All Hail Simon Pepper

[Rufus]

Quoting Tweedle-Dum from 01:13, 19th Nov 2005
I didn't realise until I bought it, The Saint is a dirty left wing rag. 800 people voted for Simon Pepper, he seems like a nice guy. But why is The Saint alienating at least 1/5, probably more, of its circulation by going along with this twaddle. is's kind of unrelated, but still...

The point is that this man is using titles to attain things the majority does not want, OBE, Rector, former chairman of WWF Aberfeldy, whatever and I encourage him to go to protests he believes in, but doing it in my name, big no-no, Go as Simon, not as Rector of the oldest and finest university in the country, or if you do, protest against something we care about, not you.

Also, landslide victory for Ethical Investment at the polls: he won by 7%, that's nothing.

[hr]

Live by the sword, die by the arrow.

Tut tut. You forget your roots. What i mean by that I'm not sure. Slightly drunk. Anyway, hello.

[hr]

'Love much. Earth has enough bitter in it'
Ella Wheeler Wilcox

[Lid]

At the end of the day, he's already gone back on what he said at the rectorial debate (for those in attendence), namely he would not use his position of power to push his own agenda. This is clearly a man who believes in ethical investment, and is supporting it, by rallying that section of the student body that support it, participating in direct action. If this does not constitute pushing your own agenda, I don't know what does.

As far as I know, Mr Pepper did not consult other, less sympathising persons, before joining that Ethical Investment Group on their campaign. I certainly have never been offered the chance to vote on ethical investment, and as many of you know, I would question it being imposed on the university.

I wonder if Mr Pepper would be as willing to campaign with a student march against ethical investment as he would with, that being the real acid test.

[Lodestone]

First off: anyone who didn't actually hear Simon Pepper's speech yesterday is unqualified to comment on the particular way in which he supported this campaign. Pepper considered very carefully the kind of support he lent to the campaign, and did indeed meet with certain parties from the University before his attendance yesterday. His speech was a speech which a) encouraged student demonstration, and b) personally supported this issue of ethical investment. He did not place himself behind the Campaign's demands, nor did he particularly use his Rectorship to push the issue.

The position of Rector has an inherent conflict of interests: the Rector is elected both as a student representative on the University Court and as an impartial chair of that Court. There are only two ways to deal with this conflict: either ignore one's responsibility as student representative, or keep the two roles separate: impartiality within the Court and partiality outside. This seems to be the reasonable route Pepper has taken.

Pepper has twice been given a mandate to support ethical investment: once when the students voted overwhelmingly in favour of ethical investment, and once when, on an ethical investment platform, he was elected by the students. It would therefore seem ultimately reasonable for him to have made a speech of encouragement at yesterday's demonstration. Whether or not this was, for him, a political mistake is surely an issue for him alone which we have no reason to complain about.

I would suggest that the negative stances people have taken towards Pepper on this issue stem solely from personal disagreement with his own stance on world issues and on the issue of EI in particular. One should be able to separate ideology from reason.

[Guest]

Quoting Rufus from 17:23, 18th Nov 2005
the penny-pinching bureaucrats (sorry to revert to stereotypes, but they are such fun) who are sizeably contributing to the erosion of morals within this university.

o please, when people start banging on about the erosion or decline of morals in institutions, they sound like tory backbenchers.

[José Jimenez]

Quoting Lodestone from 10:53, 19th Nov 2005
There are only two ways to deal with this conflict: either ignore one's responsibility as student representative, or keep the two roles separate: impartiality within the Court and partiality outside. This seems to be the reasonable route Pepper has taken.

lodestone I think maintaining impartiality within the court and partiality outside is difficult if not impossible. I would also argue that regardless of the nature of Mr Peppers campaign, he was not given a mandate by a majority of the student body of this University (I would hazard a guess that less than half of the eligable electorate voted in favor of both the ethical investment policy and elected Mr Pepper).

I think there are more serious issues that concern students at the University - the rising costs of housing, the value for money of increasing tuition, the lack of academic rigor (actual or percieved), and so forth. Ethical Investiment is a peripheral issue in my view. I think it would have been more responsible to address these issues immediately concerning students before taking sides on something so politically charged as ethical investment. To be fair though, I think this whole process has reflected the inappropriate ordering of the priorities of the student body, not just Mr Peppers agenda.

[José Jimenez]

Quoting admin from 21:04, 18th Nov 2005

Quoting from 19:37, 18th Nov 2005
...He is in effect not accurately representing the entire student body...

To be fair, it would be extremely difficult to do that - getting everyone to agree on one sensible course of action would probably require a miracle.

