Mufti Day
Today was Jeans fo Genes Day (a charity event). Now, usually this entails the entire population of the College being allowed to wear their own clothes (that's what Mufti means). Only this year, it was different. While JAGS got to wear what they wanted, we could only wear jeans, but had to keep the rest of our iuniform on (shirt, tie, blazer).
1. What the hell is the point? Not of this, but of Mufti day in general? No, I'm serious. Why do we want to do this? It's not that i don't like my clothes, it just seems a little bit pointless. Any ideas?
2. The Boycott. We didn't like this new rule. Therefore a boycott was organised. OK, I say organised, I mean that lots of people all over the school thought it would be a good idea not to do this so the administration don't try this again (stop it before it starts). As a result, only a few people actually wore jeans, and the College got a fraction of the money it usually does. The College doesn't like this. The College wants to look charitable. The logic was that if we make the College look uncharitable, it will let us go back to wearing our own clothes because otherwise it won't look charitable.
All well and good? I'm not sure. While I was one of the advocats of this boycott, I now feel bad for having encouraged peopel not to pay money to a charity purely for selfish (well, not for myself, but for the community, I couldn't care less) reasons. Did I do the right thing, or should I make a donation directly to the charity to make up for it?
1. What the hell is the point? Not of this, but of Mufti day in general? No, I'm serious. Why do we want to do this? It's not that i don't like my clothes, it just seems a little bit pointless. Any ideas?
2. The Boycott. We didn't like this new rule. Therefore a boycott was organised. OK, I say organised, I mean that lots of people all over the school thought it would be a good idea not to do this so the administration don't try this again (stop it before it starts). As a result, only a few people actually wore jeans, and the College got a fraction of the money it usually does. The College doesn't like this. The College wants to look charitable. The logic was that if we make the College look uncharitable, it will let us go back to wearing our own clothes because otherwise it won't look charitable.
All well and good? I'm not sure. While I was one of the advocats of this boycott, I now feel bad for having encouraged peopel not to pay money to a charity purely for selfish (well, not for myself, but for the community, I couldn't care less) reasons. Did I do the right thing, or should I make a donation directly to the charity to make up for it?
posted by CJM | 8:17 PM
5 Comments:
I think you should pay. I wear my own clothes every day of the year, and I still paid.
yeah, the problem would be organising it across the school.
I'm not that well connected (actually... am I?)
1. what's JAGS?
2. no, s, this is important. why don't u talk 2 a few others who boycotted n see if u can come up with a way 2 organize it 2gether?
You selfish bastard. Donate money to charity - at least in the region of about £50 to make up for all the money that you and others didn't pay.
Maybe one British child will starve or freeze to death tonight because of you.
JAGS stands for James Allen's Girls School, it's Dulwich College's equivalent (except with girls, as opposed to boys).
Post a Comment
<< Home