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

[starsandsparkles]

*double post - sorry*

[starsandsparkles]

the KK are not affiliated to the Univeristy in any way shape or form! Affiliation between two bodies requires some sort of mutual agreement . In the case of a union affiliated society, (put incredibly simply) the society agrees to provide its events and services for the benefit of the Union's members (i.e. Students) and in return, the Union agrees to extend the society use of its facilies in order to help the society put on its events. The KK could, at best, be construed as "associated" with the university, insofar as all its members are current and former students. In that respect, they have no more right to support from the university than any other group of students.

Your log-in made me laugh, especially considering this is the third time I'm typing this post! Gah!
I agree with you actually, hence putting "affiliation" in quotation marks.

Don't forget the free room hire, mailbox, the hosting space on the university/union website, the university email account, the administrative support, the right to use the "University of St Andrews" brand (non affiliated groups, take note!), the insurance, the mailbox, etc. etc.
[/MASSIVE plug]

Some societies don't use the room hire or mailbox/posting address facilities, but I take your point on the website space, although I would push the University/Union distinction. This is probably another conversation for another time though.

This isn't a matter of class snobbery (well, it is; but people insist on maintaining the facade). This is the idea that the university has decided not to associate with the KK because of their membership practises. As I said a few posts back, I'm wary about making a general principle out of this, because events like FS probably do fall within a grey area between reasonable selection criteria and unreasonable discrimination.

The principal mentioned something about being "excluded by birth" in her e-mail and let's call a spade a spade - this is about class, elitism or whatever else you want to call it. Has anyone really ever had a problem with a working mens club?!

[Andrew Mackenzie]

Can't quite believe I'm about to point this out, but people are saying that the KK get special priviledges over and above other student groups or societies and I am asking what these are.

My problem with the KK is that they get any kind of privilege at all from the University, special or otherwise.

[Georgina]

I'm pretty sure Dr Richardson's email mentioned things about being excluded by birth etc, so it would appear that this is a class argument. Call a spade a spade - everyone knows it is, more so than any issue of gender.

I think she was referring to women being born women, and therefore being excluded by birth. Besides, I'm not sure what the problem would be if it were a class argument.

When we talk about special treatment being given to the KK - it's things like the use of a mailing room in College Gate for their correspondence, something no other society has, and things like their treatment by the previous Principal over Charitable St Andrews. Bizarre Atheist wrote about this earlier, and unfortunately, I am not kind enough to trawl back to copy it in here.

More importantly however than special treatment, is the idea that by allowing the KK to use University facilities, (whether it's Younger Hall, Lower College Lawn or College Gate, and by including allowing them to 'represent' the student body at official ceremonies) the University was tacitly supporting the KK and their beliefs. The University has now established that gender discrimination is not acceptable, and they will not be lending recognition to any groups that practice this.

I think you're right that the Lumsden Club were banned from Sallies Lawn because they made too much noise, but since then they have not used university property etc. I presume that should they ask for University recognition or endorsement, the University's response would be the same as for the KK.

I think also Andrew raises an excellent point that has barely been touched upon so far - the broader image of the University and access. One of things that the Principal has been working on is the issue of access, and I think this move by her and its national coverage is a good step in beginning to address the image of St Andrews as a posh elitist place where only public school pupils go.

[starsandsparkles]

So the reason the KK is to be "dis-affiliated" is because they exclude women, but both Georgina and Andrew have now argued that this move will stop St Andrews as being seen as a "posh elitist", "snobbish" place. Once again I wonder whether the real point here is a gender or a class issue.

[RandomMusings]

Hopefully a link to an interview on BBC Radio Scotland with the Association President.
Thoughts?

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/poste ... 8062389284#s68062389284

[Andrew Mackenzie]

So the reason the KK is to be "dis-affiliated" is because they exclude women, but both Georgina and Andrew have now argued that this move will stop St Andrews as being seen as a "posh elitist", "snobbish" place. Once again I wonder whether the real point here is a gender or a class issue.

The KK both excludes women (fact) and is perceived as snobbish by most people in St Andrews and by almost everyone outside St Andrews. Therefore while the reason Louise Richardson has cut ties with it is because it excludes women, it nicely deals with the second point too.

Edit - Cutting ties with the KK won't suddenly stop us being seen as posh and elitist, but it is a good start. St Andrews has much more to do, but, as I have said, I am optimistic that Louise Richardson is the Principal who will begin to bring about the change.

