What is it about sandstone that brings out the worst in 19-year-old future bankers, lawyers and captains of industry? Is it the architecture? Perhaps gothic gables bring out gothic tendencies.

A Sydney University student in more progressive times…

With the exception of a slightly awkward-looking Tony Abbott (you can take the boy out of John’s…), the reaction to the latest revelations about the piglets inhabiting St John’s College at the University of Sydney, has been total condemnation. The rest of us understand, without having to have it explained to us, that what’s been going on there is bad.

But no one has been able to pin down the root cause of this particularly ugly brand of born-to-rule misogyny. Sure, the college administration has been woefully inadequate in dealing with the escalating PR disaster, and it seems equally unable, or unwilling, to rein in the young men who appear to have staged a coup.

Can it be that the very building itself is so toxic that a group of otherwise well-brought up, roundly educated young people can turn up there and before you can say “no means yes” Lord of the Flies breaks out?

It’s a similar question faced by the military top brass recently during the excruciating aftermath of the so called “skype sex scandal” at the military college Duntroon.

While the military has acknowledged serious cultural problems within its ranks, it can’t be held entirely to blame for the fact two of its brand new, wet-behind-the-ears recruits saw fit to film a sexual encounter with a woman, without her consent, and broadcast it to their mates in the next room.

What it can be held responsible for is the total inadequacy of the response to her complaint.

The point is, these young men, and some women, at John’s who have behaved in such an uncivilised way, surely can’t have been turned into little ghouls simply by virtue of their presence at the college - no matter how entrenched and dysfunctional its “traditions” may be.

There’s something about this group of people that when you add the first taste of freedom, rivers of grog, shared domestic arrangements and, shock of all shocks, member of the opposite sex, they find it impossible to contain their own bodily functions.

And none of those things on that list are to blame.

In the mid-90s I lived in a college at Wollongong Uni that was packed to its bessa block brim with young men and women who also had access to plenty of beer, plenty of freedom and, well, each other.

But the culture there bore absolutely no resemblance to the totally unenlightened shitfight at St John’s we’ve been reading about this week. Or the other stories over the years that have come out of other “sandstone” colleges around the country.

People got drunk. People had sex with each other. Parties went on until the next afternoon. All entirely normal behaviour for young adults in their first years of university.

But there was no “initiation”, or systemic bullying, or sanctioned misogyny, or accepted vernacular espousing the joys of date rape.

Maybe it was the lack of turrets, but I would say much more likely than that it was the demographics - more specifically the diversity of the demographics.

There were students from many different countries, rural students, people who went to public schools, people who went to private schools, people whose parents were scraping every penny they could find to help fund their children’s education, incredibly smart kids and some people who were not that bright. A lot of people had jobs to help pay their way.

Of course there were one or two complete dickheads, but they were not lauded as “untouchable”. They didn’t exert great influence over the atmosphere of the place. For want of a better word, this college built of brick on a wedge of land at the intersection of a freeway and a railway line was civilised.

It’s pretty clear diverse is not how you would describe the privileged men and women who inhabit the residential colleges at our big, old, universities. And civilised certainly doesn’t apply.

As well as the people who run these institutions, these kids’ parents, and the schools where they should have been taught how to live in a civilised society, have a lot to answer for. Or maybe it really is the wood panelling and the flying buttresses.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

123 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • nathan says:

      05:59am | 08/11/12

      Well when they had to face a discipline hearing they fronted with QC’s now that is a joke in itself. What is wrong with putting your hand up admit you did the wrong thing and move on it was not a court of law. Typical old money, don’t think that rules apply to them. Johns boys have always been w$%kers don’t see that changing.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      07:48am | 08/11/12

      One hopes that none among them will become our future leaders.

    • Cheers says:

      11:13am | 08/11/12

      Hate to tell you Haxton, you know they’ll grow up to be PM or at the very least the lawyer representing them. Old boys, alive and well.

    • nick says:

      01:10pm | 08/11/12

      that is because they have the right to appear before a discipline hearing with legal…most of the time the help is a member of the board of the college with legal experience….

    • iansand says:

      06:15am | 08/11/12

      I went to a university college a long time ago.  I was a public school kid.

      My observation was that the worst of the louts came from private schools, and in particular one school where its then headmaster consciously inculcated a “born to rule” attitude.  Plus they were not very good at talking to females and adopted braggadocio as their preferred mating technique.

      I go almost apoplectic when that pillock Tim Hawkes, the current headmaster of Kings, gets on the radio decrying loutish behaviour and claiming that his lovely boys had values that meant they would never get involved.  He should get out more.

    • Nathan says:

      06:50am | 08/11/12

      Hahaha yeah cause kings borders are not known to ever put new kids through strange and weird induction processes. I attended a private school and i have to agree with that born to rule crap that goes on.

    • Tim says:

      07:17am | 08/11/12

      I did the same except I went to a private school and the public school students were definitely no better or worse. In fact because a lot of the private school boys hadn’t had much exposure to the opposite sex it simply meant they hadn’t learn how to “charm” a girl into sleeping with them as easily as the public school boys.

      Most of the initiation events that have been mentioned about Johns, I saw at many different colleges during my time at Uni. I wonder why the media take such a focus on this one particular college?

    • AdamC says:

      08:49am | 08/11/12

      Tim, is it a Catholic College? That is probably why.

      Also, admittedly I haven’t been searching around for them, but the only stories about this College seem to be in the Punch. Is this big news in Sydney or something?

    • DOB says:

      03:03pm | 08/11/12

      Tim and AdamC, I think you’ll find that St Johns is being reported on for four reasons (a) one of their little fun games last year nearly killed a female student (b) the fight to regain responsible control of this college has been going on for a long time and has failed (c) the scale and disgraceful conduct has been, well, truly disgraceful and (d) Sydney Uni is one of the most prestigious in the country and if this is going on there then the Uni’s reputation - and the reputation of Australia’s tertiary education system - is going to suffer. We are talking big business here. It’s not much different to trying to stop people sh…ting in our wheat exports - expect no-one with a brain actually sh..ts in our wheat exports; only stupid over-privileged kids at st Johns are apparently too stupid to realise the wider ramifications of their actions. Personally Id give each of them a one year compulsory holiday from tertiary education so they can ponder how lucky they are to be there in the first place.

    • acotrel says:

      06:17am | 08/11/12

      You can take comfort in the fact that our country is lead by powerful conservatives in the good old British tradition of nasty snobbery. -
      ‘The system runs on bullshit’ !
      If you have a victim’s mindset, you will be a victim.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      07:52am | 08/11/12

      And if you are surrounded by thirty or forty of your peers demanding you drink a concoction containing shampoo, you will also be a victim, unless you are exceedingly strong-willed.

