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

[chillspills]

This was moderately interesting for about 5 seconds. This isnt going to make andrew keenan cool. or james sheild, or the rectors assessor, who ill never write even if i was in need.

If this was simply about loosing uni support. Thats done. its gone baby. Chill out.

The kk are so smug right now. that pisses me off almost as much as these self appointed union hacks. i hope everyone reads this and sees how you spend your time, director or representation.

[iamcox]

Shame the kk cant use the quad i really enojed watching it. Wait, they can.

Fine, the kk cant do stuff on university property. Good, i agree. Fair enough. Theyll end up proabbly just like fs and starfeilds which arent affiliated. but whateves. If the procession doesnt happen because of louis richardson, i, as a woman and one in the procession, will never respect louise richardson.

[time again]

"Fuck the University's 'recognition' - as if that ever lent itself to efficient operation. Her estrogen fuelled tirade is case and point why the KK is male exclusive." - Taken from the facebook group "Dr Richardson is wrong about the KK"

This type of prejudice is perhaps one of the reasons the Principal made the decision to distance the University from the KK and why so many support the move.

Do you really think the kk boys are sexist? They are not. They really are not. Its so silly.

[Jormungand]

Has anyone else been invited to this "debate" on the subject? Talk about jumping on the bandwagon. I was wrong to talk about just the principal using this controversy as the first establishing broadside against the KK as a name-maker. A whole set of newly ensconced student representatives have also seen fit to throw their hats into the ring, thereby making this an issue by which they can profit unduly, through their wholesale lack of dignity and reason.

Do you have anything remotely interesting to say, or are you a one-trick pony who is only capable of insulting others, albeit it in good English?

[tinygiraffe]

I feel a bit out of place posting this as this thread has become a bit tangential, but I'm going to anyway. To preface, I am both a woman and a student, I may be repeating other posts because, unfortunately, I did not have time to read through all 11 pages, so apologies in advance.

I understand why one would feel the KK to be an elitist group, by only accepting males the club automatically excludes half of the student body, but wouldn't you argue that the Lumsden Club is elitist as well? Why isn't the Strafford Club being included in this message? The KK does include women in the procession, albeit it's a small presence, but still they are there.

My desire to join the KK is about zero, perhaps even negative. While women should have equal rights regarding jobs, wages and the ability to participate in government, I really don't see the need to instill equality in a historic gentleman's club. Honestly, why does Dr. Richardson feel that women want to join? I do not recall meeting any other female student who voiced a desire to become a member of the KK (If any female student has an interest in joining, I would really like to hear why.) I think Dr. R's motives are a bit too transparent - she is still miffed about not receiving an invitation to the R&A - but couldn't she be direct and openly voice her disagreement with them? Honestly, I think that her actions give women a bad name with her backhanded snakiness.

In case I need to remind anyone, the job of the President is to work with the students to create a better environment for other students both academically and socially. So why is Dr. Richardson directly attacking the people she is supposed to be helping? I think what she did was disgusting and reprehensible and there should be a consequence to her statements and actions.

[Andrew Mackenzie]

Do you really think the kk boys are sexist? They are not. They really are not. Its so silly.

No. Their membership policy is, by the very definition of the word, sexist.

I suggest reading and, you know, actually comprehending what people are saying would be a good way forward for you.

[Andrew Mackenzie]

Louis richarson needs to do some work. Georgina so do you. The kk propably doesnt care. neither does anyone else. You annoy me.

Wow when did this get so nasty? I know that responding to outbursts from the unregistered users (and I’m guessing they have all been made by the same person) is probably silly but when I see someone so obviously ignorant and deluded I find it hard to resist.

1. Grow up. Attacking someone while hiding behind internet anonymity makes you a coward; if you feel so strongly you should put your name to your words. It comes across as very sad. As does the inability to spell and use punctuation.