[starsandsparkles]

So the reason the KK is to be "dis-affiliated" is because they exclude women, but both Georgina and Andrew have now argued that this move will stop St Andrews as being seen as a "posh elitist", "snobbish" place. Once again I wonder whether the real point here is a gender or a class issue.

The KK both excludes women (fact) and is perceived as snobbish by most people in St Andrews and by almost everyone outside St Andrews. Therefore while the reason Louise Richardson has cut ties with it is because it excludes women, it nicely deals with the second point too.

Is the exclusion of women just an excuse then? I believe so, which offends me far more than the KK being male-exclusive does.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

So the reason the KK is to be "dis-affiliated" is because they exclude women, but both Georgina and Andrew have now argued that this move will stop St Andrews as being seen as a "posh elitist", "snobbish" place. Once again I wonder whether the real point here is a gender or a class issue.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Societies at various universities (e.g. the KK in St Andrews, the Pitt club in Cambridge, perhaps even the R&A) indelibly link sexism to elitist admissions policies, and make sexism a hallmark of a set of values that promote an image of snobbery. The two are indivisible as one affects the other: sexism, in this case is snobbery and vice versa.

[Andrew Mackenzie]

Is the exclusion of women just an excuse then? I believe so, which offends me far more than the KK being male-exclusive does.

What? Where did I say that?

Exclusion of women is by itself enough of a reason to cut ties with the KK. The fact people seem to disagree with that is troubling.

The fact we also cut ties with a club seen as posh and elitist is a bonus - an extremely nice bonus, but a bonus nonetheless.

[starsandsparkles]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Societies at various universities (e.g. the KK in St Andrews, the Pitt club in Cambridge, perhaps even the R&A) indelibly link sexism to elitist admissions policies, and make sexism a hallmark of a set of values that promote an image of snobbery. The two are indivisible as one affects the other.

Working mens clubs? The WI? Sports teams? 'Sexism' and 'elitism' (in terms of class) are not related by necessity.

What? Where did I say that?

Exclusion of women is by itself enough of a reason to cut ties with the KK. The fact people seem to disagree with that is troubling.

The fact we also cut ties with a club seen as posh and elitist is a bonus - an extremely nice bonus, but a bonus nonetheless.

I didn't say you said that - it was a question, hence the question mark. As I said, I believe it is an excuse, and that what you call a "bonus" is probably what was actually wanted.

Why is it troubling? What is inherently wrong with a group of men wanting to socialise and work together? Nothing, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with a group of women wanting to socialise and work together. What I find troubling is the idea that equality means that men and women have to be exactly the same. I am not a man, nor do I have any desire to be one or act like one! (This point has already been brought up earlier, possibly by David Bean)

[Andrew Mackenzie]

I didn't say you said that - it was a question, hence the question mark. As I said, I believe it is an excuse, and that what you call a "bonus" is probably what was actually wanted.

Well I would have to respectively disagree. I don't think it was an excuse and I would be interested to know why you think it is.

People may be pleased that the University is cutting ties with the KK for a number of reasons - some may be pleased because it's sexist, some may be pleased because it's seen as posh. Some may even be pleased because it means the University gets to put some distance between itself and a group of people that think tartan trousers are fashionable. Or all of the above. That does not change the reason the decision was made, but these are are all nice benefits.

Why is it troubling? What is inherently wrong with a group of men wanting to socialise and work together? Nothing, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with a group of women wanting to socialise and work together. What I find troubling is the idea that equality means that men and women have to be exactly the same. I am not a man, nor do I have any desire to be one or act like one! (This point has already been brought up earlier, possibly by David Bean)

There is a difference between a group of guys hanging out at the pub and a group of guys that are a formal club, hold interviews for entry, run events on University property, stake a claim to the traditions of St Andrews and represent St Andrews at various functions.

[jamesboulter]

I have just set up a Facebook group on the against side:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=68421887146

I am aware that the write-up is pretty crap - please post suggestions of how it might be improved / any additions!

James

[Andrew Mackenzie]

I have just set up a Facebook group on the against side:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=68421887146

I am aware that the write-up is pretty crap - please post suggestions of how it might be improved / any additions!

James

Reading through it the phrase "clutching at straws" springs to mind.

