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

[Andrew Mackenzie]

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?

I honestly cannot believe I am having to defend a position of sexual equality. The KK club discriminates on the basis of sex and therefore is at odds with the modern world. Come on.

Again, private clubs are free to do as they wish - the problem comes when they receive endorsements or the use of University land. That is what Louise Richardson has revoked here.

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?

My response to this is pretty much as before. In this day and age women shouldn't be excluded on the basis of the fact they are, you know, a woman. And most definitely the University should not be endorsing any club that holds that view.

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?

I fear you may have missed the rather obvious tongue in cheek tone of "Unfortunately I can't impose my will universally". To be fair, I thought it was pretty clear I wasn't serious and wasn't plotting some sort of dictatorial takeover of the world.

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).

My point is that there is very little the KK does that has to be done by the KK. There is no fundamental reason the SA, University of another society cannot run an opening and may ball.

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?

I do not know what will happen to the Procession in the future, but I suggested the most likely outcome in the short term is that it continues just without any involvement from the University. I believe Louise said something to that effect that in her statement...?

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.

Very helpfully, Louise Richardson did..."I look forward to the day when membership of the Kate Kennedy Club is open to every student of St Andrews at which point the university will be delighted to treat the Kate Kennedy Club in the same way as all other clubs and societies."

So, once the KK open their membership up to women then the University will consider reversing it's decision.

[Lukey2]

Well, that still doesn't make any sense, does it? The university never treated any other student society as it did the KK, and it rarely treats most other groups in any way at all.

Her e-mail is not half as cryptic as you insist. She has made two simple, interrelated points:

A.)The recruitment policies of the KK contradict the culture we are trying to create in St.Andrews.

B.)Until they change those recruitment policies, the University will no longer use any of its resources to facilitate the KK.

Georgina has already pointed out that most of the controversy is about the KK's access to University property. The most tangible effect of the Principal's new stance is that there will be no balls on University property and no interviews in University rooms. All the Principal is saying is that those privileges will be restored to the KK as soon as they stop being exclusive. When she says that they will be treated like any other society, she means that that access will be restored.

[Owen Wilton]

This is exhausting. Andrew, I agree with you. (Hearty handshake.)

Mr Bean, I promise I'll try to reign in my sarcasm; it's a powerful reflex. I have every respect for you personally but I do have some questions.

I do think that this is an issue the General Council has a legitimate interest in. What conclusion its members will draw I can't say because as yet we don't seem to be in possession of the full facts, but if it turns out that this announcement was made without due consideration of its implications, the Council would be neglecting its duty not to be critical.

I'm sorry, I really do not think that there is much to scrutinise here; I'm not terribly clear on what it is the General Council is supposed to be looking for in this situation. This policy isn't something which requires a feasibility study or a Royal Commission: the nature of the KK club was made clear to the Principal, she didn't like it, and that was the end of that. Let's all sing the Gaudeamus and go home. What arguments are there against her decision? I still haven't heard any. What is the clear, compelling case for reversing it? What, in her Boudicea-esque haste, did she fail to consider?

As I say, it looks a lot like a soft target was picked so she can show how modern and right-on she is.

Is this supposed to be a scintillating aperçu into university politics? I find it to be a superbly crass assertion. Why must we assume a Mandelsonian motive? Really, help me to understand this particular element of your thesis: one minute she's "Louise Bellatrix" out to pick a fight, issuing provocative rulings 'ex cathedra' without consideration for the consequences, and the next she's a consummate politician?

If the latter, what constituency is she trying to appease? No one needs to elect her; she doesn't need adulation. If for some reason she did decide to court the student body, an act of this scale would not have been a part of that strategy.
(Dr Richardson's intelligent, I don't know if you realised that: she's written books and everything.) The Principal has already secured the goodwill of many students by, you know, remembering people's names and taking the time to find out "what it is we do." These are trivial sleights of hand which must, to people enamoured of the style of her predecessors, look like witchcraft and demagoguery, but which are now actually expected of university executives.
This is all by way of saying the Louise Richardson Fanclub was already pretty big.

In any case, if we were to follow your logic, she wouldn't have 'rocked the boat': if she's so mercurial and populist she wouldn't have given herself the trouble of the controversy. She has, as was coolly established during the farcical R&A incident, better things to do with her time. That in itself speaks to the fact that she is doing this on principled grounds.

