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

[exnihilo]

I think she has to, but you're really not getting the point are you?

She's not saying they can't exist or that they can't continue to be male only. She's saying that if they do they cannot have the support of the University.

It's always frightfully boring when people say "you're really not getting the point are you?" There is more than one point.

Perhaps if one didn't miss it one wouldn't hear it so often? This is not a post-modern essay, it's a discussion about a particular point. You don't get to pick another one you like better and discuss that. The Principal has not made an assault on single sex clubs, nor really on tradition. She won't be setting up roadblocks to prevent the Procession, nor anathematising the concepts of the Opening Ball or Jazz nights. She's just saying they won't go ahead on University property, or with University support. I have concerns about the method she has employed, and about the mechanics of how she can hope things will continue while not supporting them. I expect that latter is something which will be worked out in time, but for some things it may spell the end.

The KK, like it or not, has stability and resources which make organising two balls annually a great deal easier for them than for other societies. Sure, some other group can try to take over, or the SA could, but inevitably it'll cough itself out of existence before too many years. If it's another group, it's unusual for them to survive much beyond the tenure of the people who started them, and if they do they change radically. If it's the SA, cost cutting and over-worked officers will see it reduced and eventually disbanded. I hate to be a doom-cryer (no I don't), but we've all seen both of those things happen.

I oppose her decision because it seems high-handed, and when she makes another decision later on without bothering to consult anyone, and it's about rent (for example) then we'll see what her putative middle name gets changed to. I am not fundamentally opposed to what she has done, only the way she has done it.

[David Bean]

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)

I just want to make it very clear that I never said that I'm not a man, nor have any desire to be or act like one (some have maintained I manage not to do so perfectly well without trying, but we don't talk to those people).

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?

*Actually that's not a particularly good example, because when the Lumsden Club was founded my academic mother was its first membership officer, and she decided, in her delightfully impish way, to make me their only male member. This was never officially recognised, but nevertheless it remains a source of bizarre pride and amusement.

[Georgina]

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.

I'm going to briefly reply to this because I'd like to clarify the situation regarding the Rectorial Drag. I don't see what the point would have been in making the Rectorial Drag about me and my personal opinion of the KK, rather than about the Rector and the student body. This is inevitably what would have happened had I walked alongside the carriage, which would have been extremely bad management of the event, the tradition and the press element, and would have certainly made me pretty rubbish Rector's Assessor (and more than a little bit egotistical). Saying that, we went to great lengths to have a Drag that included all societies equally, however I invite you to find, pay for, and transport a carriage to St Andrews! The Rector and I were very grateful to the individuals who helped with the carriage on the day, including the Students' Association, the Blues and 4 members of the KK, and the Rector expressed this to them.

[mhuzzell]

Sorry, Georgina. By choosing to set aside your four years of vocal opposition to the KK in order to allow the Rectorial Drag to happen without making too big a fuss, you are clearly a horrible hypocrite and your opinion is to be henceforth disregarded on all matters!

[Jono]

Let's not get into an argument over perceived hypocrisy here.

Nevertheless, I think the above comments raise valid points. As Georgina stated previously, The KK hold inappropriate positions within university ceremonies, including the drag. As such, carriage hire, and the involvement of certain student groups in future rectorial drags is something that will need reviewing in future (which I assume is going to happen anyway).

[get-a-life]

Sorry, Georgina. By choosing to set aside your four years of vocal opposition to the KK in order to allow the Rectorial Drag to happen without making too big a fuss, you are clearly a horrible hypocrite and your opinion is to be henceforth disregarded on all matters!

I agree. Besides, who even elected you? As far as I am concerned you have been a non-entity for the past three years and it will remain that way. What makes you think that you represent anyone in the student body?

It is very depressing to see that the only reason why St Andrews is mentioned in the press is because of this irrelevant display of sensationalism by the Principal. Even worse is the display of ignorance and idiocy by those who think she is actually bringing some change. Get it right: this will not really change the relationship the KK has with the Uni!

