The KK - Is this the end for our intrepid duo (and some)??!

[Bizarre Atheist]

Echoing some of what has been said before, the KK has for too long been the 'darling' of the University and Blang in particular, based on very little actual merit and to the annoyance of much of the student population.

One example from personal experience (and to cut a VERY long story short): Blang promised me last year that he would write an article in the Scotsman's education supplement about student fundraising at St Andrews. This was a peace offering because he had badly let me down on some other commitments, so I rather expected him to write it about some of the plethora of fundraising events I've been involved with and had spent not a little time briefing him on. I supplied him with further details when requested and then more data about the national student fundraising community, including a vast range of stats and facts that he demanded for unknown reasons. When the paper came out the article was entirely about the KK procession, and full of gushing praise for that year's transvestite and how wonderful he was. FS08 and Dinnae Trot got a sentence each. The Charities Campaign apparently merited not a passing mention (despite making five times more money than the KK last year, I thank you). I confronted him at a dinner a few weeks later, but sadly he was too drunk and uninterested to discuss it with me. Hey ho.

Now, one hopes, we will see the University recognise student achievements on merit rather than by precedent. Three cheers for Dr Richardson.

[Haunted]

I might add that all proceeds from Toastie Bar go to Families First.

Not this Families First? http://www.families-first.org.uk/index.html
The pressure group whose entire aim seems to be about bringing back corporal punishment for children?

[elyettoner]

I might add that all proceeds from Toastie Bar go to Families First.

Not this Families First? http://www.families-first.org.uk/index.html
The pressure group whose entire aim seems to be about bringing back corporal punishment for children?

Nope, this one http://www.digitalfife.com/index.asp?MainID=4884

I'm pretty sure they're different organisations.

EDIT: They are different organisations.

[Freaker]

Our traditions are our conversation with our predecessors and our successors. When we permit our traditions to become a legitimisation for the exclusion of others we do those traditions a disservice. We cherish our traditions but we must never allow them to become a rationalisation for the protection of privilege.

Lousise Richardson, taken from her Installation Address.

[Hennessy]

I might add that all proceeds from Toastie Bar go to Families First.

Not this Families First? http://www.families-first.org.uk/index.html
The pressure group whose entire aim seems to be about bringing back corporal punishment for children?

Good on em, getting a clout round the head nearly every week for 15 years made me the patient understanding man I am today, and if I could I'd bring back six of the best for some of the more irksome little shits I shared a classroom with.

[Owen Wilton]

I wasn't suggesting she would (or should) ignore the views of alumni. I merely observed that I doubted she would roll over and die at the first sign of opposition, and suggested that if they chose to argue with her they would find a much more assured and resilient opponent than they might expect. She would, probably, be delighted to sit down with them and tell them, in exquisite detail, why she didn't share their opinion.

The kind of people munificent enough to give their own money to their dear old alma mater probably aren't so fatuous as to insist upon the glorification of the KK as a condition of donation. And those who do are probably not so strong in numbers as to give us cause for concern.

I liked this idea that she should "mind her own business". If the KK uses university property and seeks the official cooperation of the University in practical matters, then it is, by any objective standard, her business. Even if they didn't touch the fabric of any building or make so much as eye contact with a member of staff, she would be well within her rights to state her institution's policy vis-à-vis a St Andrean student group, especially if she felt that that group in any way affected perceptions of the university and its student body.

P.S.

I think it was very wise of her to reinstate the villa as an official residence for the Principal. She can actually entertain guests there-the kind of donors we're all talking about. It means she can have them to dinner, and then take them out to events in the town. That's the way it works in American (and I think) Oxbridge colleges.

[Owen Wilton]

Memo to me: make an effort not to sound like a bad, bad, pretentious lawyer when posting on The Sinner.

[Andy Monkey B]

Yawn. I'm not entirely sure what will be achieved by this; the KK wasn't a recognised society by the University anyway, given that it's no affiliated. Like the CU. I wonder if they will be next in the firing line? One can only hope.