The more she comes under attack, the more I admire her.

[this is ridiculous]

Georgina has already pointed out that most of the controversy is about the KK's access to University property. The most tangible effect of the Principal's new stance is that there will be no balls on University property and no interviews in University rooms. All the Principal is saying is that those privileges will be restored to the KK as soon as they stop being exclusive. When she says that they will be treated like any other society, she means that that access will be restored.[/quote]

The KK pay for the use of LCL just like any other event and no interviews or meetings are held on university property. So, once again exactly what is the point considering the procession is to continue? They have to get their mail sent to a house not the mail room. Dr Richardson you revolutionary thinker you...

[James Shield]

Everything they said

[Haunted]

It isn't. Like I have said, St Andrews could be viewed as "exclusive" as it only selects the most academically able. The problem with the KK is that they select on the basis of gender.

Intelligence, like sex, may also not be something that people have control over, why is it any less of a crime than gender discrimination?

If you read my post you would have seen that I said there was nothing we can do if a group wants to meet privately - it can do as it wishes. However it should not be allowed to use University property when it discriminates against half of the student population.

The university can choose who to do business with but I don't think they are "allowed" to so to speak. They do so only because they can.

[David Bean]

Andrew, again I find myself at a loss to understand what you're arguing. One minute all all-male clubs are bad and there should be no exclusivity; the next it only matters if it's getting special treatment. Which is it? The second, I largely agree with, which is why I'm surprised that the statement should have focused so specifically on the Procession, which isn't even organised by the KK.

Lukey, your point follows on from this: the statement read in full doesn't leave the reader with any clear idea what the university is expecting to happen to the Procession now. It says it won't co-operate officially, but what does that mean? It could mean anything from providing no public support, through to actively preventing it. I would at least expect some reference to the group of people who actually organise the thing which, again, is not the same thing as the KK.

And Owen, this just about answers your question: these are important points, and I only want to know the answers. The university may be working pro-actively as I type to ensure the Procession goes ahead, or it might be doing nothing and expecting everything just to happen magically. Whilst I can't speak for anyone else, I'd like to think the General Council would take the view that the university ought to be doing its utmost to preserve the popular and widely enjoyed tradition that is the Procession.

Edit: woohoo, 3000!

[RandomMusings]

Ok - personal opinion time folks - I don't necessarily think the KK should ever be anything but all male. Same way that the Lumsden (who shall be my female equivalent throughout here) should be all female. There is no reason for this in my mind other than there should be the oppotunity for both genders to time to do things in their own groups.**** What's the difference to having an all male football team, or an all female rowing team - the view that they can't compete together because of physical strength is ludicrous - people don't want these kind of things to be mixed. Those sports where mixed works can mix fine - but here's the key thing..... they CHOOSE to mix or stay separate! How many of us here went to single sex schools?

Now, I know the KK or the Lumsden do things that mixed groups can do, and in those instances maybe the KK and Lumsden could work closely together - but why not let the groups stay inherently male or female in their own 'club' time. I'm sure many females do not wish to join the KK and neither do many males want to join the Lumsden.

Now what I have always seen as the negative side of the kk is their 'elitist' tendencies - and don't get me wrong, it's not necessarily the people - the kk members I know and am friends with are excellent people with no hint of superiority to their character (or at least they haven't changed for the worse whilst in the kk ). The issue that Dr Richardson should've ended with should've been solely on elitism - not racism, not gender - elitism. The stigma that is attached to the KK is one that the university cannot afford to continue to see linked to the university's already quite frankly awful reputation for neglecting those from less privileged backgrounds (I would not say that I am from a poor background, nor anything quite like that, but I would still put myself in the lower half of students here, which is amazing to me). I remember getting the e-mail from the KK in my first year stating that their membership interviews were going to take place - and I was absolutely shocked that such a thing could exist where you had to have interviews to be a member in this sense. I took a stance never to attend a KK event as a result back then as I didn't feel that I wanted to have an involvement with a group like that, even passively. Whilst my stance towards the KK has softened a little over the years, I have still never been to an opening ball, may ball, procession, fashion show etc - but I respect and maybe even admire the hard work and effort they put into promoting the town, maintaining town-gown relations and providing events for the general student body (providing you can afford them).

