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

[777]

Congratulations, you have just failed to comprehend six pages of discussion on this matter.

For all the newcomers - anyone can do whatever they please, in private. It is the University's support and the Club's official recognition that is at the heart of what is being discussed.

No, you have failed to answer my question.

But surely your question whether the KK had done anything worse than exclude women is a pointless one, seeing that exclusivity is why this entire matter has been brought up. They might also eat babies, but that's not relevant at the moment.

It's not a pointless question. It moves the debate on from merely re-hashing the point of should the Principal have sent the message or not.

I genuinely want to know what it is about the KKC that seems to stir such emotion in people. Posters trotting out the old "you've missed the point" barbs indicate that whilst they may dislike the KKC they don't know why they do. It is possible to bring other points into this debate without having to spell them out, everyone here is supposed to be intelligent. Stop seeing a question as a person automatically disagreeing with your point of view.

[Senethro]

haha what? I didn't see that henessey post but thats one worth saving for a rainy day

[Craig]

It's not a pointless question. It moves the debate on from merely re-hashing the point of should the Principal have sent the message or not.

I genuinely want to know what it is about the KKC that seems to stir such emotion in people. Posters trotting out the old "you've missed the point" barbs indicate that whilst they may dislike the KKC they don't know why they do. It is possible to bring other points into this debate without having to spell them out, everyone here is supposed to be intelligent. Stop seeing a question as a person automatically disagreeing with your point of view.

Ok, fair enough, it's just that your question said "Apart from excluding women and being seen as somewhat elitist" - which I thought was excluding the complaint. Which was my objection to the question, rather than it appearing to disagree with my position.

My position on this is that the procession is set up to appear as a tradition of the University of St Andrews, when it's not - it's a tradition of the Kate Kennedy Club, which is a private members' club. Because of this, I only think it right that the university avoids giving its stamp to the event, and indeed any event which the KK hold and organise. I believe that even were the KK to open its membership to women, it still wouldn't justify the university's official participation in their events, as it would continue to be a private members' club.

Saying this, I don't see why this should bar the KK from renting out university property, which is something that seems to have been suggested will happen, though I'm not certain that the original email either confirmed or denied. I would criticise it from this point, as it was quite vague in what the statement actually means from a practical point of view.

[777]

It's not a pointless question. It moves the debate on from merely re-hashing the point of should the Principal have sent the message or not.

I genuinely want to know what it is about the KKC that seems to stir such emotion in people. Posters trotting out the old "you've missed the point" barbs indicate that whilst they may dislike the KKC they don't know why they do. It is possible to bring other points into this debate without having to spell them out, everyone here is supposed to be intelligent. Stop seeing a question as a person automatically disagreeing with your point of view.

Ok, fair enough, it's just that your question said "Apart from excluding women and being seen as somewhat elitist" - which I thought was excluding the complaint. Which was my objection to the question, rather than it appearing to disagree with my position.

My position on this is that the procession is set up to appear as a tradition of the University of St Andrews, when it's not - it's a tradition of the Kate Kennedy Club, which is a private members' club. Because of this, I only think it right that the university avoids giving its stamp to the event, and indeed any event which the KK hold and organise. I believe that even were the KK to open its membership to women, it still wouldn't justify the university's official participation in their events, as it would continue to be a private members' club.

Saying this, I don't see why this should bar the KK from renting out university property, which is something that seems to have been suggested will happen, though I'm not certain that the original email either confirmed or denied. I would criticise it from this point, as it was quite vague in what the statement actually means from a practical point of view.

Thanks.

[Thomas Schratwieser]

However,

I think we must be careful about making a general principle on this matter. The KK’s membership criteria is a fairly clear cut matter of exclusion. However, there are a lot of clubs which fall into a grey area where criteria-based membership applies. The single-sex sports clubs are relevant to this discussion, considering the R&A row, and the issue over same-sex golf clubs in general. In terms of the university, are the bands or aCappella groups discriminatory? Reasonably; no. Arguably, yes. What about the UOTC? The army has selective membership after all. Probably the most recent example of this grey area are the fashion shows (one of which the Students’ Association; paragon of social inclusion, organizes), where models are select on no better criteria than their physical appearance!