    • Al says:

      08:14am | 08/11/12

      Haxton Waag - you seem to be assuming that most people would actualy give a toss to what their peers are demanding.
      I know if I had ’ thirty or forty of my peers demanding I drink a concoction containing shampoo’ I would tell them to go and get stuffed (probably in harsher language though). If they attempted to force it then the police would be called.
      Peer presure is overrated and peer acceptance as well.
      (Not that I believe this type of behaviour should be accepted, just that people need to accept SOME of the responsibility for not refusing stupid requests).

    • Haxton Waag says:

      09:20am | 08/11/12

      @Al - My own experience and observations provide a very different viewpoint to yours. I do not think peer pressure is an insignificant force. If it were, for one thing, it would not be a subject of discussion. I also consider it likely that peer pressure was at work in assembling this gang of bullies - I would imagine that some of them at least might not have felt entirely comfortable with what they were doing, yet felt compelled to act with the group. As far as I have ever been aware, group mentality is a fundamental force of great power in human society. Refusing it is possible, I suppose, but at a biological level, one may well feel that one’s life or health are in danger if one does not comply, particularly in the case of children or adolescents.

    • Rose says:

      11:09am | 08/11/12

      Al, your adult self may have the strength to stand up and say no, but what about your teenage self. What about the teenager who doesn’t have a lot of self esteem or confidence, the one trying desperately to ‘fit in’. It’s easy to say they should be tougher or more resilient, but they’re just kids and some of them don’t have the skills or strength to protect themselves and they deserve to be protected.

    • Dazed & Confused says:

      11:53am | 08/11/12

      Having at one time very briefly (read 4 days) attended St John’s before pursuing my academic career elsewhere, I can categorically tell you that this behavior is perpetrated by private and public school felons alike. The main driver is the sense of entitlement from a few and the easy way the many are manipulated into following mob rule. After my refusal to arbitrarily submit to their hazing, some very harsh words and outright threats, it all resulted in me being cornered by 8 of the ruling party and forced to “defend” myself and my inability to aquiesse to their stupid demands I left of my own accord.

      These animals should be ashamed and hang their heads, Instead they walk with self-entitled impunity safe in the knowledge that “daddy” will buy their way out of what ever consequences their actions bring.

    • sarah says:

      02:29pm | 08/11/12

      Um Alcotrel - I thought the country was currently run by corrupt Communists with no idea of what its like to live in the real world? You see - after the next election when the LNP landslide it in: THATS when we’ll be run by powerful snobby conservatives.

    • Bob Real says:

      06:32am | 08/11/12

      Johns is a private institution, internal goverance is no concern of ‘ours’ unless laws have been broken. The courts have already looked into this. ‘Beat up’ and ‘Smear Campaign’ are phrases that come to mind.

    • acotrel says:

      07:07am | 08/11/12

      I wonder if Scientology run a uni somewhere ?

    • fml says:

      07:35am | 08/11/12

      It may be a private institution, but that doesn’t mean it’s members should be forced to go through ritual abuse or be denied representation.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      07:53am | 08/11/12

      Are we to assume that you find bullying acceptable, then?

    • AFR says:

      08:18am | 08/11/12

      Bob, unfortunately, people who have never had anything to do with a University College (Tory, a dormitory at Wollongong doesn’t count), will see a minute of TV footage or read an opinion piece by a Fairfax journo with an axe to grind, and draw over the top and, in many cases hypocritical conclusions. When people like myself have the audacity to point this out, we are met with “so you condone bullying blah blah blah” - oops too late.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      09:22am | 08/11/12

      @AFR - Bullying is still wrong. The problem is, many think that it is right.

    • Anon says:

      10:16am | 08/11/12

      Abbott and Hockey both went there… the real reason it has been targeted by left wing media. I don’t excuse these idiots for their dangerous misbehaviour, but the consequences may be far more wide reaching than intended. They may well end up being the reason why we get another term of ALP as our Federal government.

      Far fetched… republican comments about rape cost 2 safe republican senate seats in the US and helped Obama cruise to an easy victory. Just saying…

      Also worth considering is that an ALP majority government would probably be able to pass legislation to censor the internet (ie no more access to decent porn on the net) they tried before just don’t have the numbers… yet… these stupid kids at St Johns need to think through the consequences of their actions.

    • A says:

      11:23am | 08/11/12

      You are not wrong. However, the council has now been made non existent and the college will now be made more accountable. The council had total power, even over the rector and all matters of discipline. The council (old boys, judges, the wealthy and influential) are gone; all that remains is their offspring (note, about 20 boys, largely responsible for all the reported problems) who they have strived to protect and support in upholding traditions and rituals of the place. Staff and alumni not associated with this network are now celebrating the abolishment of council- problems solved. No doubt the rector will start disciplining ( he is a real stickler for rules, discipline) now that he is not just a puppet of the council. From a female Alumni

    • Dazed & Confused says:

      11:57am | 08/11/12

      Bob, you have no idea what goes on their. The phrases “Beat Up” and “Smear Campaign” are those from the duly employed silks that protect the few from their own actions.

    • Dazman says:

      02:11pm | 08/11/12

      The Nazi Party was a Private Institution as well. Too bad no-one tried to stop them from their thuggish behaviour. Unfortunately, the ill discipline and hooliganistic attitudes of the people residing in this “private institution” will soon be out in the general public and companies and then we all suffer!

    • sandy says:

      06:38am | 08/11/12

      abbott condemned the incident as well! that was a cheap shot without any evidence and should be retracted.

    • acotrel says:

      07:09am | 08/11/12

      So ‘a cheap shot’  but accurate if it got that response from Tones!

    • Tedd says:

      07:20am | 08/11/12

      Abbott did it with a big smirk on his face.

    • Super D says:

      06:40am | 08/11/12

      Do St Johns alumni actually amount to anything? Are they actually top bankers? Are they green energy carpetbaggers? Do they end up running the HSU?

    • acotrel says:

      07:11am | 08/11/12

      Smarting ?:

    • iansand says:

      10:03am | 08/11/12

      One of them is the Leader of the Opposition (likely to be the PM next year).  Another is the Shadow Treasurer (ditto Treasurer).

      Oh.  I see your point.

      I was at college (not Johns) with a couple of Coalition MPs (one a Party Leader), the occasional Federal Court Judge and a recent Australian of the Year.  Also an ornament to the Australian stage (bastard sung a target of my affections away one night, but otherwise a lovely bloke) and occasional talking heads that pop up on TV as industry spokesthings.  Apparently this year it has produced 2 Rhodes Scholars instead of the usual one.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      11:51am | 08/11/12

      @Super D

      Q: “Do St Johns alumni actually amount to anything?”

