| Subject: Re: 1.1.1 |
Author:
Caroline
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:35:02 05/29/03 Thu
In reply to:
Tim
's message, "1.1.1" on 14:21:52 05/29/03 Thu
Aggreed: However, IVDA should aim to support clubs in a practical manner, if not in a financial respect. We do have that in being able to discuss problems. Fair enough that is mainly people with teams, but we aim to promote dancesport, and that to a certain extent may involve helping social dancers so that they can compete in the future...Joining IVDA should mean something. Does this make any sense? Not that I want that in the constitution, but we should be trying to help people out so that they want to join us. All it really takes is what we are doing with this website already,
Not sure that makes any sense but our aim is to promote dancesport, and that does involve trying to help some of the uni's that just have social clubs...(Like I used to :)
>An issue raised at this year's Spring GCM was the
>following:
>
>Does 1.1.1 accurately reflect the current de facto
>aims of the association?
>
>For those uninitiated with the constitution 1.1.1 says:
>
>1.1.1 The aim of the Inter-Varsity Dance Association
>(IVDA) is to promote dancing within universities, and
>organise an annual ball incorporating an Inter-Varsity
>Dancing Competition (IVDC).
>
>
>The question is: should we reword 1.1.1 in terms of
>Dancesport rather than Dance?
>
>Personally, I believe that we do. Whilst 1.1.1 is used
>now at nearly every meeting to keep R 'n R and offbeat
>from being reduced or eliminated, the truth is that
>IVDA is not about Dance, but about Dancesport.
>Virtually all the events of the day are ballroom or
>latin events, the team match is all ballroom and
>latin. The serious events of the day are all ballroom
>and latin. The demonstration is always a ballroom and
>latin couple. And by and large EVERY couple there is a
>ballroom or latin dancer. They may do offbeat or R 'n
>R as well, but they are essentially ballroom dancers
>doing some other dancing as well.
>
>If our aim was genuinely to promote dance, then why is
>there no ballet at IVDC? Why is there no jazz? Why is
>there no country and western? It is not just that
>these events are not done or that there wouldn't be
>time for them, there is a definite sense that these
>events would be inappropriate at IVDC. (All very good
>in their own right, but IVDC is not the right place).
>
>Furthermore, IVDA does not seek, nor has it ever
>sought to promote social ballroom dancing. IVDA does
>not help clubs, does not arrange social dancing
>events, etc.
>
>What this suggests is that, despite the constitution,
>the de facto aim of IVDA is promoting Dancesport. It
>is dance restricted to ballroom and latin dancing, and
>restricted to when that is done competitively.
>
>This, of course, does not mean that R 'n R and Offbeat
>have no place at IVDC. Unlike Jazz and Ballet, they
>are typically part of the ballroom dancing club, and
>participation in these CAN HELP PROMOTE DANCESPORT.
>There are some clubs which attract people with the
>carrot of offbeat and R 'n R, only to then beat them
>with the stick of Dancesport. ;)
>
>What the change in the constitution would mean,
>though, is that justifications would have to be
>couched in terms of contributing to promoting
>Dancesport. That would be an important change. It
>would allow meaningful priorities to be set, and more
>accurately reflect the nature of the association.
>
>In the process, the name of the association should
>also be changed to 'Inter-Varsity Dancesport
>Association'.
>
>Any thoughts?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