Also, while I obviously disagree with the aims of your group I feel compelled to suggest you remove the link to Manchester uni's toilets - it makes your group look stupid.

[starsandsparkles]

There is a difference between a group of guys hanging out at the pub and a group of guys that are a formal club, hold interviews for entry, run events on University property, stake a claim to the traditions of St Andrews and represent St Andrews at various functions.

Interviews - would this be an issue if women were interviewed as well? I would imagine not, which again makes me think this is more about class than gender. Interviews, auditions, try-outs - there has to be some way to see how members will contribute and fit in to a society.

Events on University property - as I wrote a few pages back, this is not a priviledge limited to the KK.

Traditions - there has been lots of talk about "traditions", but which "traditions" are we actually talking about? To me the three big "tradition" events are Raisin weekend, the May Dip and the Procession. Whilst they may be involved in Raisin Monday clean-up, I don't feel a big deal is made out of the fact that the KK do this so I think we can safely disregard that. The only thing I seem them "laying claim" to is the Procession and I would argue that firstly they have a bit of a right to, considering (if I understand/recall correctly) they resurrected it and secondly I would bring up the point that has been made previously that there is a "procession committee", which has non-KK members.

I think in quite a few cases it could be said "why do the KK do it when anyone can do it?", but that if the KK didn't do it, it would be one of those situations where nothing ever gets done because no one takes charge and organises it, and whoever does will become the new KK and will be shot down eventually...!

So, let's be precise, which traditions specifically are they laying claim to, and how are they laying claim to them? Raisin strings? Gowns? Pier walks?

Representing St Andrews at various functions - the only function which has been mentioned is the Benefactors event, which considering few people know the proper name of it hardly seems important, but again, as has been mentioned before, the KK no longer do this.

[Craig]

I feel like I should restate an opinion I made earlier - the Kate Kennedy Procession is a Kate Kennedy Club tradition.

It's not a tradition of the University of St Andrews, or its student population as a whole. What this means for the relation between the two aforementioned organisations, I'm not certain. I would lean towards the idea that the university should distance itself from the event, seeing as the KK is a private organisation. I don't believe that this distancing should involve denying this private members' group the right to rent out university property at commercial rates.

[Jono]

I feel like I should restate an opinion I made earlier - the Kate Kennedy Procession is a Kate Kennedy Club tradition.

It's not a tradition of the University of St Andrews, or its student population as a whole. What this means for the relation between the two aforementioned organisations, I'm not certain. I would lean towards the idea that the university should distance itself from the event, seeing as the KK is a private organisation. I don't believe that this distancing should involve denying this private members' group the right to rent out university property at commercial rates.

If only it were that clear-cut. The procession is more intwined with the univeristy than you give credit. Its latest incarnation dates back to 1927, and there are earlier examples as well before it was banned by the University authorities in the... 1880's? Moreover, as David Bean pointed out earlier, the creation of a procession committee involving the University and Students Association in the planning and organisation of the procession is an implicit acknowledgement that the procession is a St Andrean tradition bigger than the KK. Ask any local person on the street, and they'll tell you that it's something the university do every year.

[Frank]

I think in quite a few cases it could be said "why do the KK do it when anyone can do it?", but that if the KK didn't do it, it would be one of those situations where nothing ever gets done because no one takes charge and organises it, and whoever does will become the new KK and will be shot down eventually...!

I contend this point and suggest the thread might be bearing fruit.

For me, the underlying question is important: Why do the KK do it when anyone could do it? (slight rephrase, IMO more accurate)

This links to my earlier point: Instead of congratulating the principle in an act of complicity with the 'war on snobbery' (which would explain all the back-slapping facebook statuses [and now group {and now counter-group)]) ought the students not have been...leading the charge?

If there is a keen sense of getting rid of snobbery, surely this should be on all fronts. Student emancipation. Modernisation. A cultural revolution, if you'll pardon the disturbing association of the phrase.

What everyone ought to have been doing is to be looking at how the SA (or University itself) can justifiably go about an attempt to reclaim (or indeed merely claim, wrestle free or oust ) these traditions from the hands of and self-proclaimed custodianship of the KK, no?