      A: “One of them is the Leader of the Opposition (likely to be the PM next year).  Another is the Shadow Treasurer (ditto Treasurer).”

      Based on iansands post I would say - no.

    • R says:

      01:32pm | 08/11/12

      well im an alumni and i am a social worker helping abused women- go figure. I feel that i have contributed to society and ironically in a field in which i have had first hand experience in!!! Also, please dont generalize, it really is a minority group and a minority attitude….St Johns alumni, current students etc are largely ‘normal’ diverse people- we are men, women, black white, asian, female, male, gay, straight, poor, rich, on centrelink, underweight, overweight, from the country, from the city, horse riders, skateboarders, snobby artists, street artists, dairy farmers, opposition leaders (cringe)...some of us have parents who are doctors, others have parents who own small businesses, work at IGA, or are hairdressers.

    • Louise says:

      06:50am | 08/11/12

      I agree this is a worry - and disappointing - that our future bankers, lawyers and captains of industry should have the attitude of ‘it’s only a problem if you get caught’. 

      To be fair, though, they are just boys still, and we’re seeing a lot more real evidence of corruption and sleaze in the unions lately than the big end of town (although, as I write that, I think unions have become part of the big end of town, which may be the problem - ‘Animal Farm’).

    • tez says:

      08:27am | 08/11/12

      OH ‘‘just boys still’’ who know Daddy can and will always bail them out no matter what. 19 year olds are adults. Most of us had to be servive.

    • Louise says:

      11:03am | 08/11/12

      Yes, tez, they are adults and have to learn to be responsible for their actions. But they’re *young*, inexperienced adults.  Our PM was still “young and naive” as a senior lawyer in her thirties, and the allegations surrounding her actions then are arguably of far more import to the nation than this uni student misbehaviour, however shocking.

      But still no articles on The Punch about the PM’s non-answers…

    • El says:

      01:36pm | 08/11/12

      um, if you look at Johns Alumni- while i hate to bring down our name further- we really dont amount to anything. You are being too kind to assume we are “bankers, lawyers, doctors”. In reality, we are normal people. Im an alumni and im a teacher in parramatta. I dont know a single lawyer or doctor from my time there…we like to play up the elitist, image… but in reality we have only ever had two to be ?proud? of (ashamed more like; it might also amuse you to know that the majority of students are lefty, arty types)

    • Louise says:

      02:32pm | 08/11/12

      Sorry El - I was just taking the author’s words at face value - silly me! wink

      But believe me, I certainly wouldn’t say you “didn’t amount to anything” by not fitting into one of those professional categories.

    • Tubesteak says:

      06:57am | 08/11/12

      “19-year-old future bankers, lawyers and captains of industry”

      So, what, none of them are arts students? Are you just assuming? Have you seen their enrolments? Stereotyping?

      Oh, and you use “misogyny” incorrectly. Do you really have evidence that they hate women? I doubt it.

      The root cause is the fact that you have young people away from home in an environment where there is no headmaster controlling them and they have access to alcohol which lowers their inhibitions. They are people who may not have the self-discipline to act “appropriately” (whatever that means).

      You know what? They grow out of it. I spent my first year of uni away at a university college. We got up to some mischief. We had some fun. But now the people who were there are professionals and scientists with well-established careers.

      Stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      07:59am | 08/11/12

      Misogyny is not limited to hatred of women. It includes dislike and mistrust. It also includes everything that flows from these, including the attitude that they are not entitled to equal rights with men, e.g., pay and work opportunities. Oh, and it includes the idea that men and male-dominated institutions have the right to define the scope of women’s lives, a la get into that kitchen and rattle them pots and pans.

    • Ridge says:

      08:20am | 08/11/12

      It’s correct now that Mz Glorious leader redefined the rules of the argument and Mz editor of the Macquarie Dictionary updated with the new definition.

      Oh the misogyny! Won’t SOMEONE think of the women?!

    • Mouse says:

      09:09am | 08/11/12

      @HaxtonWaag No, misogyny in its real definition means hatred of women, that’s it, nothing more, limited to that only. 
      Because gillard either didn’t understand that or decided she would use it to incite negative reaction, it now apparently has a new meaning. gillard has stated that she will stamp out misogyny wherever she goes. So under her new meaning for the word, does that mean she is going to have a go at ME leaders, Indonesian leaders, anyone else that isn’t Tony Abbott?  Obviously not!
      It will be interesting to see the new definition in the Macquarie Dictionary, 
      misogyny : the hatred of women;  anyone that goes against what gillard says or wants (does not apply to powerful overseas leaders that don’t care what gillard thinks.)
      misogynist : Tony Abbott and everything he says, or does, or thinks, especially when he doesn’t agree with gillard.
      It’s hilarious isn’t it? Yep, gillard is certainly changing the rules for women….......... God help us!!!    lol :o)

    • Borderer says:

      09:14am | 08/11/12

      No young person ever gets up to anything ever?? Spot light is on them because they have rich parents, apparently that makes them somehow better than everyone else , perhaps it should be more reassuring that they are no different? What happens at Schoolies, oh the scandal, blah, blah, blah…
      Then you get numpties trying to link this back to the LNP, because Abbott went to Uni and he was nearby and he’s a mysogonist don’t you know? They have parties and plot the take over of the world with the saucer people and the reverse vampires blah, blah, blah….
      Really? You are more concerned about the internal disciplinary process of a college than a real issue that has some actual merit to the rest of Australia? If you had kids attending, then it’s an issue, if you don’t then it’s none of your business unless people are actually being harmed and nothing is being done about it.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      09:24am | 08/11/12

      @Ridge - The definition I provided is from before the Prime Minister said her piece.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      10:02am | 08/11/12

      @Mouse - You are mistaking the etymological meaning for current usage. Nor does your opinion match the dictionary definitions I have read. Current usage is: if women don’t get equal rights with men, it is misogyny.

    • Tubesteak says:

      10:03am | 08/11/12

      Haxton Waag
      Misogyny is none of those things. It is hatred of women. Full stop.
      You might be at home in NineteenEightyFour with your Newspeak and Doublespeak.
      Maybe you’re using the wrong edition of the new dictionary.
      The definition you provide is found exclusively in the cloistered confines of a Women’s Studies department which is full of loonies and damaged women unable to make it in the real world. They invent boogeymen to be scared of as it suits their agenda along with their poor use of statistics and straw-man arguments.

      Borderer
      Yes, this is a sideshow issue. A diversion from real issues facing the country. Also funny how some have tried to tie this to Abbott.

