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

[Freaker]

I'm ambivalent in regards to the Kate Kennedy Club, but this is the wrong way to go about promoting equality and reducing our elitist image. If the telegraph is to be believed the KKC will no longer be permitted to use University property for their wicked ways, but what about other single-sex societies? Her statement is directed at ALL university societies and clubs, and if I'm correct that includes sports CLUBS, that base their entry requirements on gender. Will the Men's Rugby Club no longer be able to use the University sport facilities because they don't accept women? Will the Women's Shinty Club be held to the same stringent mores? Will the Accidentals, an all-female a cappella group with University recognition, or The Other Guys, an all-male group, be forced out of University buildings for their rehearsals and performances?

Wrong or right her "decree" seems vague, needlessly broad, and with far-reaching consequences.

If we are following down that line of argument, then I presume the Accidentals, Other Guys etc have no problem with admitting members of all sexes, and I would imagine they do - but they do not select these members to perform. These groups are specialised to do one specific thing that happens to be specific to the gender, and this is commonly accepted. There's a group for the opposite sex in either case. It is positive selection criteria - you have to be of a certain sex to fit into the activity the group - as opposed to negative criteria - any member of the opposite sex will categorically be denied membership for no reason related to the aims of the club. Besides, the a capella groups are affiliated to the Students' Association, and can only be affiliated if they do not discriminate. Someone more knowledgeable with the SA and societies will surely have a better response to this.

There's the Kate Kennedy Club and the Lumsden Club. But unlike in the examples you give, these clubs serve no practical purpose in distinguishing between different sexes in their membership. It is not that you have to be male to do the things the Kate Kennedy Club does, or that you have to be female to fully take part in the activities the Lumsden Club puts up. The distinction exists based on tradition, and seemingly tradition alone, and as such is overdue to change.

Before it comes up again, the reason the email was aimed at the Kate Kennedy Club and did not mention the Lumsden Club is because the former actively seeks support from the University, the latter does not.

[Hmmmmmmmmm]

Whilst I personally have a small issue with the fact that they do discriminate on the basis of sex, I do question whether most St Andrews students are in favour of this action. There's stating an opinion but there's acting on that opinion too. For a club which a large number of students reportedly have ethical issues with their membership policy, they organise two of the biggest balls of the year (which at least in my memory have always sold out- 1500 people at Opening, 2200 people at May Ball), aswell as numerous other student events- in the past I've seen them run Jazz Club nights and others that have also sold out.

That aside, the main point of my thinking here is about the Procession. They organise the one event that happens in the year that pulls huge crowds from both the town and the gown communities. It's probably a fair argument to make that this event does wonders for town-gown relations. I definitely don't see another event in the University calendar where both town and gown are represented in quite the numbers we're talking (and celebrating the history of the town and the importance the University has had on the place). Infact, I've never seen the university or the Union try? Instead they sit around in meetings talking to figureheads (the councillors who only ever talk to the people when re-election comes around or the Community Council, who well, have an overinflated sense of self importance.)

I'm not a fan of the KK's sexist policies as I said. My question is are they a necessary evil in the context of St Andrews? And is it right for the University to benefit from an event (like the Procession) indirectly now that they have "broken ties" with the KK?

[Andrew Mackenzie]

Washing out dirty linen in public eh? I am beginning to despise this Principal more and more, not only for her limp liberal ways but also for her lack of imagination and blatant appeal to nonsensical populist mores. She may believe, to her own self-regarding credit, that she is some kind of crusader for justice and humanity or some such bollocks, but in fact she is attempting to wipe out institutions which make this university so diverse and different in the first place.

And some of you hate-filled, limp wristed bleeding heart fascist liberals are willing to support her! I don't know what is more disgusting, her gross appeal to the masses or your eager response to it. You debase yourselves by your consent, you piss in the very underpants you agreed to put on when you arrived in St Andrews. You betray other students for some Irish puritan crusader who simply seeks targets to consolidate her own position and rank by massing your knee-jerk reactions into a credible force for her own agenda. You disgust me, and not because I like the KK or any society for that matter. Goodnigjt.

Good grief this has got you rather excited. I don't think this drivel warrants much more of a response over and above Owen's rebuttal, but just to say that I very much believe St Andrews has plenty of things going for it without the need for the KK - it will remain "diverse and different" without such bodies. And, indeed, the University's credentials are only improved by finally taking a stand against this stain on our reputation.

