now that was just to pad his PS out. Would he get legal representation for something like this?.