Andrew Mackenzie wrote:Huh? I object to “exclusive” clubs based on the gender of the person, as does most of modern society by the way, so it’s hardly a radical proposition.
That's the second time on this thread that you've claimed a large number of people agreed with your opinion. Would you care to cite a source? I'm serious; people object to all-male organisations because they think women oughtn't to be excluded, but the degree to which they could give a toss is generally determined by whether it would be worth a woman's while to join, and I can assure you it certainly wouldn't have been as far as the Kensington Club was concerned. There were actually two ladies we used to invite along anyway simply because their company was too delightful to be missed, but even if we'd been stricter about it it wouldn't have been for anyone else to tell us whom we could or couldn't have lunch with. By way of a satire of exclusivity one of the two and I recently formed our own dining club, which we decided would be the most exclusive in the world in that it would only ever admit the two of us. Should the joke affect how anyone looks at us?
Your link to also objecting to gay marriage is absurd. My view is that we have no right to tell people who they should love and marry (same sex or otherwise) in the same way that I think it is grossly unfair for a club to choose members on the basis of their sex. You may not agree, but I would suggest the less discrimination on the grounds of the sex someone is born, the better place the world will be.
My point was that nobody should have the right to tell anyone else what sort of relationships or other groups they should or shouldn't enter into, or on what basis. You seem to view the issue simply as one of non-discrimination, where as I see it as one of freedom. I'm not sure I see the virtue of preventing discrimination if it is not to further the cause of freedom, and so on a point of principle I'd say freedom is more important. Why should my right not to be excluded from some group or other supersede the right of the group to select its own membership?
Unfortunately I concede that I can’t impose my will universally and there is nothing I can do if a group of posh guys want to get together in their tartan trousers every so often. It is a free world and they can do what they wish. However, they should not be recognised by the University, should not be allowed to hold events that could be seen as University events and should not be allowed to use University property for their meetings.
Your arrogance here is breathtaking. "Unfortunately you can't impose your will universally"? Who the hell do you think you are, even to form judgements on the activities of these people, let alone to wish to prevent them if only society was foolish enough to give you the authority? Are you really so comfortable, so certain, that your opinion is objectively the correct one that you would actually seek to force it on others - that you would impose your will, with violence, as any attempt to cause people to do other than their free will dictates must involve, and paying no heed to the freedom about which you display such callous indifference?
If you are so cavalier about freedom, why on earth do you care whether people are discriminated against or not?
This idea that the KK’s running of activities is somehow justification for their continued stance on membership is quaint, but rather deluded.
On this occasion you confuse a question with an argument (the clue was in the question marks). My view was a statement of fact: the KK does things, ergo if the KK is not to do them, either somebody else does, or the things don't get done. Not controversial; my question was, what should the answer be (and to more immediate import, what are the university's answers).
Of course the KK hold events, many of which are very popular. Do people go to them because they are run by the KK? No (and infact the notion of the KK “brand” may well put some people off). There is no reason the KK need to run the Opening or May Ball. The Procession is going ahead this year as planned
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Where did you get this information from? It's not in the statement, anyway, but given that several users have already raised questions about what will actually happen to the Procession as a result, if you know something, might you feel like sharing?
but in future years a decision will need to be made about whether it continues with reduced KK club input or it cuts its ties with the University. I like the procession but I would like it even more if it wasn’t associated with the KK club (at least in its current form). What will probably happen in the short term is that it continues in its current form but the University makes it clear it isn’t involved in any official capacity.
None of which contradicts what I've just wrote, but again, please explain where you're getting your information from here.
You seem to be approaching this from the wrong direction. The more pressing question shouldn’t be “what do we do now the KK aren’t going to be involved?”, it should be “why can’t the KK drag themselves into the modern day and open up their membership?”
Not a bit of it! I couldn't care less whether the KK admits all men, all women, all babies or all frogs - as far as I'm concerned if the KK has no official position in St Andrews life then its membership is entirely a matter for them. However, the university indicated that it wanted to cut ties with the KK, so if the university would care to explain what reforms the KK would have to make before it would be prepared to reverse this decision, that would be another extremely useful contribution to the discussion, and we'd have to form our opinions based on what it came up with.
) is that it was the Principal who did it, not the non-elitist students themselves. 