[Andrew Mackenzie]

I'm ambivalent in regards to the Kate Kennedy Club, but this is the wrong way to go about promoting equality and reducing our elitist image. If the telegraph is to be believed the KKC will no longer be permitted to use University property for their wicked ways, but what about other single-sex societies? Her statement is directed at ALL university societies and clubs, and if I'm correct that includes sports CLUBS, that base their entry requirements on gender. Will the Men's Rugby Club no longer be able to use the University sport facilities because they don't accept women? Will the Women's Shinty Club be held to the same stringent mores? Will the Accidentals, an all-female a cappella group with University recognition, or The Other Guys, an all-male group, be forced out of University buildings for their rehearsals and performances?

Wrong or right her "decree" seems vague, needlessly broad, and with far-reaching consequences.

To continue Freaker's point it is important to remember that the make up of many of the sports clubs is dictated by the larger governing body. Ie to play in whatever league you need to follow certain rules, for example mens football teams etc. So these kind of clubs are a bit different as it is largely out with the University's control and generally accepted - whether we think women should be playing with guys in football and rugby teams is another debate entirely (and one I am not really knowledgeable enough to comment on).

No such restrictions are inherent to social clubs like the KK. As Freaker says, the only reason women are barred from membership is tradition and it's traditions like these we need to break. Can someone give me any practical reason the KK cannot accept women - other than the fact it would disrupt any male bonding that goes on?

In terms of the procession I wonder if there ever would be scope for a "Procession subcommittee" in the Students' Association as perhaps a spin off from community relations and remove it from the KK clubs hands entirely...?

David - on a point of interest, could the current committee that runs the procession do so in the complete absence of the KK club? Ie - who actually "owns" the procession?

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

I'm pretty sure the KK will survive, with or without university recognition. All this does is give them a rap on the knuckles about, as Georgina mentioned, being a non-representative group that tries to represent St Andrews. Balls, parades and the like seem to me to be difficult to stop. Well done Principal, although only time will tell how much the voice of the KK actually diminishes in the town.

She's still doing stuff about the library and accommodation and that though, right? I think the Sinner is losing the sight of the woods for trees.

[exnihilo]

As I say, it looks a lot like a soft target was picked so she can show how modern and right-on she is.

Is this supposed to be a scintillating aperçu into university politics? I find it to be a superbly crass assertion. Why must we assume a Mandelsonian motive? Really, help me to understand this particular element of your thesis: one minute she's "Louise Bellatrix" out to pick a fight, issuing provocative rulings 'ex cathedra' without consideration for the consequences, and the next she's a consummate politician?

Deary me, you are a pompous one, aren't you? She's written books you say? My word, I'm so glad you mentioned that because obviously I knew nothing about her either before or since being appointed Principal. Equally obviously anyone who has written books must be beyond reproach, I know I am.

Now, on to my point. I know you delight in arguing against a point that wasn't made, but I'm afraid I'm just not going to let you on this occasion. I'm struggling to see where I said she was out to pick a fight, and really even if I had it would not be incompatible with saying that she chose an easy target. The University does have an image for elitism, yes, but it's a deal more fundamental than that it has some utterly harmless single-sex clubs. How many teenagers considering St Andrews as their home for the next three or four years have ever heard of the Kate Kennedy Club? The image the University has to the outside world is one of being full of rich, braying, Oxbridge rejects, and that's not a good thing, cutting ties with the KK won't fix that, it won't even move us in the direction of fixing it, but it is a quick headline, costs absolutely bugger all and is very easily done, but it clearly has not been thought through fully and is going to produce some problems - no doubt solutions will be found, but when the Opening and May balls are replaced by a few kegs in a tent run by the SA I expect people will squawk a little more.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

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.

Well yes - each college has a master/president's lodge for just this purpose, although I can't really see Lord Eatwell taking his guests of Queens' out on the town. Fun fact: the wooden walls of the long gallery of our president's lodge have gradually bowed outward over the centuries. This is largely attributed to the fact that most expertise in wooden construction came from shipbuilding and the lodge's walls have lacked the compressive force of the ocean to hold them in place.

[Senethro]

Is there a good reason why this thread exploded? I had a brief scan but couldn't find any drama...

[RandomMusings]

Can someone give me any practical reason the KK cannot accept women - other than the fact it would disrupt any male bonding that goes on?

I belive that women are excluded because they can't take part in the funky buscuit challenge** - a favourite of many all-male boarding schools**

She's still doing stuff about the library and accommodation and that though, right? I think the Sinner is losing the sight of the woods for trees.

Well said. What some may call a 'symbolic' gesture has been made on an issue that many people have wide-ranging beliefs about. Now let's get on with sorting out the important things like where people will live and how people are going to study.


**NOTE: this is based on no truth and is meant in jest

[Chase the pigeons]

There's a group for the opposite sex in either case.

