YES
By Anna Younger
Heslington Hall have defended the portering cuts with jargon and woolly facts attempting to assure us that everything is going to be just as good as before. This is so far from reality that it makes me want to scream. Quoting the numbers of live-in undergraduates per college (as in my last email response from Keith Lilley, Director of Facilities Management) is missing the point completely. When has it ever been the case firstly that porters are simply for resident first years and secondly that someone is less deserving of services because they reside in a smaller community?
We don’t want new anonymous security teams. We want porters, and not just any porters, we want the porters that work in our college consistently, porters that know our students by name. To lose our porters is to lose our college atmosphere and identity, not to mention irreplaceable welfare, security and service provision.
I know I can’t speak for everyone. I am aware that as a rather disgusting example of more-college-spirit-than-most-can-handle some of my arguments hold less water with students who place college patriotism further down the list. I really want to communicate however that this is a battle worth fighting, not just for colleges, but for every single person that lives, studies or works at York.
There will be occasions you will need at least one of the numerous services the porters offer and, excuse the hideous call to cliché, when they are gone you will miss them. Then the extent of their contribution to the smooth-running, ease and happiness of your University lives will become glaring apparent.
The University claims we were consulted. The college chairs were told what was happening, but consulted is the wrong word as this implies a two-way process.
Arguments about the economic downturn may seem valid enough for some, but I remain unconvinced. It is amazing how the words “credit crunch” has such fantastic magical powers that it can be used to explain away absolutely anything. Don’t get me wrong, I am not naive enough to think that money grows on trees, or that cuts don’t need to be made. My argument is simply that this is not the place to be making them.
I get the impression that many people think that we might as well give up as the plans are already set in stone. I have never been of the opinion that just because a mountain is difficult to climb, you shouldn’t try to climb it. Nobody’s hands are tied; if a drastic decision can be made then it can also be reversed.
This campaign isn’t just about porters; it’s about people and their livelihoods. It constantly astounds me that the top brass can be consistently so far from the mark in recognising the things that make our University the best and the things that are quite frankly unimportant, such as stupid spiral staircases and fancy chairs in empty new buildings.
Priorities Heslington Hall – maybe less cucina sandwiches for you…
NO
By Alex Russel
Does the lack of twenty-four hour porters across campus really mean that student safety is potentially at risk? Whilst it seems right to question whether the University has a valid argument for reducing the provision of porters, will it really have the negative consequences with which everyone has become obsessed? Should we move on from the current furore and realise the true fact of the matter?
According to University sources, it was a necessary decision. In a time of global economic instability, it is hardly surprising that the University is seeking to maintain control of its financial affairs. It is, as we are all aware, currently spending many millions of pounds on the Heslington East development; and the new location of Goodricke in the middle of a building site rightly requires full portering services.
Perhaps this alteration in the availability of porters is, therefore, the lesser of two evils. Employing new porters for Heslington East would have cost money. In my mind, the reorganisation that has happened is far better than diverting funds away from academic departments.
We should also ask ourselves whether the new portering system will really have such a devastating impact. Langwith will still be staffed at all hours, and it is not that far to walk from Vanbrugh or Derwent to said college when you are locked out. Perhaps this will teach people to be more careful with their room keys.
Furthermore, security services will still be out and about, and the University would not have made this move if it thought all student lives would be put in danger.
While the situation is not ideal, steps such as improved staff training have been taken to compensate for the absence of porters at certain times. Whilst porters have previously been available to deal with everything from leaking pipes to more serious problems, providing someone within relatively easy reach is at the helm, there should be nothing to worry about.
The real fact of the matter, then, is that the university is trying to do the best that it can. We will survive without porters in the evenings, even if in a perfect world they would be present day and night in all colleges.
Plus, an opportunity may even have arisen to connect with life outside of the university bubble. One could to see this as preparation for the post-graduation years. There will, after all, likely be no one later on in life to check that we are safe at all hours, unless we can afford a plush city apartment and its accompanying security guards.
As students we will have to adapt to the new situation. Perhaps, some people will get into difficulty that could have been avoided under the old system. But providing we increase our consideration of our own safety, the newly-centralised porters will still be there to step in when we need a helping hand.