In summary, there is a place for the KK in this town - and as far as I'm concerned it is acceptable for this to be all male. The image needs to change somewhat, however, and by opening the membership up to a more varied selection of people (and not by interview! - do what everyone else does - have a committee to run things and let everyone else who wants to be a passive member) representative of the student body (basically anyone!) this would be an excellent first step. Maybe even remove the dress code - the image will drop markedly at that point! And maybe if the Lumsden or some female alternative could step up to become on a par with the KK, then the issue may resolve itself once and for all, and maybe even lead to a higher quality of events and the like. I hope that is a reasonably balanced view point and it will be the last serious comment I make on it on this thread or in general, for I don't see the point of endlessly looping debate.

****EDIT - Just to clarify: that's not to say that I believe sexual discrimination should take place in society as a whole - it is a wholey inappropriate and vile act to discriminate against others in any way. There must be the obvious times, however, where exceptions which do not hurt people may potentially be made with careful consideration - for a stupid example, if someone was doing an experiment which required jumping as high as you could from a crouched position, you would be highly like to have to discriminate against people with disabilities regarding their legs - sounds cruel and harsh, but is pretty much the only option in this circumstance, provided it is done in a nice kind and careful manner.... probably.

[Andy Monkey B]

Consider the CU Boy's Breakfasts or whatever they're called. Personally I find them equally distasteful, much in the same way I find being told to F-off because some girls are having a 'girl talk' moment.

Hmm it seems then that 'having periods' is exclusive and sexist, because boys aren't allowed to have them?

In the case of the 'girl talk' moments, surely it a sensible judgment to separate boys and girls at that particular age for such times, as having us stupid guys around surely impedes the process of gaining important knowledge. It isn't sexist to acknowledge that the way boys and girls behave around each other is sometimes not helpful to getting something done.

In the same way the CU boys breakfasts (honestly I'm not just rising to all the CU comments on here) are run because it's sometimes useful for guys to associate with each other without the presence of girls (of course if girls wanted to turn up, there would be no way of keeping them out, its just the hope that the event title and subject matter is enough to convince them not to come).

I, like everyone else on this forum I assume, am opposed to discrimination based on sex for the involvement of students in University life. However one must acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally different, and sometimes need to be treated differently (simple biology can tell you this). The issue is when such discrimination is irrelevant to the context.

[Lawdog]

Human rights act, anybody?

Discrimination by a public body against private persons (as members of an unincorporated association) on the basis of private associations and private beliefs? Article 9 much?

[Andrew Mackenzie]

Andrew, again I find myself at a loss to understand what you're arguing. One minute all all-male clubs are bad and there should be no exclusivity; the next it only matters if it's getting special treatment. Which is it? The second, I largely agree with, which is why I'm surprised that the statement should have focused so specifically on the Procession, which isn't even organised by the KK.

I thought I'd been pretty consistent.

My view is that all all male clubs are distasteful, however (and this is where we got into sticky territory of my imposing will) we can't impose that upon private clubs; we cannot stop individuals doing as they wish within the law. However, if they are going to stick to such discriminatory practices they should not be allowed access to University property and they definitely should not run "University" events. As Louise Richardson has said, the membership practices of the KK go against the ideals that a forward-thinking institution like St Andrews should stand for. Any association (even just use of property) between the University and the KK is a blight on the image and ideals of St Andrews and I'm glad it's coming to an end.

So, while I vehemently disagree with practice of all male clubs we of course can't stop them happening privately - people are free to meet up as they wish. But the issue here is that the KK will no longer be condoned or officially accepted by the University.

We can only hope that measures like today's will encourage clubs like the KK to see the light and modernise - perhaps now they can't hide in the cloak of acceptance of the University there will be some movement, who knows (but I doubt it).

[Frank]

Consider the CU Boy's Breakfasts or whatever they're called. Personally I find them equally distasteful, much in the same way I find being told to F-off because some girls are having a 'girl talk' moment.

Hmm it seems then that 'having periods' is exclusive and sexist, because boys aren't allowed to have them?

I was actually thinking more along the lines of 'gossiping', but yes: the fact of the matter is people are different too. I'm sceptical of why biology ought to be a reason to differentiate folks though. This is the same as my 'opposition' to all-male clubs. I'd perhaps venture so far as to say that the act of segregating (even if on something as trivial as biology) merely reinforces my disapproval for it.

But then I suspect I'm in a minority there when, in Life of Brian I sympathise with your fellow who feels he has a "Right" to get pregnant, even if he can't actually be pregnant...

The point, in essence, is that I don't think the gender gap is really as big as folks make it out to be. It's a choice/comfort thing and I think, at worst, we have to acknowledge that. At best we could ignore it and chat to girls about periods and they could have a laugh chatting to us about how sore it is to get a hard knock in the balls. I don't really think the pragmatic differences are that...significant.

But then I'm not an expert herein. There might well be exceedingly deep reasons to do that.

In terms of the CU boys breakfast (and I suppose I am jumping here, but it's not a persecutey jump, more a tangential one): What is there that only boys would have to talk about that girls wouldn't be supposed to be there for?

As I say it strikes me as merely reinforcing gaps, gaps which I doubt are a necessity in the first place!

Following the old Sinner Tradition

What about them folks who seem to genuinely think they're the wrong gender? Which way would that skew things? Does biology still act as the discriminator, or would it be neuroscience (if that were the root of the problem, of course)?

EDIT: My earlier question to the 'Hooray Reformists' or whoever they aren't

Is it not somewhat disturbing that the modernising 'act' comes from the Principal and not 'naturally' from the students? Or is the view rather that this is more akin to a gardner pruning the last unwanted leaves of the new pattern? Or something else again?

[Freaker]

Intelligence, like sex, may also not be something that people have control over, why is it any less of a crime than gender discrimination?

Universities, as places of higher learning, are set out for people with an incentive to use intellectual capabilities. It is not necessarily intelligence that is a deciding factor - it is the ability to cope in the intellectual environment a University provides. A person with low intelligence may do very well in tests through studying hard and have just as good a degree as a highly intelligent person who never studies. A girl can try as much as she likes and still not be admitted to the Kate Kennedy Club based on the set of genitalia she carries through life.


We are students at a world class university that is respected and honoured around the world. It is sensible, understandable and commendable that the Principal of such institution does not want the institution to actively support, and therefore tacitly consent to, the practices of an organisation that discriminates against half the student body in terms of membership. If there was a society that exclusively admitted people of a certain race the University would not want to be officially supporting it. If there was a society that admitted left-handed people only the University would not want to be officially supporting it.

This is not a discussion of what good or bad the Kate Kennedy Club has done - I doubt anyone here would claim the idea of a Procession of historical figures through town in and of itself is a bad thing, quite the contrary. It is a discussion of the University's support for an organisation with discriminatory selection criteria.

The vast majority of societies at this University admit anyone who wants to be a member. Some have positive selection criteria, the Kate Kennedy Club negatively excludes a whole group of people from the onset. The failure of the Club to apply equal opportunities criteria, when nearly everybody else does, and when selection of only males in no way furthers the Club's goals other than to adhere to dusty traditions, is an example of a closed-mindedness that in no way reflects this great University otherwise.

[Freaker]

Following the old Sinner Tradition

What about them folks who seem to genuinely think they're the wrong gender? Which way would that skew things? Does biology still act as the discriminator, or would it be neuroscience (if that were the root of the problem, of course)?

Interesting case. I'd love to hear from someone familiar with the Club's constitution. I would think in the end it would boil down to your physical sex. Of course sex change would spice up that debate again!

EDIT: My earlier question to the 'Hooray Reformists' or whoever they aren't

Is it not somewhat disturbing that the modernising 'act' comes from the Principal and not 'naturally' from the students? Or is the view rather that this is more akin to a gardner pruning the last unwanted leaves of the new pattern? Or something else again?

Two things here. For one, I believe it has been said somewhere before as well that there have been efforts to limit involvement of the Club in certain activities earlier. When Brian Lang refused to take part in the procession many moons ago, it was because somebody brought the discrimination to his attention. Whether that was a student group, I am not sure.

Secondly, as has also been said somewhere on here, the vast majority of the student body goes to the Club's events because of the nature of the events and not the nature of the Club. I would argue more people don't go because they are hosted by the Club than go specifically because they are hosted by it, although I have no evidence to back up this claim. If asked, I believe a majority of students would prefer the club to admit members of both genders, even if they don't specifically oppose it in its current structure. Those who directly oppose its policy most likely would not know how to challenge it other than to stay away from its events. Which a large part of the student body does.

[James Shield]

Press coverage:

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Pri ... 5161131.jp

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -club.html

[Hennessy]

Press coverage:

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Pri ... 5161131.jp

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -club.html

Washing out dirty linen in public eh? I am beginning to despise this Principal more and more, not only for her limp liberal ways but also for her lack of imagination and blatant appeal to nonsensical populist mores. She may believe, to her own self-regarding credit, that she is some kind of crusader for justice and humanity or some such bollocks, but in fact she is attempting to wipe out institutions which make this university so diverse and different in the first place.

And some of you hate-filled, limp wristed bleeding heart fascist liberals are willing to support her! I don't know what is more disgusting, her gross appeal to the masses or your eager response to it. You debase yourselves by your consent, you piss in the very underpants you agreed to put on when you arrived in St Andrews. You betray other students for some Irish puritan crusader who simply seeks targets to consolidate her own position and rank by massing your knee-jerk reactions into a credible force for her own agenda. You disgust me, and not because I like the KK or any society for that matter. Goodnigjt.

[Marie55]

Ok, I haven't had time to read through this whole thread so sorry if this has been dealt with already...but what exactly is the KK membership policy? Obviously, men only, but what are the other criteria?
I've heard rumours (like that they actually take parent's income in to account) but they are probably exaggerations. At least I hope so.

[Andrew Mackenzie]

Intelligence, like sex, may also not be something that people have control over, why is it any less of a crime than gender discrimination?

Don't be silly, selecting people on the basis of academic ability is not discrimination in the sense we are referring to. Studying for a degree here requires a certain amount of intellectual rigour and therefore it would be pointless to allow students who obviously aren't up to it in. I did not cry discrimination when my high school football team wouldn't let me in or the choir didn't let me sing - I didn't meet the requirements (can't kick a ball and I sing like a drug monkey) to do the job, so to speak.

Being of a particular sex should be neither here nor there - it is not a requirement and therefore stipulating male or female is unfair discrimination. It is not difficult, I really cannot fathom why so many people seem to struggle with the concept.

We are a top University therefore we should be selecting the brightest students. When they come here they should be treated as equals and not expect the University to be supporting, in any way, shape or form, a group that would deny entry to 50% of them simply due to their sex.

[Owen Wilton]

Washing out dirty linen in public eh? I am beginning to despise this Principal more and more, not only for her limp liberal ways but also for her lack of imagination and blatant appeal to nonsensical populist mores.

Clearly you weren't paying attention when I addressed this a couple of hours ago. Go to the bottom of the class.

...she is attempting to wipe out institutions which make this university so diverse and different in the first place.

Dr Richardson merely said that the KK weren't going to get any more milk and cookies, she didn't gun down the Procession. Anyway, we've already established that whilst we're quite, quite happy for people to exercise their freedom to go off into a corner and be exclusive together, they do not have the right to the automatic blessing of the university authorities and nor do they have the right to act as our ambassadors. I fail to see what's so doctrinaire about the Principal's stance.

Please argue against me; it will be fun.

And some of you hate-filled, limp wristed bleeding heart fascist liberals are willing to support her! I don't know what is more disgusting, her gross appeal to the masses or your eager response to it. You debase yourselves by your consent, you piss in the very underpants you agreed to put on when you arrived in St Andrews. You betray other students for some Irish puritan crusader who simply seeks targets to consolidate her own position and rank by massing your knee-jerk reactions into a credible force for her own agenda. You disgust me, and not because I like the KK or any society for that matter. Goodnigjt.

Thanks so much for this. I've printed it out and now it's hanging on my wall. We're getting t-shirts: "limp-wristed bleeding-heart fascist liberals" is good, but it could be pithier...leave it with me. I'm going to try to affiliate at the next meeting of the Societies Committee, would you care to join?

[Thomas Schratwieser]

I'm ambivalent in regards to the Kate Kennedy Club, but this is the wrong way to go about promoting equality and reducing our elitist image. If the telegraph is to be believed the KKC will no longer be permitted to use University property for their wicked ways, but what about other single-sex societies? Her statement is directed at ALL university societies and clubs, and if I'm correct that includes sports CLUBS, that base their entry requirements on gender. Will the Men's Rugby Club no longer be able to use the University sport facilities because they don't accept women? Will the Women's Shinty Club be held to the same stringent mores? Will the Accidentals, an all-female a cappella group with University recognition, or The Other Guys, an all-male group, be forced out of University buildings for their rehearsals and performances?

Wrong or right her "decree" seems vague, needlessly broad, and with far-reaching consequences.