I don't think it really matters whether there is a group for the other sex, only that there exists the freedom to create one should a group of like minded individuals choose to do so. The notion that a group is somehow (less) more acceptable because an opposite or counterbalancing group does (not) exist seems ludicrous to me.

[jollytiddlywink]

I approve of the Principal's decision. Yes, the KK as a collection of individuals can associate or not associate with whoever they see fit, discriminatory or not. But the University cannot support them if they discriminate in their membership, as indeed they do (on the basis of gender, and perhaps on the basis of wealth/class [based on personal experience]). This gender discrimination is different from that of, say, the men's rugby team, because the uni also has a women's team, and I doubt much practical (rather than purely on the basis of abstract principle) argument could be made for amalgamating the two teams.
The KK's discrimination is also entirely different from, say, a musical group selecting candidates on the basis of audition. If you are rubbish at playing the clarinet, practice will fix that. If you are a woman, and thus rubbish at being male, no amount of practice or training will change that. Moreover, discriminating on the basis of gender is in no way essential or even remotely incidental to the charitable work and town/gown relations that the KK intends to foster.
I found Hennessey's rant about 'limp-wristed fascist liberals' rather amusing', not least because a fascist liberal is an outright contradiction in terms. I cannot understand what he has to be so ragingly angry about. The Principal has made a perfectly reasonable and sensible decision, and I echo several other posts by remarking that it is difficult to see why the university took so long to take such a step.

[pambo]

From my time in St Andrews it seems that almost every student here seems to have some kinds of false sense of superiority. Maybe its the way they were brought up, or a whole load of other reasons, but I've never encountered this anywhere else. It seems to me people don't like the KK and their female equivalent as they see people in these "elite" groups and they get jealous. Maybe they don't like being reminded that they aren't important as they like to believe.

[Jono]

If we are following down that line of argument, then I presume the Accidentals, Other Guys etc have no problem with admitting members of all sexes, and I would imagine they do - but they do not select these members to perform. These groups are specialised to do one specific thing that happens to be specific to the gender, and this is commonly accepted. There's a group for the opposite sex in either case. It is positive selection criteria - you have to be of a certain sex to fit into the activity the group - as opposed to negative criteria - any member of the opposite sex will categorically be denied membership for no reason related to the aims of the club. Besides, the a capella groups are affiliated to the Students' Association, and can only be affiliated if they do not discriminate. Someone more knowledgeable with the SA and societies will surely have a better response to this.

Some (not all) of the a Cappella groups have links with the a Cappella Society, although I don't think they're affiliated per-se; more like support as part of the society's constitutional remit.

While I'm in Association-mode, to my knowledge the KK are not, nor ever have been, extended the same priviliges as those extended to societies affiliated to the Students' Association. Their use of Lower college lawn, etc. would have been charged at a proper commercial rate. Somehow, I don't think their name is such mud that the university cannot accept the KK's filthy, tainted, gender-discriminating money!

__________________________

For all their sins, the KK are still a philanthropic organization. They raise money for charity with almost all of their events, and put on some of most notable events on the St Andrews calendar. Moreover, what a group of men decide to do in their own time, and how they decide to do it, is their own business. MacKenzine et al. can huff and puff all they want, but the KK have every right to free association, and to set whatever membership criteria they like for their little club.

However, the problem comes with the group's association with the University, and their claim to tradition. As Georgina pointed out, the KK hold a self-appointed claim over St Andrean traditions. I don't think that any society or group, be it the KK, the Students' Association, or whoever can claim plentitude of power to interpret and maintain traditions. Founded in 1926/7, the KK isn't even the oldest society on the books; trumped by UDS, St Mary's, Celtic, and the Conservative and Unionist Societies (Just to name a few)! Marco Biagi's sentiments on the issue; that the KK have more need of the traditions and university for legitimacy than vice-versa is one that I share. As is the sentiment that an all-male club is completely at odds with the history and traditions of Scotland's first co-educational university!

The KK can do whatever it wants. However, it has no right to the de facto special treatment it has for too long been receiving. As Haines pointed out on page 2; the KK get treated like the darling children of the University, while demonstratably more successful causes and societies are left hanging because Action-Liang couldn't wring a photo-opportunity out of them!

All in all, I'm glad to see the change of policy; if only because it's what the situation should have been in the first place!

[Jono]

However,

I think we must be careful about making a general principle on this matter. The KK’s membership criteria is a fairly clear cut matter of exclusion. However, there are a lot of clubs which fall into a grey area where criteria-based membership applies. The single-sex sports clubs are relevant to this discussion, considering the R&A row, and the issue over same-sex golf clubs in general. In terms of the university, are the bands or aCappella groups discriminatory? Reasonably; no. Arguably, yes. What about the UOTC? The army has selective membership after all. Probably the most recent example of this grey area are the fashion shows (one of which the Students’ Association; paragon of social inclusion, organizes), where models are select on no better criteria than their physical appearance!