Is the KK the most important thing that is happening in St Andrews? Really? It is funny to see how much free time the sabbaticals seem to have to discuss the "KK issue". The KK has been an issue for decades and this will not change! Last time I checked, though, the Union was still shit, why don't you go back to work to fix that or to give more support to the afilliated societies?

There are many wrong things with the KK. It is a living anachronism and both quality and charity-wise it is being challenged by other student-organized events. Nonetheless, the Procession, their Archives and the concern with the traditions ignored by the majority of the students remain the essence of the club (as anyone who has taken some time to look at what the club is should know); and this is something that will not changed.

Sadly, most arguments and opposition to the KK are not even based on relevant arguments on issues of gender but in a disgusting inferiority complex: this affair reeks of a parochial working/middle class mentality that should have no relevance in our days.

And they say this is a world-class university...go figure

[RandomMusings]

It had to be done....

[Georgina]

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?

[Craig]

No, I don't think I would.

[Chase the pigeons]

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 deny a private members' group that only allowed people over the age of 65 to be members the right to rent out university property at commercial rates?

[Duggeh]

This is the most in depth, coherant, articulate, active, lengthy, although I can't bring myself to add "interesting" thread that this forum has seen for a great length of time.

Just thought that I'd add regarding the topic, that to put it politely, I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

[Jason Dunn]

Surely the issue of the legitimacy of a single sex group comes down to what the group is for. Meritocratic selection optimises the intake of talent. eg. a University makes offers to potential undergraduates on the basis of percieved academic merit; sex doesn't enter into the consideration because it has no bearing on this criterion. However, I cannot see why the KK should be forced to be meritocratic. What talents is it trying to optimise in its intake? By the admission of several posters the activities the the KK organise could be done by anyone and so there is no need for meritocratic selection so why not an arbitrary set of selection criteria? Why not let them choose according to their whims?

Following this argument to its logical conclusion, the anti-KK brigade should demand that the KK not only accept women but that they only accept anyone on the basis of a competitive examination on parade and ball organisation, rather than the combination of the established rules and whom the selection committee happen to take a shine to.

[mhuzzell]

Sorry, Georgina. By choosing to set aside your four years of vocal opposition to the KK in order to allow the Rectorial Drag to happen without making too big a fuss, you are clearly a horrible hypocrite and your opinion is to be henceforth disregarded on all matters!

I agree.

Really? Really? If you can't even recognise that as sarcasm, I have serious doubts about your comprehension skills. Doubts that are strongly supported by your other 'analysis' of the issue. I suggest you follow the advice in your coward guest psuedonym.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

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 deny a private members' group that only allowed people over the age of 65 to be members the right to rent out university property at commercial rates?

So we've got hmm, abhorrent and acceptable there. It's self-evident to me why they're all different, I wonder why? I think this goes back to points I made earlier about the indelible associations. Sexism, in this case = snobbery. Racism, in this case = bigotry. Ageism, in this case = nothing, really.

[fearghas]

I would be most interested to find out what our Principal's stance on Fraternities, Sororities, and specifically Final Clubs at Harvard was.

"Male final clubs have long been a point of controversy at Harvard because of their implicit elitism. They do not allow women as members ... have historical traditions ... a reflection of Harvard's ... wealthy past than its present"

One would hope that she spoke out vehemently against such institutions.

Also, I note that many people here mention that anyone could do what the KK have done, in the past, namely the Balls, the clearing up on Raisin Monday, and the Procession. I assume that with the Procession Committee, this is already the case, and thus the procession could feasibly be managed by outside students; similarly the balls. As for the cleanup on Raisin Monday, physically, yes, other groups could well do it. But would any? I can't see many people volunteering for such an unglamourous and thankless task - it is hard enough to get people to sacrifice 1 hour of Raisin Sunday to tidy up Halls, let alone the quad filled with foam, litter, and other detritus.

