Model Principal!?

[Guest]

I mean, I don't like her, but I said "heck. I'll give her a chance, see what she can do."

Then I read this:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/St-Andrews-University-principal39s-4.6319368.jp

Several million pounds has just been thrown at this little operation. Was it worth it?

[Guest]

Exactly what the fuck is she on?

[DACrowe]

I mean, I don't like her, but I said "heck. I'll give her a chance, see what she can do."

Then I read this:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/St-Andrews-University-principal39s-4.6319368.jp

Several million pounds has just been thrown at this little operation. Was it worth it?

Huh. Deja vu.

Although his profile picture seems to be taken from the KK parade, I know Mufadal Jiwaji isn't in the KK. Also, having been in the parade a couple of times, you don't have to fully agree with all the KK stands for to accept an invitation to be part of this town/gown tradition.

True enough, o anonymous one. I guess I might just say that if I were a member of the KK, I might hold grudges. And if, as someone above suggested, the source for this article was a student it may well have been one with a grudge borne against the Principal. And if I were serving as a source for the article, given I didn't necessarily want to explicitly link the article to the KK I might arrange an interview with someone I knew who was not actually in the KK himself but was nonetheless friendly with the society. I wouldn't know, but I imagine most of those invited to take place in the parade are friends of the society.

This comment was made in the article

Dr. Richardson DOES perform brilliantly. While donations for universities have gone down £143 million across the UK, St. Andrews has NOT experienced a drop in donations, in fact there's been a small increase!

Can anyone confirm this? If they can, the point about the residence seems to be less of an issue. After all, if someone says 'I X would be useful for fundraising', they get X and then outperform other people in fundraising, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt due to success and say "heck, I guess they probably did need it for fundraising". Is that wrongheaded?

[Guest]

as someone above suggested, the source for this article was a student it may well have been one with a grudge borne against the Principal. And if I were serving as a source for the article, given I didn't necessarily want to explicitly link the article to the KK I might arrange an interview with someone I knew who was not actually in the KK himself but was nonetheless friendly with the society. I wouldn't know, but I imagine most of those invited to take place in the parade are friends of the society.

Might just be coincidence...but one of the authors of the Scotsman piece has a Facebook page listing her as a 2010 student at St Andrews. Not too bright...

[Guest]

True enough, o anonymous one. I guess I might just say that if I were a member of the KK, I might hold grudges. And if, as someone above suggested, the source for this article was a student it may well have been one with a grudge borne against the Principal. And if I were serving as a source for the article, given I didn't necessarily want to explicitly link the article to the KK I might arrange an interview with someone I knew who was not actually in the KK himself but was nonetheless friendly with the society. I wouldn't know, but I imagine most of those invited to take place in the parade are friends of the society.

What, you think some KK-aligned cabal is responsible for all of Richardson's bad press? Please- she brings it on herself. Anyway, that group can barely organise a ball, let alone a public relations insurgency.

Whatever the motivations are for the person who brought Dr Richardson's real estate investment to the attention of the Scotsman, their motivations do nothing to diminish the fact that this is an incredibly controversial principal, and because of this, some of us have serious reservations regarding her fitness to run a university.

Why reservations? Well: she was controversial when she was appointed. In the little over a year she's been in power, the controversy has only become more severe. She's publicly humiliated and done her best to ban an independent student group with longstanding connections to the University (the KK), engaged in questionable PR stunts (WSJ article with ridiculous fashion shoot) and approved questionable expenditures (the house on the Scores and associated building reshuffle).

As regards your fundraising point: even if donations have seen a "small increase,"I doubt they've increased enough to make up for the fact that the principal just blew a cool £4,000,000 on her personal residence.

[Lucy Kinder]

Please do not speculate without knowing the facts. I wrote that Scotsman article and no I do not have any links or allegiance to the KK or grudge towards the Principal. All the information is, in fact, true and Brian Lang did make the comment above, see the guardian link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... cation.uk3
It would be libellous to attribute a quote to somebody if they did not say it, and all facts are rigorously checked.

[the_third_man]

Brian Lang did make the comment above, see the guardian link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... cation.uk3
It would be libellous to attribute a quote to somebody if they did not say it, and all facts are rigorously checked.