    • Mark says:

      10:32am | 08/11/12

      Haxton Waag- No, it isn’t. The Macquarie dictionary had to change their definition since Gillards speech.. Before then it was, and should still only be, the hatred of women. Oxford haven’t changed their definition on their website.
      Hate is a strong word and most men have varying shades of grey in between them and hating women-equally the same with how many feminists hate men, it can even change depending on the type of woman they are dealing with. It may be sexist but it is not systematic misogyny.

      In fact, you and Tory are being obviously stereotypical in your judgement of the men at this college, you could call that misandry if you apply your definition of misogyny in the same frame of context. You don’t hate men, you are stereotyping these people because they are men, that is sexist but under your definition it is misandric. How do you live in such a hypocritical frame of mind?

    • Haxton Waag says:

      10:57am | 08/11/12

      @Tubesteak - Who would you accept as an authority in this matter? I have looked up the word often enough in reputable dictionary services, including the OED, before Julia Gillard’s speech on it. They all seemed to have a much wider definition than yours. I think I will take theirs over yours. It makes more sense, anyway. (OED: Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.)

      @Mark: see above.

    • Tubesteak says:

      11:35am | 08/11/12

      Haxton Waag
      The genealogy of the word is hatred of women. “Updates” to it only reflect what I stated above.

    • kitteh says:

      11:47am | 08/11/12

      Given my own experiences at a university college in the 90s, I can attest that there was - and apparently, there still is - a significant subset whose behaviour can’t be written off as ‘mischief’ or ‘fun’. Had the behaviour occurred in any other setting, criminal charges - including sexual and common assault, stalking, B&E and vandalism - would have been laid. That a majority don’t commit offences of such a serious nature doesn’t somehow negate them.

      That said, the most sadistic behaviour I witnessed at college was on the part of the females. Even when the males were actually carrying out the acts, it was often at the instigation of their female counterparts. In these kinds of settings, the group dynamic is a far greater factor than any real or imaginary -ism.

    • Mouse says:

      11:56am | 08/11/12

      @HaxtonWagg, “you are mistaking the etymological meaning for current usage”? ..... Mistaking? What, are you saying that I am incorrect to use the real meaning of the word as opposed to the one gillard has coined?  The current usage, as you call it, has only been current since gillard called Tony Abbott a misogynist! 

      Are you getting mixed up with the word “sexism/sexist” maybe, as that is a better word to describe what gillard was going on about! I am not sure what dictionaries you are looking at but before gillard’s eloquent misuse of the word,  and since the word was formed, it has always only meant hatred of women, coming from the Greek misogunia from misos ( “hatred”) and gyn? ( “woman”).

      You can use the word any way you want and decide its meaning to anything you feel it should be but when speaking to other people they will assume the meaning to be the one that is true.
      Hey, it’s your choice, but if you want to be taken seriously at least have an understanding of the true meaning of the word before you broaden its use.    :o)

    • Haxton Waag says:

      12:28pm | 08/11/12

      @ Tubesteak and Mark - I told you I looked it up before Julia said her piece. You won’t accept the OED on the subject and you are not reading what I wrote. I think meaningful discussion on the subject is at an end if you won’t do those things.

    • egg says:

      01:03pm | 08/11/12

      Really? Are we still arguing about the definition of a fucking word? Political commentary at it’s finest, people. Never mind the issues that caused the discussion in the first place, because, look: a WORD!

      Seriously people… do you understand the intent behind the word? Are you able to consider that some people use it incorrectly, and interpret their comments based on that? No? Okay, keep bitching, then.

    • wakeuppls says:

      06:58am | 08/11/12

      I see “misogyny” has become a solid buzzword now, replacing simple sexism, which is what this case really is.

    • Borderer says:

      09:23am | 08/11/12

      I switch off when I hear it used, it clearly demonstrates the a) the person does not actually know what it means b) they are using it in the wrong context and c) they are attempting to shut an argument down they can’t win on merit.
      Previously how often have you heard it used?

    • Ridge says:

      09:58am | 08/11/12

      I kinda like it, actually.  Broadening the definition waters down the effect the word has.

      The time will come that if you’re not a supplicating beta, you must be a misogynist!

    • Haxton Waag says:

      10:06am | 08/11/12

      Actually, let’s ditch the dictionary definitions and use our own nous to derive one. Are women being screwed around by patriarchal attitudes and institutions? Do they feel misused? Are they always treated equally to men where it is possible to do so? That seems a fair basis for a definition to me, because they are, they do, and they aren’t.

    • Borderer says:

      10:42am | 08/11/12

      Actually, let’s ditch the dictionary definitions and use our own nous to derive one.
      You mean make stuff up? I thought you already were…

      Are women being screwed around by patriarchal attitudes and institutions?
      Yeah, our Prime Minister, Governor General, two former premiers and the CEO of Westpac must feel like their gender is holding them back….

      Do they feel misused?
      Have you asked them? Ask anyone if there is more that people can do for them and they will universally say yes, ground breaking stuff but do go on…

      Are they always treated equally to men where it is possible to do so?

      Isn’t it enshrined in law? There is no such thing as positive descrimination for men (which is discrimination none the less). Is there something you want to see happen or is there just a general pro-women push? You haven’t really thought it out if that is your stance, it’s hard to make positive steps when the group making them don’t know what they are.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      11:09am | 08/11/12

      @Borderer:

      “Actually, let’s ditch the dictionary definitions and use our own nous to derive one. You mean make stuff up? I thought you already were…”

      No one here seems to want to accept the dictionary definitions, which in general seem to go well beyond simple hatred.

      “Are women being screwed around by patriarchal attitudes and institutions? Yeah, our Prime Minister, Governor General, two former premiers and the CEO of Westpac must feel like their gender is holding them back….”

      Would it not be more objective to consider the entire female population rather than singling out a few successes?

      “Do they feel misused? Have you asked them? Ask anyone if there is more that people can do for them and they will universally say yes, ground breaking stuff but do go on…”

      It is reported in the media, on occasion. Evidence: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-08/mind-the-gap-women-still-chasing-pay-equality/2666164

    • maria says:

      11:18am | 08/11/12

      I see “democracy” has become a solid buzzword now, replacing it with “oligarch government”, which is what this case really is.

    • Christine says:

      11:41am | 08/11/12

      Derogatory name calling is verbal abuse and any form of abusive bullying by adults regardless of political persuasion is shameful behaviour.  It is especially so when used by our so called learned politicians.

      So regardless of the meaning of misognist or any other abusive term, the use of same against a fellow human being is bullying.  A person may act disrespectful towards someone in certain stressful situations and parliament seems to be the best example of poor behavior, but really why do our leaders need to resort to such childish bullying tactics.