Well there aren't ANY student societies directly affiliated to the University as far as I'm aware. Student societies can be affiliated to the Student's Association at their discretion, but Dr Richardson has no say in the matter. The SA is a separate entity. Just to clarify. Also the KK would never be allowed to affiliate with the SA in it's current state, as surely its exclusivity would be directly against the policies of the SA? Up until here, the KK has every right to be what it wants surely, as it solely consists of a group of students meeting under their own organisation?

The issue here is, as already pointed out, that the KK requested and received support and cooperation from the University, above that of any other society. I think Dr Richardson correctly sees this as at odds with the University's policy.

However I'm not sure where she's going with "I look forward to the day when membership of the Kate Kennedy Club is open to every student of St Andrews". Surely there's not other function of the KK? Better just to disband it than open membership. Are there any female students out there who are desperate to join the KK? Possibly another solution is to reduce the KK's involvement with the use of tools like the Procession Committee to replace all their current involvements.

The CU seems a little bit of a redundant point in this topic. It isn't affiliated with the SA and has no official dealings with the University. Also, membership isn't exlusive. The one concern is the level of open-ness in committee elections which has stopped it being affiliated. Disbanding the CU or KK, or stopping them from meeting seems pointless, as they don't rely on any St Andrews based affiliation for their existence. Surely those members could just meet elsewhere with the same purpose under a different name?

[RandomMusings]

Well there aren't ANY student societies directly affiliated to the University as far as I'm aware.

Are mussoc not directly affiliated to the Music Centre (AKA Younger Hall) and therefore the University?

Student societies can be affiliated to the Student's Association at their discretion, but Dr Richardson has no say in the matter. The SA is a separate entity. Just to clarify. Also the KK would never be allowed to affiliate with the SA in it's current state, as surely its exclusivity would be directly against the policies of the SA? Up until here, the KK has every right to be what it wants surely, as it solely consists of a group of students meeting under their own organisation?

KK could not join the SA no. But it has every right to exist as it wants as it is answerable only to its members (and maybe charity regulators?) as long as it acts within the law.

[Andy Monkey B]

Well there aren't ANY student societies directly affiliated to the University as far as I'm aware.

Are mussoc not directly affiliated to the Music Centre (AKA Younger Hall) and therefore the University?

Cheers for the clarification. Incidently, can Mussoc be described as exclusive, seeing as they hold auditions for some of their music groups?

Student societies can be affiliated to the Student's Association at their discretion, but Dr Richardson has no say in the matter. The SA is a separate entity. Just to clarify. Also the KK would never be allowed to affiliate with the SA in it's current state, as surely its exclusivity would be directly against the policies of the SA? Up until here, the KK has every right to be what it wants surely, as it solely consists of a group of students meeting under their own organisation?

KK could not join the SA no. But it has every right to exist as it wants as it is answerable only to its members (and maybe charity regulators?) as long as it acts within the law.

That's a lot clearer than I managed to put it, thanks.

[exnihilo]

I wasn't suggesting we'd show up and overturn anything. But I can think of the top off my head of a few dozen alumni who are extremely active in fund-raising and in organising our largest and most prominent alumnus associations who were members of the KK while here. They may not have a knock-down fight with her at the General Council, that's not their way, but they will ask questions and I can see a fair few of them simply withdrawing their support from the university if they don't get answers they like.

I take it this has all been discussed extensively then? Some kind of poll of the student body etc - as you cite them on your list of those against it all? I'd be keen to see the results.

Next is the practicalities, presumably the University isn't going to simply return mail addressed to the Porters' Lodge - I assume there will be some sort of grace period? Georgina mentions staff in the Procession, will that now be forbidden, will staff have to resign from any single sex clubs they belong to? As for the ball, I take it the University will now be rigourously examining every club, society, employer or other outside company before allowing them use of, or renting out space in, any University property? Will the findings of these audits be published - and indeed open to dispute? Or is this just a quick and easy target that they can ban with impunity so it looks like they're doing the right thing?

Incidentally, I will be asking these and several other questions of the Principal before she sees another cheque from me. I'm no great fan of the KK, but unless these measures are fair, transparent and universal then this move cannot be justified.