OK -- I only wondered about it because Braetrees was a comparable size. (Although it would only be libellous if it were somehow damaging.) He does say, though, that he only agreed with the court's view that it was inappropriately large and grand *and* had to be converted for academic purposes.

Incidentally, isn't that letter of Brian's a bit misleading about the number of parties, official or private, that he was holding? Maybe he didn't hold that many at Braetrees, but he frequently held them at Deans Court too. (Turfing residents out of the common room and library and creating a lot of noise, despite frequent complaints from residents. I once complained to him personally about the noise level after midnight and his response was words to the effect of "get lost".) Did he do that at any other halls?

[Pointing out the flaws in your shoddy journalism]

Lucy, if you want to write a vitriolic 'exposé' of your University's supposed extravagance to advance your own journalistic career, then fine, go ahead. But perhaps you should consider that you might get further in life by giving people the benefit of the doubt and taking the time to seek out opinions from both sides.

Louise Richardson was brought here primarily for her expertise as a fundraiser and proven track record at the Radcliffe Institute. Why wasn't this mentioned? It is, after all, a central point in this whole debate. The University appointed an expert fundraiser, who then requested a tool to help her to do her job. After careful consideration it was decided that restoring University House to its original purpose (albeit with fully two-thirds of the house dedicated to public rooms, in contrast with previous years) would help advance the University's cause by enabling it to host potential donors in a much better environment that it had previously. This was not a decision made unilaterally by Dr Richardson, as your piece implies.

Not only that, but the series of moves helped to kill several birds with one stone. Art History needed a larger building, North Street was in desperate need of refurbishment to meet 21st century building standards and the departments that had previously been housed there needed more space. The cost of these moves cannot be attributed to Dr Richardson. Additionally, once the housing market has recovered and Braetrees is put up for sale, this will offset a large portion of the cost of the refurbishment of University House.

Perhaps your information request could also have asked for figures related to the University's fundraising performance over the past 18 months? Surely that would be the true measure of whether this investment has paid off so far.

Finally, you seem determined to set this up as Dr Richardson vs. the students. You were unable to get a comment from Andrew Keenan, but why not seek out the views of others who perhaps would be able to speak with more authority than the uninformed bystander you found?

All in all, your article seems to be something of a cheap shot. I hope you can look Dr Richardson in the eye when your name is read out at graduation.

[RedCelt69]

I hope you can look Dr Richardson in the eye when your name is read out at graduation.

And will you look Lucy in the eye?

Sorry... my Humour Monkey likes the idea that Dr Richardson might have come here to make her own case.

[DACrowe]

Spec-u-la-tion [...] 4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.

Please do not speculate without knowing the facts.

Quite right. I apologise. In the future I'll reserve my speculation only for things which I know to be true (I'm not sure what I'll do in cases of uncertainty; overt declarations seem the way to go: "The dark side of the moon hosts furious reptiles!" "David Cameron hates his grandmother!" "The Queen is made of frogs!" Maybe this is how David Icke got started.)

Do you think there's a slight slant in the article in favour of attributing unfavourable motivations to the Principal? I mean I'm not a journalist, but it does occur to me I might have asked the following questions: (a) What is this 'multi-million pound fundraising campaign' and why is the redevelopment of University House apparently so important to it? (b) Why did they chose the 'domino' approach to the redevelopment instead of the more obvious approach of moving Art History into the Greyfriars School site? (c) Why do all the official university spokes-people insist on giving the cost of the redevelopment of University House in isolation from the cost of shuffling the other facilities round. For example; what did Kevin Dunion say when you asked him about the overall cost of the project rather than University House specifically? (d) Why did University Court approve the Principals 'flit' (as you whimsically call it in the headline)? If it is a vanity project then... why do they care about appeasing Louise Richardson's vanity? They're presumably supposed to be a check on the Principal. If they okayed it then one must assume either that there were kosher reasons for doing so or else they've become dysfunctional as an element in the decision making apparatus of the University.

I mean, I'm not telling you how to go about your business (lord knows I hardly do my own) but it strikes me that if you have two groups of people assigning alternate motivations for the moves there might be ways to investigate who is correct.

What, you think some KK-aligned cabal is responsible for all of Richardson's bad press.