      We complain about teenage bullying but how about political bullying to silence someone.

    • Borderer says:

      12:29pm | 08/11/12

      @Haxton Waag
      No one here seems to want to accept the dictionary definitions, which in general seem to go well beyond simple hatred.

      Altering a definition in order to make yourself correct in retrospect is like changing the exam questions in order to suit your answers, a fail in any book.

      Would it not be more objective to consider the entire female population rather than singling out a few successes?

      Well the rest really don’t have a media profile now do they? But given the mentioned women have achieved as high a status as is possible in their field what is holding the rest back? Is it their experience/ability or a mysterious plot by men who can’t be identified but are out there? Why would a business employ a less competant person to run their organisation when the goal is to maximise returns? Contradictory really. I would expect to see more women achieving more in the up coming years as women who have chosen higher studies in commercial courses peak in their careers.

      Pay equality is a mathmatical myth. Law states equal pay, the gap occurs because males generally don’t take a year off work to have children so it’s a perception that women are paid less over their professional lives. Also women gravitate towards certain roles that pay less but are more suited to their interests and may be more flexible in hours. These are not gender related, these are choices.  If I elect to work in a cafe as opposed to heading up the finance department and then complain that I’m paid less it makes me stupid, yet the feminists bleat about sexism. Being a woman does not define what role you will take in life, it influences it yet the decision remains that of the individual, complaining about your decisions is denying accountability.

      So Haxton, what do women want us to do? They have free choice, rights to education, the right to vote, laws to punish gender based discrimination, equal pay for equal work, if you don’t know and it’s just a general complaint, what’s the point? Offer solutions not problems.

    • Mark says:

      12:43pm | 08/11/12

      lol @ Maria.  Correct, misogyny isn’t the first use of propaganda, you are on the ball.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      07:47am | 08/11/12

      If my children had behaved like this I would have been only too approving of community service as an appropriate response.

    • Pretentious says:

      07:49am | 08/11/12

      Goodness,
      Is there a university at Wollongong, now?

    • tez says:

      08:49am | 08/11/12

      Yes amazing the working class can actually have bright offspring

    • Pretentious says:

      07:49am | 08/11/12

      Goodness,
      Is there a university at Wollongong, now?

    • Ross C says:

      07:49am | 08/11/12

      It is no wonder that this sort of tribalism that is responsible for this behaviour exists in a Catholic institution which is built on tribalism however yes St. John’s represents a tiny fraction of the community so maybe we should not be to concerned. The misguided parents who send their children there are part of a dying breed who believe this stuff builds character but most of us succeed without the need to resort this medieval nonsense.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      08:05am | 08/11/12

      @Ross C: And let us not forget patriarchalism; the Catholic Church is a severely unbalanced institution.

      And many fail *because* of this mediaeval nonsense.

    • James says:

      11:10am | 08/11/12

      Oh god Haxton, the evil patriarchy again !

      You must be new to feminism because you’re giving us the tired old entry level rubbish we’ve seen 40 years ago.

    • Haxton Waag says:

      12:35pm | 08/11/12

      @James - The middle-aged virgins (except where little boys are concerned) who run the Catholic Church condemn themselves with their own actions.

    • W says:

      01:46pm | 08/11/12

      hmmm my mum sent me there because we lived in the country and needed somewhere to live while i attended uni. Fuuny that, coming from an ANGLICAN family, parents run a shop, I study teaching. After reading some of these posts im glad that i have been so well educated. These posts are STEREOTYPED, CLICHED,  SENSATIONALISED,. Do you realize that the highest mass attendance (apart from matriculation events) on record is 17 students? and the regular attenders are RA staff who are PAID to go to give a good example to other students. The catholic church has absolutely nothing to do with any of it. I am starting to think ( and forgive me for growing a bighead) that these comments are from people who have not had opportunities they might have wished for in life. I know I, coming form my low socio-ecconomic background (and being a Johns student!), am incredibly grateful for what I have.

    • Joe Blow says:

      08:19am | 08/11/12

      Initiations have been going on in education institutions for decades/centuries.  Mates of mine (in the military) used to laugh about the times they were bastardised at boarding school and how in turn they did it to the new boys.  They weren’t scarred for life.  Anyone with half a brain knew exactly what went on but saw it for what it was - teenagers acting badly. 

      But I suppose in those days there were fewer psychologists, lawyers and journos trying to make a living out of feined outrage and victimhood.

      I suppose it’s all just Tony Abbott’s fault, eh?

    • Al says:

      08:41am | 08/11/12

      Joe Blow - the big question would be, did any of the bastardisation that occured occur against the wishes of the person being bastardised?
      If the answer is yes, then that is rape.
      Anybody with half a brain would know that and see it for what it was. That being either rape or boys consenting to a sexual act between them. Those are the 2 possibilities.
      They either consented or not.

    • KK says:

      08:42am | 08/11/12

      “Mates of mine (in the military) used to laugh about the times they were bastardised at boarding school and how in turn they did it to the new boys.  They weren’t scarred for life.”  That is pretty much the definition of psychologically damaged / scarred for life right there….

    • Haxton Waag says:

      09:28am | 08/11/12

      @Joe Blow - Some, however, do find their ability to function compromised over the long term, through anxiety, depression, and PTSD, as a result of bullying. There is no question that this occurs often enough. That alone makes these practices unacceptable. What possible defence is there for behaving like this anyway? How does it benefit the individual, or society? Instruct me, please, because I really can see nothing good about it. Can you?

    • Joe Blow says:

      11:03am | 08/11/12

      @Al ... um clearly if you think that ‘bastardised’ means ‘rape’ you are using a Macquarie dictionary.

      @KK ... the old, if you don’t think you were scarred for life, then you must be argument, eh?  Good one.

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      08:43am | 08/11/12

      Hi Troy,

      Most young students do end up going to universities to further their education and to improve themselves, right?  Well not maybe for all students equally, because not all young students could be so lucky and privileged to begin with, especially way back.  Somehow that also can depend of many young hopefuls’ true dreams and intentions of what to do with that university degree/diploma.  I would think that it would be more about making a difference to their society with all that newly gained knowledge and wisdom.

      And by the way that picture above says it all about who was really lucky and privileged to attend universities a century ago.  Was it a handful of young men who were seen as fortunate?  As we gain all the knowledge and experience relating to special subjects, what happens to the very idea of improving and adding on to our social skills as well. It is also about taking our studies leading up to our wanted places in the society very seriously, indeed.