2. Stop with the personal attacks on Georgina. This has nothing to do with her. She is not yet Director of Representation; she is a final year student writing essays and – like the rest of us – using the Sinner for procrastination. I have posted on this thread as much (if not more) than she has so I suggest if you’re looking for someone else to attack you choose me. The current Director of Representation has posted nothing on this thread apart from links to other stories and the President hasn’t posted at all. And, besides, they are perfectly entitled to take part in a discussion about an issue that matters to a great many students.

3. Union officers are not appointed, they are elected (you may have missed the election a couple of weeks back – the clues were the fliers, balloons etc). Also, the KK decision has nothing to do with the Union or its officials, it was made by Louise Richardson, so quite why you feel the need to equate the decision with a desire for members of the Union to look smug is bizarre.

4. Equally bizarre (and I’ve seen it at least one other time on this thread) is the idea that somehow Louise Richardson is dealing with the KK at the expense of work that actually matters to students. Well, first, it’s pretty clear that this does matter to students. Second, I can confidently say that Louise Richardson is capable of squeezing in sending an email and other work at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Work continues on a whole host of University issues and none of it has been affected by the time taken to make this decision.

[Andrew Mackenzie]

My desire to join the KK is about zero, perhaps even negative. While women should have equal rights regarding jobs, wages and the ability to participate in government, I really don't see the need to instill equality in a historic gentleman's club. Honestly, why does Dr. Richardson feel that women want to join? I do not recall meeting any other female student who voiced a desire to become a member of the KK (If any female student has an interest in joining, I would really like to hear why.) I think Dr. R's motives are a bit too transparent - she is still miffed about not receiving an invitation to the R&A - but couldn't she be direct and openly voice her disagreement with them? Honestly, I think that her actions give women a bad name with her backhanded snakiness.

PLEASE can people stop saying that this has anything whatsoever to do with the R&A. It is not related. She doesn't care about the R&A. If she had, I'm pretty sure she could have said so - Alex Salmond gave her a good opportunity a couple of months ago. Really.

What she does have a problem with is a sexist club existing at the institution she runs.

Has anyone else been invited to this "debate" on the subject? Talk about jumping on the bandwagon. I was wrong to talk about just the principal using this controversy as the first establishing broadside against the KK as a name-maker. A whole set of newly ensconced student representatives have also seen fit to throw their hats into the ring, thereby making this an issue by which they can profit unduly, through their wholesale lack of dignity and reason.

*Yawn* I suggest you remove the stick from your backside.

But this is a very important point. Several times now contributors, mainly Andrew, have posted the belief that single-sex exclusivity in clubs, societies and groups is a bad thing, but when pressed to tell us why, respond only with some irritated bluster about the modern world and their not being able to believe someone disagrees with them. Now, I'm happy to believe there are issues on which that would be a legitimate position. Killing innocents is wrong, burgling houses is wrong, torturing animals is wrong. But forming a club of people who agree that they only want to extend membership to people of the same sex? I'm just not feeling that morally indisputable, righteous outrage, I'm afraid. Along the same lines as Starsandsparkles I'm not a woman, never have been, never will be, and so am excluded by birth from joining the Lumsden Club*. But do you know what? I'm okay with that! I'm perfectly content that if they want to spend some of their time in a group with nobody but other women, they should do so, and I'll just have to do without their company for the duration of their meetings. So why am I supposed to believe that single-sex groups are indisputably wrong, and have no place whatsoever in the modern world?

It's all about context dear David. As I have said time and again, there is nothing that can be done about a group who wants to meet privately, they are of course perfectly entitled to do so.

The KK is very different. They run large events that are seen as major dates in the University calendar - the Opening Ball will be seen by Freshers as their 'welcome' to St Andrews. What does it say about us that this welcome is provided by an all male, elitist club? The Procession, regardless of the fact decisions may be made by a committee, is seen as being run and organised by the Kate Kennedy club. It is Kate Kennedy Club members that take the lead roles on the day. Why should the rights and privilege of taking the lead role in a tradition that has become one of St Andrews finest be the reserve of a select few that are allowed entry to this exclusive club? The Kate Kennedy Club is elevated by all this to a position in which they are seen as a pillar of St Andrews tradition - that is why sexist membership polices matter so much in this case.