The KK issue was treated like a one off. If we start demanding uncompromising inclusionist policies, we truly will end up scrapping everything good about this institution in the process.

Thank you for looking beyond the "tradition" of single-sex sports teams (because, as there are female footballers who are good enough to get on teams that are traditionally male, and vice versa, are they not being excluded simply due to the circumstances of their birth? Are we not an enlightened society that believes that men and women are equal in all respects?) and thinking about the ramifications that this precedent could have on societies seeking assistance from the University in the future.

The UOTC is something I hadn't even thought of, but I was denied membership in my first year due to the circumstances of my birth (not UK citizenship), which, to be honest, I understand, but at the same time if you make broad generalisations (or, to quote "Clerks", a generalisation about broads?) regarding societies' policies to accept people based on their birth: gender, race, nationality, upbringing, wealth, etc., then you are setting almost every other society or club for a fall.

You can't shriek in horror at "separate but equal" between the KK and Lumsden one minute stating that the traditions inherent are worthless today whilst insisting upon the same thing between sports teams because of a traditional gender split.

[Thomas Schratwieser]

Saying this, I don't see why this should bar the KK from renting out university property, which is something that seems to have been suggested will happen, though I'm not certain that the original email either confirmed or denied. I would criticise it from this point, as it was quite vague in what the statement actually means from a practical point of view.

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

At the end it says

"The decision means it will no longer be able to use university premises to conduct its business."

[Craig]

So it does, I didn't notice that one. The email however makes no mention of this, which is concerning - if true. I can't see any real reason why the KK shouldn't be allowed to rent out property like any other private group would.

[Frank]

Saying this, I don't see why this should bar the KK from renting out university property, which is something that seems to have been suggested will happen, though I'm not certain that the original email either confirmed or denied. I would criticise it from this point, as it was quite vague in what the statement actually means from a practical point of view.

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

At the end it says

"The decision means it will no longer be able to use university premises to conduct its business."

Interesting. Craig puts an fine point to, but also the email doesn't make mention of the Principal's alleged tiff with the R&A. Whilst on one hand I can believe it was a motivating factor, the otherhand supposesthe principle is unlikely to be that childish or even bothered by the R&A thing...it seemed a bit...irrelevant. One wonders how much speculation and gossip has been absorbed into the papers' views on this. Unsurprising, really, even my uncle was quizzing me about it all this afternoon.

[Freaker]

...because, if there's a female footballer who is good enough to get on a men's team...

Ouch.

[Thomas Schratwieser]

...because, if there's a female footballer who is good enough to get on a men's team...

Ouch.

I chose arbitrary genders; my apologies for any offense as it was not my intention. It has been amended.

[777]

I'm really not sure at all that the Principal is right on this one. Just because a club wants to be single sex doesn't mean it's wrong. The KKC has done a great deal for the University over the years and had a great deal given in return. Unless she or someone else is able to list specific wrong-doings I'd say she made a bum call on this one.

[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.

[irritated alumnus]

The vice-chancellor can of course ban whom she likes from university property, but frankly this seems to be an idiotic move from her: if the procession*, opening ball and may ball are abandoned (i think unlikely) or made smaller than no one will have benefited apart from a few members of the university who get a smug warm glow about 'taking a stand'.

Men can not be selected for the university womens' rugby club purely due to their gender - if you accept arguements about national rules governing sport barring them playing, you are saying that discrimination is ok if it's too inconvenient to fight. No matter how much practice you do, most people will not be could enough to get into certain choirs - simply due to how they were born. Or is 'seperate but equal' now Richardson's policy?

What annoys me most of all as an alumnus is that the first two bits of news i've read about the new vice-chancellor since she took over were not new donations being raised or better scholars being recruited, but her being stupid enough to admit to having considered joining the IRA and this latest bit of fun-cancelling. I'll be damned if I send her any money until I hear she's actually done something to improve or help scholarship at the university.