      The expression of our pasts coming back to haunt us, may be so true.  And what about all those expressions about “old skeletons in the cupboard”? Everyone has them in their past, I presume. However the actual partying, getting drunk and behaving in less than acceptable manner, makes me wonder what we all end up thinking about all those bankers, lawyers and doctors with all those diplomas?  Lets just say that with all freedom and knowledge should also come a sense of responsibility, right?

      When only we realize that the right/privilege to attend a university is a very special one, making us more educated and wise as well as making it possible to succeed later on in our lives. At these modern times instead of making it about men hating women or sexism, we should all rethink our obligations and priorities in determining how to achieve all those good human qualities.  Which might make all the difference into the meaning of civilized and acceptable behavior whether we happen to be a part of “men versus women” or “women versus men” or “men only clubs”. Kind regards.

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      08:44am | 08/11/12

      Hi Tory,

      Most young students do end up going to universities to further their education and to improve themselves, right?  Well not maybe for all students equally, because not all young students could be so lucky and privileged to begin with, especially way back.  Somehow that also can depend of many young hopefuls’ true dreams and intentions of what to do with that university degree/diploma.  I would think that it would be more about making a difference to their society with all that newly gained knowledge and wisdom.

      And by the way that picture above says it all about who was really lucky and privileged to attend universities a century ago.  Was it a handful of young men who were seen as fortunate?  As we gain all the knowledge and experience relating to special subjects, what happens to the very idea of improving and adding on to our social skills as well. It is also about taking our studies leading up to our wanted places in the society very seriously, indeed.

      The expression of our pasts coming back to haunt us, may be so true.  And what about all those expressions about “old skeletons in the cupboard”? Everyone has them in their past, I presume. However the actual partying, getting drunk and behaving in less than acceptable manner, makes me wonder what we all end up thinking about all those bankers, lawyers and doctors with all those diplomas?  Lets just say that with all freedom and knowledge should also come a sense of responsibility, right?

      When only we realize that the right/privilege to attend a university is a very special one, making us more educated and wise as well as making it possible to succeed later on in our lives. At these modern times instead of making it about men hating women or sexism, we should all rethink our obligations and priorities in determining how to achieve all those good human qualities.  Which might make all the difference into the meaning of civilized and acceptable behavior whether we happen to be a part of “men versus women” or “women versus men” or “men only clubs”. Kind regards.

    • George says:

      08:55am | 08/11/12

      I have worked with these born to rule types. Bloodless, arrogant. But I haven’t seen anything terribly better from the general population. Just as opportunistic and greedy. They’re just more down to earth on the surface.

    • Zeta says:

      08:58am | 08/11/12

      Johnsmen have always been a bit weird. That’s the real problem. You don’t see this kind of stuff go on at St Andrews or St Pauls for example.

      If we’re really honest, and no offence to any St Johns alumni at The Punch, but if you went to St Johns, it’s because you weren’t rich enough to go to St Pauls, and you weren’t good enough at sport to go St Andrews. No one ever aspires to go to the college where all the weird nerds from Riverview end up.

      I think it’s happening because there’s been a recent upswing in the popularity of the colleges. This is because middle class families who might have been able to afford to send their kids through a private school for 12 years simply cannot afford to have their kids live in Sydney unless they’re in a college. Year 12 at a mid-tier private school, including boarding, extra tuition, and some inevitable trip to Japan or something is going to set a parent back maybe $40k, $50k if they play a stupid sport that involves more than one uniform. But if you want your kid to live in Sydney, go to Uni, and not need a part time job, you can double that. A year’s rent alone is going to be $30k+. Colleges are attractive for that reason now.

      So whereas in the past the college guys were all pretty old money who were walking in their Dad’s beer soaked footsteps, now you’ve got a whole new generation, the children of property developers and web designers and miners.

      I know it’s a bit classist, but seriously, if any of the offenders at St Johns were from serious money or power you’d have heard about it by now. The reason you haven’t is because they’re not.

      This is a bit classist - but if you let commoners into 150 year old institutions they do tend to drink the cat food and throw feces.

    • Sarah says:

      09:27am | 08/11/12

      Say you share a flat with 1-2 others, and each pay $200/week ($600/wk will find you plenty of ok 3br flats within 15 mins walk of uni).
      That’s $10k a year in rent, not $30k

    • wakeuppls says:

      09:27am | 08/11/12

      A years rent at $30k? Sydney is expensive but there are thousands of places cheaper than the implied $500+ per week that that figure suggests.

    • iansand says:

      10:13am | 08/11/12

      Zeta clearly has not attended Andrews or Pauls.  The anarchy at Johns at the moment is different only in degree, not kind, to what happens at Andrews and Pauls, at least among the Neanderthal subset of residents.  And I am probably being unfair to Neanderthals.

      What may be different is that at Pauls certainly and possibly at Andrews the Council would support the Warden’s attempts at discipline, not undermine them.

    • Jace says:

      10:43am | 08/11/12

      Maybe they send their kids to St John’s because they’re Catholic, and not because they can’t afford to send them to Paul’s or Andrew’s. And $30k for rent is over $550 a week; I think you could find something a bit cheaper than that, even if you wanted to share in Vaucluse.

      If your post proves nothing else, it’s that money can’t buy class.  Or brains.

    • q says:

      01:49pm | 08/11/12

      you have got it Zeta!!! completely agree and I am a Johns student!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • A geologist writes: says:

      09:22am | 08/11/12

      The problem is not the sandstone in the walls but the granite between the ears.

    • maria says:

      09:53am | 08/11/12

      these kids’ parents, and the schools where they should have been taught how to live in a civilised society, have a lot to answer for.

      Did you forget that these kids’parents have been forbitten to learn how to read and write for many decades and discipline was overuled by a regime of tolerance by the people who run these institutions.

      This is why “shit happens” everyday and will keep happening.

    • Craig says:

      10:25am | 08/11/12

      Can the media track down past Johns boys and look at whether their instances of poor performance and having legal action taken against them are higher or lower than in the general community.

      It would be of great public interest to see if these private colleges are perpetuating the worst of Australia.

    • Wiggyaogo says:

      10:28am | 08/11/12

      What a load of BS.

      What is it with the left and wanting to control every aspect of our lives ?

    • TimF says:

      10:35am | 08/11/12

      “What it can be held responsible for is the total inadequacy of the response to her complaint.”

      More military bashing I see. The Skype complaint was immediately investigated and then refered to police as it was deemed a sexual offence. The Commandant was cleared of any wrong doing after a full inquiry.