[David Bean]

I found the Principal's email rather vague. What exactly does she mean by withdrawing university support? It could boil down to very little and doesn't necessarily mean Lower College Lawn will no longer be made available for balls, the quad for the procession, etc. I for one hope it doesn't affect some of the great events of the St Andrews calendar, which would be a great loss to this institution. It may, perhaps, be necessary for Dr. Richardson to clarify exactly what she means.

Bingo! That's exactly the point: this announcement doesn't really make sense. When it states the university will no longer 'recognise' the KK, what does it mean, and what specifically does the university intend to do about those activities in which the KK have traditionally been involved - will it seek to replace the KK's involvement with that of some other group, and in which case which one and how shall it be funded, or will it simply announce that it will have nothing further to do with those events and will actively obstruct them from taking place (as, for example, a refusal to allow the Quad for use mustering the procession, or Lower College Lawn for the balls(s) would in fact represent)? Given that the university expresses hope the procession will go ahead anyway, presumably it doesn't intend to go quite that far, but it's impossible to form a meaningful opinion on the matter given the information we currently have.

I'd also like to add that the KK itself would appear to have been treated shockingly in this matter so far, having been led to believe for years by the Lang administration that its composition and activities were perfectly compatible with the university's values only to be told one day that the position has changed over night. Were they consulted before this decision was taken - indeed, was anybody?

Lastly, Owen, I'm sure you didn't mean it to come across as it has but your remark about the "few disgruntled alumni who show up to General Council meetings" felt dismissive, presumptuous and hurtful. Many of the graduates I know, myself included, take our membership of the General Council and its rights and responsibilities very seriously indeed, and in representing any opinion whatsoever to the university hierarchy would be doing so purely from the unselfish motive of promoting what we honestly believe to be the best for our university.

[Georgina]

I'd also like to add that the KK itself would appear to have been treated shockingly in this matter so far, having been led to believe for years by the Lang administration that its composition and activities were perfectly compatible with the university's values only to be told one day that the position has changed over night. Were they consulted before this decision was taken - indeed, was anybody?

Much as I would like to, I'm going to avoid (as much as possible) getting involved in the broader debate today, owing to a very overdue essay. However, as far as I'm aware, the Principal met with the KK a few weeks ago, and explained her position to them, namely that unless they accept women, she would take action, which she has done this week. I don't know the exact details of this meeting, I presume only the KK and Louise do, and the KK have yet to contribute anything to public discussions. Judging by the volume of support I've seen and heard from students recently, and in particular today, this move by the University is extremely welcomed.

[starsandsparkles]

Judging by the volume of support I've seen and heard from students recently, and in particular today, this move by the University is extremely welcomed.

I'm sorry, but this annoys me. I have seen lots of facebook comments disagreeing with her - just because you and yours agree with her doesn't mean the decision is "extremely welcomed".

If everyone was so up in arms about the KK, why hasn't something been done about it before now?

[Owen Wilton]

Lastly, Owen, I'm sure you didn't mean it to come across as it has but your remark about the "few disgruntled alumni who show up to General Council meetings" felt dismissive, presumptuous and hurtful. Many of the graduates I know, myself included, take our membership of the General Council and its rights and responsibilities very seriously indeed, and in representing any opinion whatsoever to the university hierarchy would be doing so purely from the unselfish motive of promoting what we honestly believe to be the best for our university.

I'm sorry Mr Bean, I was just being my scathing self. I've removed the barb in question. (Irony is a dangerous toy.) I, probably mistakenly, read a element of agonising self-importance into the mutterings about the General Council. At no point did I cast aspersions on the diligence/sense of duty/professionalism/altruism/humanity of our alumni. I'm sure they and you are a lovely bunch. I just resented the (implied) false equivalence between "importance of being consulted" and "being right." I probably jumped the gun a little bit.

I know that the contribution (both finanical and advisory) of former students can be tremendously helpful to the present-day workings of the university. The Debating Society has benefited greatly in this regard. We do value you (warm smile) but I just reacted coldly to a sense of entitlement which I found a little obnoxious. Again, this was my biased reading and not your writing. (How very postmodern ho ho ho).

I apologise if I've offended you.