There's evidently some support for such a move, but how deep does it run? Is it far enough that some can give a hearty "Woo! " in response to a startlingly symbolic gesture* in a campaign against the Uni's snobbish image? Is it further, perhaps to a degree which alot of the support garnered can be put into organising a formalisation of things like the procession? Moves to bring the Procession Comittee on board, perhaps? Founding serious compeition with the May Ball to be the 'last, biggest, bestest, whatever-it-is-est ball' of the year? Formalisation, decentralisation or merely diffuse encouragement from 'The University' in general with regards to keeping up cool traditions (and quietly [or loudly] drawing attention away from things like the KK, Lumsden and so forth)?

* I concur: If this was merely a technical issue of gender (highlight by my earlier question with regards to folks mentally confused or, even, hermaphroditic, eunic or otherwise biologically outside the simple norm...) then it wouldn't have been as big, nor would the overwhelming support and publicity really have been a good/bad/other thing.

A different line from Starsandsparkles

Surely the whole thrust should be a move from within the Uni (and in a way the Uni can associate with?) to foster, nurture and encourage the madcap cool traditions? A better focus for all this energy should surely be portrayal that we're a progressive University then being able to display tremendous stuff like "the end of the ancient all-male club" (i.e. if the KK were one day to come out and say "Hey, we're not all male any more, look, turns out he was a she all along and since nobody cared so we changed the constitution!")?

That is: If we want to curb the snobbish imagery, is a symbolic beheading of a snobby beast the most effective way? I suspect there are better ways, but, in a slight change of heart, I do sortof appreciate this move from a sly, if cynical, strategic point of view. If it's a game of politics, hooray for a clever move but, let me be serious: I do not wish to see my university engaged in a class war. Or even a war on the class system. I'd count myself out of that, necessary or unnecessary (or socially [un?]acceptable) as it might be popularly or unpopularly viewed.

To answer a point from earlier:

I think she was referring to women being born women, and therefore being excluded by birth. Besides, I'm not sure what the problem would be if it were a class argument.

If it were a class argument, it adds a whole extra kettle of fish. A kettle which I don't think is at all as morally admirable as a war on general discrimination. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that it might well, however, prove to be far more...popular.

Craig (and other)'s reiterated opinion: Which traditions, exactly?

It's a fair question. As I propose above: 'The University' in some form (be it nuclear, alumni, senate or even 'merely' the SA. Hell, why not: A 'more' acceptable, perhaps new, private members club) should be taking the reigns of various traditions. A fight? Perhaps. Some long, drawn out battle for which jaded Sinners can whittle away their degrees cavilling, perhps. Regardless, Starsandsparkles and yourself are drawing to the core of an issue here: Custodianship of the University's traditions ought to be somehow associated with the University. The question to resolve isn't 'why not the KK?' IMO, but "How can the University's traditions be managed appropriately?"

Then we have a point of order: It must be done in such a way that arbitrary or reprehensibly unpalateable discrimination isn't an issue. Were it an Association Society, this would be an afterthought as it'd have been in the rules from the get-go. If it were something other than an Association Society then it'd be an point to investigate, but the benefit of a proper society is that all that rules-stuff is already bound up within the very existence of a thing.

Where's the Traditions' subcommittee, hmm? A loose, take as many-angles one? Charged primarily with Raisin Weekend, "The St Andrews' Delightful History Procession" ([TM] F O'Hanlon ) and the "The St Andrews' Ball" ([TM] me again), perhaps?

Canvas all the best input etc. No-holds barred. A Society for which outrageously large Treasurey donations are welcome and encouraged?

[James Shield]

This House Would High-Five the Principal
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=72637536837

[Guest]

I must say, I am honestly trying to stay neutral in this debate. I think it’s a healthy one.

However, I do find quite a bit of ironic hypocrisy in the way Georgina Rannard has been acting and behaving. She has come out in huge support of our Principal, however, during the Rectorial Drag, she was scene atop the Kate Kennedy Club’s coach, happy as can be, riding with our newly installed rector. Why didn’t she decide to walk rather than ride on their coach? That would have been a great statement for her to have made, and take a stand against their elitism and sexism. But I guess the photographers were there and pictures look better atop a coach than standing on the boring sidewalk. She was all smiles after all… I wonder if she thanked the men for the free ride?

Seems like she goes with whatever is popular… one day it is riding atop a Coach that is owned by an elitist society, the other it is bashing that society…

I don’t particularly like the KK, but like them or not, Rannard is a bit hypocritical.