      But hey…never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

    • RDH says:

      01:01pm | 08/11/12

      Not only that - it wasn’t even at Duntroon - it was at ADFA

    • Adam says:

      05:27pm | 08/11/12

      True that it was ADFA and not Duntroon (the two often being confused), but the latter still deserves a mention and it’s not just military bashing. Long before ADFA was getting headlines for the behaviour of students, Duntroon was involved in a long, bitter feud with residents of colleges at the ANU. Fights, vandalism, an infamous example been chemicals used to burn nazi symbols into property at Duntroon.

    • YaThink says:

      10:49am | 08/11/12

      I think it is more a ‘Private School’ thing sadly.  You are constantly told that you are the future leaders of the country and then you start to believe it.  It used to also happen with some of the Rugby Union teams years ago (back in the days when really only private school boys played) and it is hard to make a complaint against them, the ones above them find no fault (as they themselves did similar back in the day) and because they are often in higher positions there is always a friendly judge or barrister mate who can get your kid out of the crap he is in (though still not even understanding why he is in crap), or worse, will intimidate brutally anyone who does try to lay a complaint against them.  Unfortunately a few of us (who went to Private Girls Schools) found out how that system worked :(

    • Eskimo says:

      10:55am | 08/11/12

      I’m pretty sure the Skype sex scandal was at ADFA not Duntroon. You’re getting a bit loose with the fact Tory.

    • Heidi says:

      10:57am | 08/11/12

      I went to a college at Queensland University in the early ‘90s.  One or two of the more ‘exclusive’ colleges got into trouble for ‘fresher hazing’, with an investigation and charges of sexual assault and harassment laid in one instance.  The university and the college community as a whole, banded together and outlawed ANY type of hazing.  As colleges by nature turn over their entire population with 3-4 years, the condemnation and publicity initially stopped the behaviour, and the cultures changed accordingly.

      I can’t believe that Sydney Uni is still allowing this to happen 20 years later!! - the adults (and yes, they may be young, but they are still adults) responsible for the hazing should be thrown out of the college (or colleges if an investigation shows that more than one has this culture) and where necessary charges laid.

    • B says:

      11:34am | 08/11/12

      Keep up. Its all over. The council was abolished. they were in control of all discipline and made up of old boys who are the fathers and friends of this minority group of about 25 boys responsible for all this ugly behaviour- who funnily enough all go to school such as joeys, knox, riverview and iggy’s. The council, like their offspring,are promoter of traditions, rituals and all the historicall stuff that went on at Johns before women even went there. There were about 3 women on the council who were continually over-ruled. There were about 3 other people who, along with these women, were in support of the Rectors ‘clean up’ and ‘reform’ but who, like the rector himself, had no hope when power sits at a majority and the majority of council were crazy misogynistic wankers who have also been trying to expel women from the college since they were invited in. The rector is back in control and trust me he is stickler for discipline. Place will be back to normal in no time. Those boys have a few more days until they are disciplined.

    • Brad says:

      11:02am | 08/11/12

      I picked up on the point of this column. Abbott Abbott Abbott.

    • Too Privileged says:

      11:06am | 08/11/12

      Tory I completely agree with you, especially based on my own university experience, lived out in a very diverse college. I am convinced that it’s the private school boy culture these Johns boys grew up in that makes them behave in this way at university.

    • The-A-Team says:

      11:27am | 08/11/12

      What has happened is disgusting and frankly any student who can be identified should be expelled immediately. However, this focus on St Johns and the University of Sydney is clouding a bigger issue. This still goes on in colleges around the country, we should be focusing on the issue itself, not just St Johns as people look for answers and stamp out this behaviour.

    • Dis Turbed says:

      11:29am | 08/11/12

      It certainly is very concerning in an institution designed to create upstanding citizens engages in this kind of activity. What is astounding, is just how morally bankrup their charges appear to be. The young women who stood and lied in front of Australia, only has one career choice left, where bold face lying is a job requisiti, POLITICS, she can stand next to Tony NO NO NO NO Abbott and tell lies about how the climate isn’t changing and the carbon tax is hell and damnation for Australia.

      I mean what was she thinking, that she would have her pick of jobs, because she would do whatever it takes to get ahead. She needs the leader of the opposition on speed dial as her mentor.

    • Aussie Boatie says:

      11:55am | 08/11/12

      The Skype scandal was at ADFA, not Duntroon. Just a fact correction. That is all.

    • mikem says:

      12:00pm | 08/11/12

      This fossil behaviour persists only because the establishment allows it.  The problem is the attitudes these students get there continue into their working lives and often manifest themselves in disregard for others, bullying and occasionally physical and sexual assaults.  As the ADF incidents have shown the behaviour can become systemic.

    • John Bull. says:

      12:05pm | 08/11/12

      I do like how you abuse and bear false accusation.

      “particularly ugly brand of born-to-rule misogyny”. - Seriously? You know something the rest of us dont, or are you shooting off your mouth and hiding as usual?
      So all the boys, hate woman? And you have evidence of this? Could you present this before a civil suit?

      Skype affair, that is society. A woman and a man, broke the law, and did the nasty. The Man showing off to his friends, skyped it.
      All should face military court. All did wrong. Equal level of wrong.
      So no way the military is at fault that a woman couldn’t keep her pants on, and the guy couldn’t keep his penis to himself.
      That my dear, is called personal responisbility. They teach that at uni, it’s called ethics.

      Oh wollongong uni sounds fantastic, a real left wing utopia. I dont remember it that way at all. Perhaps it was an art students point of view?

    • William says:

      02:04pm | 08/11/12

      Zeta says:08:58am | 08/11/12

      Johnsmen have always been a bit weird. That’s the real problem. You don’t see this kind of stuff go on at St Andrews or St Pauls for example.

      In the 1980s it was St. Andrews men who were the master exponents of fresher bastardisation at Sydney uni, with both St. Pauls and St. Johns letting greater levels of sanity and civility prevail.  It depends upon the relationship between the head of the college (the Rector or Warden) and the college’s governing body (The Council).  Sadly in the case of St. Johns, the descent into anachy stems from an obstructionist Council that has thwarted the Rector’s attempts to eradicate degrading behaviour trhough even-handed discipline.  Cardinal Pell has accordingly rendered the Council powerless by withdrawing the 6 members of the clergy.  Presumably the likes of Mr. Phillips SC (reported to be the chief council ringleader thwarting the Rector’s efforts to clean up the College) will fade quiety into obscurity, and St. Johns will begin to rebuild its reputation for sporting and academic excellence.  First though, the so called “untouchables” must be asked to find other lodgings.  Their presence at the college is simply untenable.

    • nick says:

      01:08pm | 08/11/12

      what a joke of an article..quit your job ASAP! Did you know that MANY of the current students are working to pay for their own college stay, as opposed to mummy and daddy paying for them, thus making them “spoilt” or “privileged”. Like I said, quit your job and work at a $2 shop..it is all that you are good for..