In reference to exnihilo: you are asbolutely unquestionably right, I have no basis for my claims. I haven't paid for an Ipsos MORI poll, I was just working off the top of my head in relation to the first couple of groups (rather like yourself, come to think of it). With the latter, I was going on instinct. I imagine a considerable number of students are utterly apathetic on this subject. So yes, I was talking out of my metaphorical hat, a phenomenon not uncommon here.

But again, consultation is not necessary, and dissent is not necessarily righteous dissent: in this matter, the Principal is a chief executive making a decision. I cannot imagine it was a whimsical or capricious one; it's not the kind of thing you do for a laugh. Incidentally, I don't see the relevance of Dr Lang's opinion, or the policies of "his administration": his contract ended on December 31st, and Dr Richardson is free to, you know, change University policy. In any case, perhaps you should take a look at this before you decide what he thought of the KK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1905346.stm

Also, I've been trying to picture the arguments against her decision being made to her face, i.e. this crap about "oh we'll become a ghastly polytechnic." It doesn't sound terribly convincing, nor the repeated mantra of "it's traditional." Who cares? Traditions are kept if they worth keeping, not because of their inherent antiquity.

[Freaker]

Georgina mentions staff in the Procession, will that now be forbidden, will staff have to resign from any single sex clubs they belong to?

As a private person, anyone is free to do whatever they please. I believe the issue is University staff taking part while being in their official capacities - if they wanted to take part privately, not using University equipment or anything that is linked to the University through their job and in their own time, then they are perfectly free to do just that.

As for the ball, I take it the University will now be rigourously examining every club, society, employer or other outside company before allowing them use of, or renting out space in, any University property?

I would be surprised if some sort of screening didn't take place already, on a very basic level. Yet it doesn't exactly take a lot of screening and rigourous examination to see that the Kate Kennedy Club excludes about half the student body from even applying for membership based purely on their sex. Not exactly a common procedure amongst most "clubs, societies, employers or other outside companies" any more today.


Given this discussion, I'm really quite looking forward to graduating this summer and being one of the graduates rather in favour of Dr. Richardson's stance.

[kk85]

Well there aren't ANY student societies directly affiliated to the University as far as I'm aware.

Are mussoc not directly affiliated to the Music Centre (AKA Younger Hall) and therefore the University?

Cheers for the clarification. Incidently, can Mussoc be described as exclusive, seeing as they hold auditions for some of their music groups?

To clarify - Mussoc is not formally affiliated with the Music Centre. Obviously there is a necessary working relationship, but the society is by no means governed by the Music Centre, and in turn, has no particular right to the facilities provided over and above any other group.

In terms of exclusivity - the society is affiliated to the Union - anybody can join. Of the three main performing groups operated by the society (chorus, wind band and orchestra) only the orchestra is auditioned.

[RandomMusings]

To clarify - Mussoc is not formally affiliated with the Music Centre. Obviously there is a necessary working relationship, but the society is by no means governed by the Music Centre, and in turn, has no particular right to the facilities provided over and above any other group.

In terms of exclusivity - the society is affiliated to the Union - anybody can join. Of the three main performing groups operated by the society (chorus, wind band and orchestra) only the orchestra is auditioned.

My apologies - I, of course, knew that Mussoc was affiliated to the SA, but I thought that the link was somewhat stronger between Music Centre and society, obviously without impacting upon the governance of either in any specific way. I reckon Mussoc is probably the society with the closest direct link to the university, as it would probably struggle to thrive without the facilities the relationship can bring, no?

[exnihilo]

Obviously at present none of us have the full story but at the moment it rather looks like the Principal has made a decision on her own about a long-standing institution without having actually consulted anyone. Certainly she has the right to do that, but there will be fallout from it, perhaps not all that much, but a lot of our alumni have a great fondness for things like the KK and will resent this move. As I say, it looks a lot like a soft target was picked so she can show how modern and right-on she is.

[fluffybanana]

Personally, I'm really glad to see this, just because the Kate Kennedy club have always seemed to me to be elitist, sexist and stuck up. I'm also gaining rapid respect for Dr Richardson, and can't wait to see what she will do in the future...