The line between KK and the University had become too blurred on too many occasions; that isn't right and that's what Louise Richardson is changing. The KK are free to continue meeting privately, but it's about time any link between them and St Andrews and its traditions was removed.

Male-only clubs are harking back to a bygone age, the world has moved on. Most working men’s clubs across the country now allow women to enter – according to BBC News the only institutions that still bar women from entry are eight remaining working men's clubs, some golf clubs (including, of course, our own R&A) and some 'gentlemen's clubs'. The fact St Andrews has a club that could also feature on that list is shameful.

[What?]

Theyll end up proabbly just like fs and starfeilds which arent affiliated.

Just a point of information, but Starfields is a sub-committee of the Broadcasting Committee, itself a sub-committee of the Union with its own elected SSC member. Can we stop using Starfields as an example? FS I can accept though.

Personally I don't understand the fuss about all this, the KK aren't going to care and from a neutral, not really caring standpoint the people who are coming out of this looking daft and a bit pathetic are Dr Richardson herself and those in the Union having their 5 minutes of fame in the Scotsman and on BBC Radio Scotland. What frustrates me is that the Scotsman article in particular does nothing to help the University's reputation, particularly from the comments below.

I found Dr Richardson's email unnecessarily inflammatory especially when all it really means (from what I can see) is that the Opening Ball may not be on LCL and the KK can't hold interviews on University property. Surely as they seem to live in the Oak Rooms or Number 40 this will not make them bat an eyelid.

This thread is boring now. Let's find something else to argue over and blow out of proportion.

[RandomMusings]

This thread is boring now. Let's find something else to argue over

Here, here. I need more substance to my procrastination, dear Sinners, from other interesting threads too. Where are the days where more than one thread was posted on in a day!?

[Hennessy]

This thread is boring now. Let's find something else to argue over

Here, here. I need more substance to my procrastination, dear Sinners, from other interesting threads too. Where are the days where more than one thread was posted on in a day!?

He's right. I couldn't even be arsed to read half of what was written, never mind try to understand some of the more tedious long-winded points, tedious and long-winded as they were.

[Fawksie]

Rugby80/Timeagain/killme/chillspills/iamcox: kindly confine your drivel to one username, preferably a registered one.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

I agree on a few points. They majority of people I've met from the KK were actually very decent people, only coloured by a few bad eggs. I'm happy for them to carry on doing what they do but I don't think it is appropriate for the university to openly support them. Nothing really changes though, and this is probably something fairly minor that has been blown out of proportion.

I will be upset if nothing changes on accommodation, welfare or learning and teaching fronts but I'm willing to give Principal Richardson a bit more time.

[Jono]

1. Grow up. Attacking someone while hiding behind internet anonymity makes you a coward; if you feel so strongly you should put your name to your words. It comes across as very sad. As does the inability to spell and use punctuation.

I'm hereby calling anathema on the "anonymity/unreg user" attacks,argument for three reasons.

1) The Sinner does not require anyone to post their real name. If you choose to post under your actual name, that's your perogative. Don't act like it puts you on a superior level of sinner-ism to everyone else!

2) The Sinner allows unregistered users to contribute. Unless Oli contacts me to say that policy has changed, we will continue allowing reasonable unregistered posts through. That they have been allowed through in the first place indicates that we think the posts have a valid contribution to the debate (SPaG notwithstanding).

3) If people post on here, only to be subsequently attacked for being unregistered, it discourages them from registering (just fancy that!) and using the Sinner in future.

To quote our famous meme - Down with this sort of thing!
Jono.

[theaveragestudent]

This is an interesting topic, with far too many points to address. So I am going to address the ones I see fit.

Firstly, Andrew Mackenzie, you are an idiot. I am angry I spent over half of the 2.5 hours (spent reading this thread) reading your nonsense.

Georgina Rannard, likewise. I know you were elected by a majority of students, but if that majority is comprised soley of fools, it could be an inclination as to what type of person you are. Equally though, the majority could be comprised soley of well informed individuals. However, from your approach you have taken to this subject, I am worried it was the former.