While I'm sure this move will in no way jeopardise the frivolities of Raisin weekend, it will be no doubt interesting to see what arrangements are made for the foam fight in the quad.

It will be interesting to see what methods are used for the next rectorial drag, I'm sure a coach without a coachhouse will be in no fit state after having to brave a few Fife winters.

[Telinar]

My own problem (and maybe I'm wading in too late, but whatever), isn't that the KK are a single sex club in and of itself, as that's their perogative. If I took issue with that then I could just as easily start shouting at any private members club for being selective in who they admit. They have the right to free association and to be selective about who they let in, it's their club and they can make the rules. I personally don't like their elitist standards, or at least what I perceive of them and I think it would be better if they were meritocratic, but they likely won't take my views into consideration because it's their club, not mine. If I get too worked up about it, I'll start my own club with my own standards and they can moan about it in return and I won't change anything either. They're happy with their club, so good for them.

The problem I have with them is the fact that they've taken it upon themselves to represent the university and it's traditions. This is when their admissions standards run into a problem. By being the self-appointed guardians of St Andrews University traditions, they are publically stating that their society, which by their own admission has a discriminatory admissions policy (they say they're men only quite openly), has a monopoly over some fairly large aspects of this university. If the university supports them then it gives the impression that discriminatory policies are supported by the university at large which not only is going to annoy a lot of people, but opens them up to the possibility of legal issues. So I agree with Dr. Richardson's decision to distance the university officially from the KK. She hasn't banned them, she's just told them that they don't own the traditions of this institution and that because they don't fit in with university policy (which is in line with Scottish, and UK equality policy) that the university cannot be seen to support them. She hasn't banned them or ordered it disbanded, so she isn't saying they don't have the right to free association.

[Jono]

Sorry, Georgina. By choosing to set aside your four years of vocal opposition to the KK in order to allow the Rectorial Drag to happen without making too big a fuss, you are clearly a horrible hypocrite and your opinion is to be henceforth disregarded on all matters!

I agree.

Really? Really? If you can't even recognise that as sarcasm, I have serious doubts about your comprehension skills. Doubts that are strongly supported by your other 'analysis' of the issue. I suggest you follow the advice in your coward guest psuedonym.

I also thought your post was intended as a serious critique. You'd do well to make your intentions more clear in the future.

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 deny a private members' group that only allowed people over the age of 65 to be members the right to rent out university property at commercial rates?

Would you deny a private members' group that only allowed matriculated students to be members the right to rent out university property at below-commercial rates?

[Georgina]

Sorry, Georgina. By choosing to set aside your four years of vocal opposition to the KK in order to allow the Rectorial Drag to happen without making too big a fuss, you are clearly a horrible hypocrite and your opinion is to be henceforth disregarded on all matters!

I agree.

Really? Really? If you can't even recognise that as sarcasm, I have serious doubts about your comprehension skills. Doubts that are strongly supported by your other 'analysis' of the issue. I suggest you follow the advice in your coward guest psuedonym.

Don't worry, I understood. Maybe it's our massive female brains? (joke, before anyone jumps on me)

[RandomMusings]

Really? Really? If you can't even recognise that as sarcasm, I have serious doubts about your comprehension skills. Doubts that are strongly supported by your other 'analysis' of the issue. I suggest you follow the advice in your coward guest psuedonym.

Don't worry, I understood. Maybe it's our massive female brains? (joke, before anyone jumps on me)

I think it's fair to say that the comment from Mhuzzell would only be understood as sarcasm if the person knew both the poster and the target of the joke. If not, it is entirely possible for someone to seriously misunderstand.

This should not turn into a thread about personal attacks on individuals - it is really rather unfair - the issue is the KK, the Principal & Vice-Chancellor and the e-mail (& subsequent fallout).

[Bizarre Atheist]

How nasty this thread has become. Georgina, I think you're terribly nice and really rather useful. I voted for you and everything. Let's have brunch soon.