The KK issue was treated like a one off. If we start demanding uncompromising inclusionist policies, we truly will end up scrapping everything good about this institution in the process.

[777]

Apart from excluding women and being seen as somewhat elitist, has the KKC actually done anything awful like boiling babies at midnight and sacrificing hamsters to drink their blood?

"Elitist" is a great way of belittling people about their birth. No one can help the circumstances into which they were born or the education they received or the gender tackle they have. If a bunch of well bred, well educated boys want to hang out together doing charitable things then let them, unless it's all just a front for some horrid satanic clan of course.

[bravo]

Oh for goodness sake stop wittering on with this self important garbage. Yes of course the KK is a "quick and easy target" - their policies are so blatantly archaic that I'm surprised they've enjoyed so much acceptance from the University for this long.

This is an extremely sensible and popular decision and it's about time someone at the top took it. We don't need a poll to tell us the majority of the student population agree with her stance - the KK are lampooned by far more people than they are revered by.

I have high hopes for Louise Richardson and I think this could mark a turning point for the University - it shows the outside world that we are ready to begin really trying to shake off our elitist image. Cutting ties with an old fashioned, outdated and unpopular group is a fantastic signal to send.

Couldnt agree more, well said... elitist institutions like the KK only serve to embolden the university's 'snobbish' appearance. I think this is the first step in re-inventing the university's stereotypical class elitist image and hopefully in turn will make the uni more appealing to more people from all walks of life. What other Scottish Uni's have clubs like the KK? None and quite right!

[Freaker]

If a bunch of well bred, well educated boys want to hang out together doing charitable things then let them, unless it's all just a front for some horrid satanic clan of course.

Congratulations, you have just failed to comprehend six pages of discussion on this matter.

For all the newcomers - anyone can do whatever they please, in private. It is the University's support and the Club's official recognition that is at the heart of what is being discussed.

[Jormungand]

Press coverage:

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Pri ... 5161131.jp

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -club.html

Washing out dirty linen in public eh? I am beginning to despise this Principal more and more, not only for her limp liberal ways but also for her lack of imagination and blatant appeal to nonsensical populist mores. She may believe, to her own self-regarding credit, that she is some kind of crusader for justice and humanity or some such bollocks, but in fact she is attempting to wipe out institutions which make this university so diverse and different in the first place.

And some of you hate-filled, limp wristed bleeding heart fascist liberals are willing to support her! I don't know what is more disgusting, her gross appeal to the masses or your eager response to it. You debase yourselves by your consent, you piss in the very underpants you agreed to put on when you arrived in St Andrews. You betray other students for some Irish puritan crusader who simply seeks targets to consolidate her own position and rank by massing your knee-jerk reactions into a credible force for her own agenda. You disgust me, and not because I like the KK or any society for that matter. Goodnigjt.

Since most of your post is just whining and insults, I'll respond to the few parts that aren't. When I came to St Andrews, I did not agree that the KK's position in the university structure was fixed. There was no contract signed, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue there was even some kind of social contract. Removing Raisin Weekend? That would cause a ruckus, because it's loved and accessible to pretty much every student in the University myself. The number of people who are pleased with this move by the Principal* indicates that not many students felt it was part of the social contract either.

By the way, being highly insulting to university officials and, more pertinently here, other forum posters is still trolling, even if you use a better vocabulary.


*I make no claim to majority status here, but such is not necessary for the argument.

[777]

If a bunch of well bred, well educated boys want to hang out together doing charitable things then let them, unless it's all just a front for some horrid satanic clan of course.

Congratulations, you have just failed to comprehend six pages of discussion on this matter.

For all the newcomers - anyone can do whatever they please, in private. It is the University's support and the Club's official recognition that is at the heart of what is being discussed.

No, you have failed to answer my question.

[Craig]

If a bunch of well bred, well educated boys want to hang out together doing charitable things then let them, unless it's all just a front for some horrid satanic clan of course.

Congratulations, you have just failed to comprehend six pages of discussion on this matter.

For all the newcomers - anyone can do whatever they please, in private. It is the University's support and the Club's official recognition that is at the heart of what is being discussed.

No, you have failed to answer my question.

But surely your question whether the KK had done anything worse than exclude women is a pointless one, seeing that exclusivity is why this entire matter has been brought up. They might also eat babies, but that's not relevant at the moment.