Maybe he is representing the vocal majority, but if you feel strongly about something (and this isn't meant to sound like it's aimed at this particular unregistered user -how I wish people would actually put a name of some sort to their comments-) then you should become part of a vocal minority at least. The emphasis being on vocal.
Not everyone reads The Sinner (though I'm trying to correct that), and not everyone cares what people say on The Sinner due to the lack of attribution (see my previous point about people registering) and anonymity. So if you really want to make your voice heard (again, I'm not talking to just this unregistered user; I'm talking to everyone - EVERYONE who feels people should listen to them) then you should also make a stand. Hold your own demonstration.

It was me by the way, something went wrong when I posted.

To be honest, I have neither the time nor the inclination to organize a protest. I would say that this campaign is a credit to the determination of the individuals who saw it realized.

However I don't think I should have to organize a protest to be heard on this issue. If Mr Pepper had organized a forum to discuss the issue, I would have attended to make my views known. I think that, given his position as advocate for the entire student body, that would have been a more responsible approach.

And why is this at the forefront of everyones concerns? I suspect it isn't. As I said before, I think students are far more worried about issues like paying the absurdly high rent for University accomodation or the crap teaching facilities (library anyone?) here. Why not take a stand on issues of more immediate relevancy to the students?

Addendum: I understand the University has unveiled new plans for the library. From what I have seen it is a typically haphazard stopgap measure we are used to here at St Andrews.

[Webbie]

A load of students worked for ages on this demonstration.

Simon Pepper came along and spoke for about five minutes, saying it was very good of everybody to be making an effort for a cause, and how great we all were in general.

He is not getting his prioties wrong. How dare you (everybody who says he is "politicising his role" suggest that he is ignoring other issues because of his own political beliefs) by coming to speak for five minutes to a group of students

[BenEsq]

Tweedle-Jules, Pepper got 850 votes in the end compared to 517 for Ramsay - this is a difference of 39.17%, not 7%.

Also, Pepper is dealing with other issues - notably the difficulties the AU are having. Anyhow, I'm off to see Harry Potter (I'm sorry).


[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[ezra]

oh, hush

[Steveo]

That's rich.

[hr]

Not my ethics.

[Lodestone]

Quoting José Jimenez from 17:33, 19th Nov 2005

Quoting Lodestone from 10:53, 19th Nov 2005
There are only two ways to deal with this conflict: either ignore one's responsibility as student representative, or keep the two roles separate: impartiality within the Court and partiality outside. This seems to be the reasonable route Pepper has taken.

lodestone I think maintaining impartiality within the court and partiality outside is difficult if not impossible.

Quite. It's a problem with the position of Rector. But while it persists, it seems that attempting to tackle that difficulty is preferable to ignoring half of the Rector's responsibilities.

I would also argue that regardless of the nature of Mr Peppers campaign, he was not given a mandate by a majority of the student body of this University (I would hazard a guess that less than half of the eligable electorate voted in favor of both the ethical investment policy and elected Mr Pepper).

This seems to me to be pure rhetoric. The majority of the student body is irrelevant: the only relevance is the majority of the student body who votes. This is unfair, but until there is compulsory voting, the only possible way to go. Once a person disenfranchises himself, his view is irrelevant.

I

think there are more serious issues that concern students at the University - the rising costs of housing, the value for money of increasing tuition, the lack of academic rigor (actual or percieved), and so forth. Ethical Investiment is a peripheral issue in my view. I think it would have been more responsible to address these issues immediately concerning students before taking sides on something so politically charged as ethical investment.

That, though, would be seriously outside his role as Rector. He is impartial, or he represents voiced students views: he has not been given a mandate to speak on the above issues.

To be fair though, I think this whole process has reflected the inappropriate ordering of the priorities of the student body, not just Mr Peppers agenda.

I'm almost agreeing with you, but I would chane "inappropriate ordering of the priorities" to simply "apathy". What I hope the EI Campaign has done has broken that apathy; Pepper's encouraging speech can only have contributed to that breakthrough.

[José Jimenez]

lodestone, I don't think there have been referendums in the recent past concerning the poor provision of teaching facilities or the problem of housing with the possible exception of the cooperative housing scheme. I strongly disagree with you that by not voting a student renders their voice irrelevent. I blame the issues brought to referenda as the cause of poor student turnout. Cooperative housing and ethical investment are all well and good, I do not believe they are issues demanding our immediate attention - and based the overall turnout, I would say that my opinion is consistant with a substantial proportion of the student body. As soon as I hear that the Students Association is holding a referendum on whether to send a list of greivances concerning the inadequacy of teaching facilties to the University I will vote and I will be sure that my friends turn up as well.

I find this the focus of the studetns association on such tangential issues frustrating. The last I heard of cooperative housing, the Union was spending £7000 on a feasability study. And what about the library? The teaching labs in chemistry? Surely sending a few pieces of paper with 5000 student names on it voting for improved library facilties or new teaching labs or whatever is cheaper than a multithousand pound study?!