    • kitteh says:

      01:37pm | 08/11/12

      I worked and was on academic scholarship during my own college stay. However, I wasn’t offended by this article in the least - I thought it had some very valid points to make. Perhaps your over-the-top response is due to something other than what you have labelled as poor journalism?

    • Josephine says:

      01:26pm | 08/11/12

      Calling these louts at St John’s ‘piglets’ is an insult to piglets.

    • P. Darvio says:

      01:47pm | 08/11/12

      Why is anyone surprised about what is happening at St Johns Christian Catholic College - they are Christians…and the pillars of society….and have Christian Ethics and Christian Morals…..what’s the problem?.... and why do you expect anything else when their Christian Bible advocates hate, violence, disrespect to women (and more to the point violence against women), destruction of property, no respect of the rule of Secular Law (because they have Bible Law).

      Why is everyone so shocked? - especially when Christians boast they get their morals and ethics from ancient scribblings by goat herders who lived in tents thousands of years ago.

      I know I’m not surprised.

    • a says:

      01:51pm | 08/11/12

      This artice is a shit stir- its no relevant anymore. The council has now been made non existent and the college will now be made more accountable. The council had total power, even over the rector and all matters of discipline. The council (old boys, judges, the wealthy and influential) are gone; all that remains is their offspring (note, about 20 boys, largely responsible for all the reported problems) who they have strived to protect and support in upholding traditions and rituals of the place. Staff and alumni not associated with this network are now celebrating the abolishment of council- problems solved. No doubt the rector will start disciplining ( he is a real stickler for rules, discipline) now that he is not just a puppet of the council. From a female Alumni

    • Em says:

      01:53pm | 08/11/12

      Would you believe me if i told you it was all over now??? These boys will be disciplined. The council was abolished. they were in control of all discipline and made up of old boys who are the fathers and friends of this minority group of about 25 boys responsible for all this ugly behaviour- who funnily enough all go to school such as joeys, knox, riverview and iggy’s. The council, like their offspring,are promoter of traditions, rituals and all the historicall stuff that went on at Johns before women even went there. There were about 3 women on the council who were continually over-ruled. There were about 3 other people who, along with these women, were in support of the Rectors ‘clean up’ and ‘reform’ but who, like the rector himself, had no hope when power sits at a majority and the majority of council were crazy misogynistic wankers who have also been trying to expel women from the college since they were invited in. The rector is back in control and trust me he is stickler for discipline. Place will be back to normal in no time. Those boys have a few more days until they are disciplined.

    • Alex says:

      02:27pm | 08/11/12

      I like your points. On this matter, referring to all Colleges as the same is one wrong reaction, and pretending it doesn’t exist at some is equally wrong. It seems action is being taken thanks to the attention of sites like this as well as the Fairfax media. I went to a College for 4 years and it was great. In my experience, it all comes down to leadership. Strong leadership that is unafraid of what people think, or supposed ‘traditions’. That is why the best thing for Johns has happened - the Cardinal has stepped in and several board members have stepped down.

      The funny thing for me is to watch the Johns College promotional video from a few years ago. It seems to give the impression that opening the College up to women was a good thing for the place. Rather than tame the boys, all it did was give them easier access to prey. Or turned the women into blokes - did you see the ‘lady’ who spoke to the ABC and pretended to be a ‘fresher’ - I would be afraid to live there if she is indeed on the student council!

      The comment about diversity is a good one. Even at an all-boys college you can have a lot of diversity - racial, cultural, sporting, musical, intellectual etc etc. It’s all about who you promote the College to, how you market it and ultimately who you accept through the doors. I can see with Johns that obviously there are a lot of children of old boys that they would like to give preference to - hence the possible lack of diversity.

    • Shane says:

      02:48pm | 08/11/12

      If you don’t like the silly behaviour that goes on at St Johns, then don’t go.

      It’s pretty simple.

      I’m so sick of this politically correct bullshit from people who aspire to get into a college like St Johns, then carry on like fools and victims when it isn’t to their liking.

      Find another college, find another university, but don’t get all uppitty about a bunch of blokes being blokes.  So join in or bugger off.

    • kitteh says:

      04:42pm | 08/11/12

      Uh….anyone with enough money and a body temp in the thirties can get into a residential college. It isn’t something to ‘aspire’ to.

      And considering that it is marketed as a residence for students attending university, not a blokey-bloke daycamp where anyone not comforming to the stereotype is subject to abuse, ‘join in or bugger off’ isn’t really a workable mission statement.

    • Adam says:

      03:16pm | 08/11/12

      For those saying St Johns is a private institution and none of our business, it’s best to think again. St Johns was created in the 1950s by the NSW Government (in it’s pre-federation form). The College received public funds, and to this day remains under it’s own specific state legislation, affiliating it with the University of Sydney.

      While the Catholic Church may be asked to administer it, the State government gave it existence, and the legislation specifically states that students at St Johns remain under the discipline code of the University of Sydney.

      The University shouldn’t be trying to wash its hands of this as they are trying to do.

    • Adam says:

      03:28pm | 08/11/12

      *1850s

    • Julia Gilllard. says:

      03:54pm | 08/11/12

      Hate to say it.
      Much bigger problems facing Australia at the moment than the attitude and actions of a select few in a 150 year old Catholic College. What will the next media cycle bring i wonder.

    • david says:

      04:13pm | 08/11/12

      You might want to fact check your document the skype scandal was ADFA not Duntroon.
      Just a thought

    • Martin Luther says:

      05:19pm | 08/11/12

      How sad that a Catholic institution has become the victim of media persecution.

      Repent!

    • El says:

      06:06pm | 08/11/12

      The Leftist/ Marxist /Feminist education/ culture has now really sunk in, thats why this latest generation is totally out of control, and there is now even less discipline than ever. Lets not forget in the early 90s there was still the odd cane in school, now there is too much student rights and every moral code and boundary that has kept our society disciplined have been hammered away by our pathetic post-modern society (TV Shows/ Social Media/ Political Correctness.

    • Positive Education says:

      06:39pm | 08/11/12

      The masses jump onto the bandwagon when they know nothing about this place. It doesn’t sound much different to the uni college I went to in the 1980’s in Brisbane. Looks like these guys have gone that little bit too far. You can put that down to a lack of leadership in the student body, not the board who oversees the place. They have little control over the day to day happenings while senior students are supposed to set the scene and uphold the norms. They should have pulled their heads in when the public first got wind of their antics. Poisoning someone and bullying is not acceptable. Initiations are Ok but must be done with an overriding care factor at all times.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter