This week we had several outside opportunities to experience Cambridge student culture. These events included a special “Scottish Night” formal hall, a debate on the British law system and the “American Invasion” theme party.
The
first event was the Scottish Formal Hall on Tuesday night. When we first
read the menu I have to admit many of us were extremely worried to see
haggis as our first course. I almost tried to declare myself a vegetarian
for the night, but I was reminded the point of this trip is to experience
as much as I can— even sheep intestines. The Scottish delicacy was served
as a part of the Robert Burns Night celebration. Robert Burns (1759-1756)
is considered Scotland’s greatest poet and dinner celebrations honoring
him have been going on for over 200 years. The banquet hall was decorated
with a tartan plaid wall border and matching place mats. Scottish flags
also adorned the wall and served as centerpieces. The hall was completely
full with a festive crowd ready to celebrate. According to tradition, we
began dinner with a Burns poem and a ceremonial cutting of the haggis.
The haggis was actually my favorite part of the meal! Although there seem
to be many variations, traditional haggis generally consists of oatmeal,
suet, onions, mutton and…yes, sheep’s stomach. I am not sure if our haggis
was traditional or not but there was no apparent sheep stomach so we were
all very relieved. It was prepared as a little scoop, and the closest taste
and consistency I can compare it to would be heavily spiced stuffing. Throughout
the dinner a few more poems were read, and I regret I did not write them
down to share, but if you are interested in more information on Robert
Burns and his works check out www.robertburns.org or www.rabbie-burns.com.
As usual we had a good time wining and dining at formal and getting to
know a few more of the Hughes Hall society.
After
conquering the haggis, a couple of us decided we could take on anything,
even a law debate at the Cambridge Union Society of which we are all fortunate
to be members. With a bit of mixed excitement and apprehension we entered
the debate hall on Thursday night and made our way through a crowd of students
waiting in the lobby for the main debate. Once inside, Ethan Leibzeit,
Jessie Abbott and I found ourselves surrounded by Cambridge students who
seemed to represent the epitome of academia. The debate hall is set up
similar to a courtroom. The debate society president and executive members
sit like judges against the center wall of the room. The rest of the room
is divided in half by a space that is two sword lengths in width (according
to Dr. O’Shaughnessy this is the traditional width between opposing sides
in a debate hall…I was relieved I didn’t observe any swords in the crowd
this night). On either side are wooden booths, like church pews but with
comfy cushions; the debate speakers stand at podiums facing the side of
their opponents. Perhaps it was just the environment but everyone looked
to me like characters straight out of the movie Higher Learning or Dead
Poets Society. In any case, it was exciting to sit amidst the crowd waiting
expectantly for the president to address the crowds from his throne-like
chair. Our apprehension at being “outsiders” fell away as the first speaker
began with witty jokes and banter mostly concerning his own merits and
those of the other seven panel members, all distinguished barristers and
solicitors. The topic of the debate was whether the divided law system
should continue to be split between barristers (mainly responsible for
arguing the case) and solicitors (those who meet with the client and prepare
the cases), or should the system be unified like that in the United States.
I will not relate the intricacies of the arguments, some of which were
too detailed for me to follow at all times. My overall impression of the
debate was both amusement and awe at this most glorified display of renowned
English wit and word play. The debate seemed as much (and sometimes more)
a chance for the speakers to display their language expertise and ability
to retort at a moment’s notice as an argument. All of the speakers made
playful references to their esteemed colleagues, some of this biting satire
but all causing laughter. The audience was not only there to explore a
social issue and absorb the opinions of experts in the field of law but
also to see a show. The easy retorts and informal audience participation
struck me as radically different from the stiff and seriously prepared
American version of public speaking. Our only regret was the absence of
any women on the panel, and no woman addressed the panel during question
time. Other than this, we were very impressed with the debate and can’t
wait for the next.
Completing our long week of intense concentration we felt it was definitely time to relax a little Friday night at the “American Invasion” party in the Hughes Hall bar-- hosted by our crowd in conjunction with the Hughes Hall social committee. We decorated with a flashy metallic paper flag and American landscape collages cut out of travel magazines. We completed our theme with blue and white balloons and confetti. Kevin was our DJ, playing American favorites all night, while Jeri and Will helped serve at the bar. Even Dr. O and Dr. Moore joined us just when the party really got underway. We danced all night and socialised with our Hughes Hall pals, many of whom we are getting to know and talk to on a regular basis. I think we all feel a little more a part of the college’s culture now that we have met more people and socialised in an informal atmosphere.