This whole campaign, to some extent, has been a lot of sound and fury. What really worries me is if this campaign is too sucessful too quickly. How many of the organizers are Chemistry students I wonder? Because they should consider that money from GlaxoSmithKline and BP helps keep the chemistry department viable, what with Universities across Britain shutting down or downsizing their physical science programs. There is an issue here I think that has not yet been acknowledged - this is not just an ethical investment campaign. Its a Divestment campaign, and I don't think (based on those organizers I have spoken to) the organizers have considered the reprocussions on this Universities ability to provide services to its students.

In the end hope you are right - I hope that this will energize the student community into acting on matters important to it, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. I am getting sick of discussing this on the internet as I am a very poor typist and somewhat dyslexic. So if you want to meet to discuss this in person, gather together your friends and throw down biatch

In fact, I propose that both sides meet in a pub and or food place somewhere to discuss this issue further.

[ezra]

In fact, I propose that both sides meet in a pub and or food place somewhere to discuss this issue further.

what a good idea. i'd be up for it.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

Alternatively - I wonder if the UDS has decided what to do for the St Andrews week debate yet...?

[hr]

Will Watson - half man, half beast. All awesome.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

A controversial debate? Under current management? Seems unlikely.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[Lodestone]

Quoting José Jimenez from 01:00, 20th Nov 2005
lodestone, I don't think there have been referendums in the recent past concerning the poor provision of teaching facilities or the problem of housing with the possible exception of the cooperative housing scheme. I strongly disagree with you that by not voting a student renders their voice irrelevent. I blame the issues brought to referenda as the cause of poor student turnout. Cooperative housing and ethical investment are all well and good, I do not believe they are issues demanding our immediate attention - and based the overall turnout, I would say that my opinion is consistant with a substantial proportion of the student body. As soon as I hear that the Students Association is holding a referendum on whether to send a list of greivances concerning the inadequacy of teaching facilties to the University I will vote and I will be sure that my friends turn up as well.

The reason there was an EI referendum was that the Campaign organised it. The Students Association has a helluva lot of work on its plate, and yes, there are things it should have done and hasn't--but perhaps the thing to do would be for concerned students to recommend the referendum you suggest. That's what EI did, and look where we are now. Students have got to take an active role in brining these issues to the attention of the people concerned.

This whole campaign, to some extent, has been a lot of sound and fury. What really worries me is if this campaign is too sucessful too quickly.

This is absolutely wrong. The Campaign has been negotiating with the university for the past three years, taking the diplomatic route to resolving the issue. It is only in the last three months that the vocal publicity campaign leading up to the march has taken over--and we are at least informed sound and fury. Having shown our support, we will now be moving back to diplomacy.

How many of the organizers are Chemistry students I wonder? Because they should consider that money from GlaxoSmithKline and BP helps keep the chemistry department viable, what with Universities across Britain shutting down or downsizing their physical science programs. There is an issue here I think that has not yet been acknowledged - this is not just an ethical investment campaign. Its a Divestment campaign, and I don't think (based on those organizers I have spoken to) the organizers have considered the reprocussions on this Universities ability to provide services to its students.

This kind of issue is exactly what we want to be discussed--which is why, as well as developing an EI policy, we want the University to set up a student forum to allow discussion and consideration of our investment criteria.

In fact, I propose that both sides meet in a pub and or food place somewhere to discuss this issue further.

Certainly--but not for a few days, seeing as it's Raisin Weekend. Keep typing for now, as it's good to actually be able to have an informed discussion.

[Guest]

Quoting Dave the Explosive Newt from 02:24, 20th Nov 2005
Alternatively - I wonder if the UDS has decided what to do for the St Andrews week debate yet...?

[hr]

Will Watson - half man, half beast. All awesome.

How do we find out? Their website hasn't been updated for some time since the last time I checked.

[Laura]

The St Andrews week debate is an undisclosed motion, and will showcase the four teams representing the university at the Worlds Debating Championships.

Just wondering what exactly people mean by controversial- we've obviously been playing too nice by proposing a united Ireland and putting the UUP against the SDLP, declaring Darwin better than God and putting a Christian fundamentalist against scientists and proposing the deportation of clerics of hate...

[hr]

"What I hanker for, of course, is to be put at the beck and call of some very important hush-hush sort of man who needs to be driven very fast in a long-nosed powerful car to mysterious destinations...But either this type of man is dying out- which I should deplore- or else, which is more likely, he does his own driving."

[exnihilo]

Yup, all just a bit too cuddly.

[Guest]

There would never be a debate that may be linked with Mr Pepper's beliefs, not untill the Convenor has got through the selection for Rectors Assessor anyway.