The Wykehamist
wildly blown out of proportion, it loses its meaning as well as credibility. In Entick v. Carrington [ 1765 ], the defendants broke into the house of the claimant— Entick— in search of papers under the authority of Lord Halifax. The court held the defendants guilty of trespassing, deeming that the defendants— citizens— as well as authorities— Lord Halifax— must only act within the boundaries of the law. In other words, the state, despite its position of power, may not do anything but what is expressly authorised by the law. Similarly, students at the College, no matter the amount of authority given to them, must still only act within clearly understood limitations. Thus, Sen Order is only beneficial when employed within these boundaries.
There has been an evident reduction in tradition in recent years: when I joined College in 2023, praefects no longer held power to give out lines or sonnets. College traditions are being gradually abolished due to concerns over their misuse: what starts out as a playful initiation can become an unnerving source of exclusion and bullying. And just as major court cases set precedence for future judgements, the actions of praefects also shape that of year groups below. Hence, the importance of tradition has been largely pushed aside for what many would argue is a good cause.
However, it is a mistake to assume that the only solution to this problem is the removal of Sen Order in its entirety, and the stripping of authority from the older years. The rule of law does not dictate the removal of authority at all; reform must not become total erasure. An absence of Sen Order would destroy the necessary framework of the school. The older years, with their relative experience, ought to guide and organise the younger years, who should, and would, recognize this source of authority as legitimate— one need only refer to the success of the pater & filius( or protégé & tégé) system.
That is not to say that the Sen Order system is flawless. Many worry about the elitism such a system could create, where older years view themselves as inherently superior to the year groups below, and the misuse of authority by those in power devolves into displays of status. However, Sen Order has never been intended to place older years on a higher pedestal. Rather, it places higher degrees of responsibility on those with more experience, with abuse of the system being an underlying, but necessary risk to take.
The risk of overstepping boundaries of authority is very much present in the real world as well, evidencing it to be a realistic, but also avoidable risk. In law, the underlying principle of ultra vires— an act performed by companies beyond their legitimate legal power— mirrors the potential exploitation of Sen Order in the College. However, just as habeas corpus protects an individual from unlawful punishment, it is very much possible to control this abuse. If transparency and clear boundaries are established, possibly with systematic reforms to additionally enforce pupil demonstrations of power, Sen Order can gain legitimate status.
Thus, even if it still seems that older pupils will inevitably confuse their authority with arrogant superiority, fully banishing Sen Order would not only diminish tradition at Win: Coll:, but also be a misidentification of the problem: it is not the system of hierarchy among pupils that is problematic, but the way it is understood and acted upon.
With thanks to Barton Li( Coll:, 23-). Law Soc meets every Thursday 18:45-19:30 in Flint Court B2.
Solutions to this issue’ s Crossword:
1a. NO FAIR; 3a. SHEEP; 6a. EXTRAS; 8a. FEEDER; 9a. CODA; 10a. RE-ENGAGE; 12a. SYMPATHISED; 17a. CONSUMED; 19a. INNS; 20a. CHOOSY; 21a. AIRBUS; 22a. PLANT; 23a. RED PEN.
1d. NOXIOUS; 2d. FOREARM; 3d. STERN; 4d. ENDGAME; 5d. PARLEY; 7d. SARCASM; 11d. ECHID- NA; 13d. YIN YOGA; 14d. SKI TRIP; 15d. DON JUAN; 16d. ICECAP; 18d. UPSET.
15