No. I'm just saying that if I were writing an article which was critical of the principal I know where I'd go for a student reaction quote. The outgoing Student Association President declines to comment. So his elected successor is approached instead? No. The Director of Representation for the Student Association? No. Some chap who was in the Kate Kennedy parade. I have no doubts that he's just a nice guy and he and Lucy go way back. Still if I were allowed to speculate, which apparently I'm not, I'd have guessed that not knowing though he he was in the parade he isn't actually a member and not having Lucy herself here to set things straight that he had been approached because they were looking for a negative student quote and went to an organisation known not to be a great fan of the Principal's to get one. Still, I assume there's easier ways to do that if they wanted to. "Do you think it was a good idea for the Louise Richardson to spend £4million pounds of the University's money to move into University House." Armed with that question I could get you a whole list of negative reaction quotes from students in Tesco tomorrow.

[wild_quinine]

Well done, DAC. Exellent post.

Also some praise for Lucy is due, for coming here to set us straight.

It is not easy to be a journalist. It is almost impossible to be a good one, and you are usually penalised rather than rewarded for putting in the extra.

Add to that it looks for all the world like news is a thankless industry with no idea how to adapt to modern times, and you'd need to be some kind of a saint to make any effort at all.

Don't expect us not to criticise, is all. The article was shite, and you got called. If you can't get used to that feeling then do a better job, or do a different one.

[Mufadal Jiwaji]

I find it highly amusing that my facebook profile picture has caused such consternation amongst the Sinner's ranks.

I wouldn't know, but I imagine most of those invited to take place in the parade are friends of the society.

That's like saying the 1200+ people who attend the May Ball are 'friends of the society'. Just to clarify, I am not a member of the Kate Kennedy Club, nor did the club have any influence whatsoever on my thoughts in the Scotsmen piece.

the uninformed bystander

Although you may think I am ill-informed, I don't think my quote says anything to suggest I am uninformed.

he had been approached because they were looking for a negative student quote and went to an organisation known not to be a great fan of the Principal's to get one

I categorically was not approached because I would give a negative soundbite; indeed, Lucy, the primary author of the piece, had no input or knowledge of what I would say since it was SHÂN ROSS who conducted my interview which led to the quotation in the article. Personally, I feel it's an absolute disgrace that the union refused to comment: whether negative or positive they should have said something.

Finally, my own opinion on the polarised argument of *STFU it's all about a venue for fundraising* vrs *You elitist toff, we are all poor and need money for books and underwear* I'd like to think that the University already had plenty of rooms appropriate for wining and dining potential doners (LCH, Parliament Hall, etc.)

[DACrowe]

Always fun to be misquoted. Oh well

That's like saying the 1200+ people who attend the May Ball are 'friends of the society'.

a) Not to labour the point, but the idea that the people who take part in the parade are analogous to those who attend the Ball is absurd. The latter involves one buying a ticket and is an option freely available to all (they don't, so far as I'm aware, exercise any control as to who buys the tickets) whereas

I categorically was not approached because I would give a negative soundbite; indeed, Lucy, the primary author of the piece, had no input or knowledge of what I would say since it was SHÂN ROSS who conducted my interview which led to the quotation in the article.

Curiouser and curiouser. Okay;

b) Why then were you approached? If you aren't in a position of student leadership or representation, if you aren't a friend of Lucy's and you aren't someone they targeted to get the reaction quote they wanted... who are you? I mean, I'm sure you're nice and all but do you think, staking a step back and looking at it objectively, it makes all that much sense to have quoted you in the article?

...nor did the club have any influence whatsoever on my thoughts in the Scotsmen piece.

Okay. Not wanting to be a hypocrite, and impose on you higher standards than I impose on myself but... what did influence your thoughts on the piece. I mean, did you take part in the meetings of the University Court (or whoever) on the subject? Were you covering the move for the Saint? Have you been discussing the subject with Andrew Keenan or something? Would you consider yourself 'informed' and if so why? And if not... why did you think it was a good idea to give comment to a newspaper?

[Jos Dad]

If the Principal wants to be a fashion icon, I do wish she would get her robes right. When she was in the Citizen the other week with the caption "University Principal" but wearing the Vice-Chancellor's gown, I put it down to the sub-editor. However she is now on the University website home page, again in the same gown, when she cannot possibly be officiating as vice-chancellor as Sir Ming is also in the picture. Whatever his faults, at least Lang was punctillious in changinging into his Principal's gown in such pictures.