David Bean, thank you for both being articulate and reasonable. The ability to abstract oneself from their personal opinion and consider both sides of an argument seems to be increasingly rare in this thread. I can see you posing questions and not receiving answers. I can also see you looking at the bigger picture. Good stuff.

Now, I'm aware I've just come across as a bit of an arsehole. The point in addressing the situation as I have is to hopefully encourage enough of a reaction to actually make the (insulted) individuals stop and hopefully think about what they are saying. It is not necessarily their opinion on the matter that irks me, it's their inability to reason and justify their opinions!

I would direct people to the post's of Thomas Christian Schratweiser (sp?) who raises some interesting points.

I would also observe that many (but not all) people on this thread who seem to oppose the KK masquerade their reasons as gender based. Of those disagreeing with the principal's stance, none appear to be saying they agree with discrimination, only that they can see situations where it can (and sometimes must) exist.

Questions that keep occurring in my head are: That of those who are so passionately opposing the KK (and I leave membership policy with regard to gender out, as that quite clearly it is not the problem for the most passionate), how many have been quite happy to attend (and benefit) from the events the put on? How many can actually name someone who has been put out by, actually wanted to join the KK and been denied on gender grounds, or been seriously inconvenienced by the KK?

(Oh, on a slightly more humerous note, I'm glad to see that the sinner doesn't discriminate against unregistered users. There is no place for that in the modern world...)

[Al]

The Sinner allows unregistered users to contribute. Unless Oli contacts me to say that policy has changed, we will continue allowing reasonable unregistered posts through. That they have been allowed through in the first place indicates that we think the posts have a valid contribution to the debate (SPaG notwithstanding).

It was the 'rule' that unregistered posts would not be allowed from people who could easily, and quickly, register. Why it was changed has never been made known. Actually, it has not been made known by Oli that it has changed.

If people post on here, only to be subsequently attacked for being unregistered, it discourages them from registering (just fancy that!) and using the Sinner in future

Or, to look at it another way, if people are allowed to post again and again without registering then there is little point in them registering an account. It is certainly the case that people should not be allowed to post to the same thread - or elsewhere on the site - under different unregistered names.

[Fawksie]

It was the 'rule' that unregistered posts would not be allowed from people who could easily, and quickly, register. Why it was changed has never been made known. Actually, it has not been made known by Oli that it has changed.

The unregistered posting system is primarily designed to facilitate posting by prospective students who don't have a University e-mail address. It is not here to allow what would otherwise be fully registered users to hide behind a screen of anonymity (at least not on the Main Board, such use is fine on boards such as Advice and Personal Ads). Trying to get persistent unregistered posters to register is like trying to get blood from a stone, so in the interests of prolonging the discussion, the moderators do let many of these posts through, myself included. The most blatant attempts at trolling are stripped out.

[munchingfoo]

The UOTC is something I hadn't even thought of, but I was denied membership in my first year due to the circumstances of my birth (not UK citizenship), which, to be honest, I understand, but at the same time if you make broad generalisations (or, to quote "Clerks", a generalisation about broads?) regarding societies' policies to accept people based on their birth: gender, race, nationality, upbringing, wealth, etc., then you are setting almost every other society or club for a fall.

I know this is a little off topic, but: You weren't.

You were denied entry into Her Majesty's Armed Forces, the UOTC is a paid job. Social membership of the UOTC is unrestricted based on Nationality.

[Lid]

I don't believe that this distancing should involve denying this private members' group the right to rent out university property at commercial rates.

Would you deny a private members' group that only allowed white people to be members the right to rent out university property at commercial rates?

Would you allow blackshirts to teach information technology in schools? There's plenty of suggestions that can illicit a 'no' response, but that's not what was asked. Or is that another KK entry criterion that we all missed out on?

[Delts]

An interesting point for all those claiming all out support for the actions against the KK, the pro facebook group has 500 and something members whilst the anti group has 300 and something members. Not that great a divide showing that student opinion isn't as clear cut as some would like to make out.