*personally, if I were the KK, i'd add her to this year's procession in some suitable form - a sweetie-stealing witch perhaps?

[Evonne]

It also makes me question what's going to happen about other societies - will the CU be forced to allow athesists to join? Or is this just about the KK, as it's the one of the most prominent student clubs?

I'm pretty sure that the CU would be more than happy to allow athiests to join - though not in CU myself they appear if anything to be very keen to involve as much of the student body as possible. There are many societies that encourage involvement from people who bear very little logical association to them... in fact the vast majority of StA's associated clubs love new people walking through the door... the main exception being the KK and Lumsden... and that's where the heart of the matter is - tradition does not really justify sexism or elitism. Would it be justifiable to deny women the vote in the name of 'tradition', to prevent them working in the armed forces, to keep them in the home? These stances would all have a traditional basis but are no longer deemed acceptable by society. Now it would be ridiculous to say that men-only and women-only clubs be banned - we have the right to choose our groups and associations. However, it doesn't appear particularly ridiculous to declare that a publically funded institution cannot support a society that discriminates on the basis of sex (I'm pretty sure the KK isn't racist, so i agree that should not have been included in the Principal's letter). I know that I don't particularly feel comfortable with the KK representing myself or my University --> I appreciate the hard work they do, the events they co-ordinate and the great work they do for charity, but as far as I'm concerned, University resources are for the use of everyone, irrespective of gender, race, socio-economic circumstance (!) and the KK undermine this ethos. Considering that every new society desiring Uni affiliation needs to submit a constitution declaring first and foremost the commitment not to discriminate according to sex, race, religion etc, why should the KK be exempt? Tradition? I think not.

As for Lumsden, as far as I'm aware they are not Uni-affiliated (or at least they are not listed under Uni-affiliated societied on Union website), therefore they're not particularly relevant to the decision made.

[777]

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. The Principal has made a decision on behalf of every student and member of this University based on her point of view. I have every right to say I disagree with it. Dr Richardson is not infallible. The support the University has given the KKC over the years has been more than reciprocated.

I'm a woman and she has made that decision on my behalf. I choose not to be outraged because a male club doesn't want to have me as a member.

[Craig]

I'm pretty sure that the CU would be more than happy to allow athiests to join - though not in CU myself they appear if anything to be very keen to involve as much of the student body as possible.

I was under the impression that the CU weren't affiliated with the University because of their requirement to sign an article of faith before joining, which would exclude atheists amongst others. I don't doubt they are keen for atheists to attend their events, however.

Someone feel free to correct me on the faith thing.

[Bizarre Atheist]

This chain of events seems fairly simple really:

1. The KK used to get special treatment from the University in various ways.
2. This wasn't particularly fair on other societies anyway.
3. Dr Louise Awesome* Richardson saw this arrangement and judged it inappropriate and the club at best undeserving of such status, at worst detrimental to the University.
4. Dr Richardson (controversially for a Principal) actually did something about it.

Why the alumni are so up-in-arms is beyond me. A serious attack of the not-in-my-day virus, it would seem. That students are particularly bothered about this now is surprising, that the Sinner-dwelling alumni are so furious is a teeny tiny bit sad.

As a loose measure of current students' popular opinion on this topic, I recommend a quick scan of Facebook - yesterday's flood of pro-Richardson statuses was a joy to behold. But then again that's probably to be expected since all my friends and I are hate-filled, limp wristed bleeding heart fascist liberals. In fact there's even a group for us to all to join and discuss the next glorious bandwagon we'll be jumping on: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=94337813624

More news coverage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 993666.stm

* may not actually be her middle name.

[Bizarre Atheist]

What annoys me most of all as an alumnus is that the first two bits of news i've read about the new vice-chancellor since she took over were not new donations being raised or better scholars being recruited, but her being stupid enough to admit to having considered joining the IRA and this latest bit of fun-cancelling. I'll be damned if I send her any money until I hear she's actually done something to improve or help scholarship at the university.

It's true, if you haven't heard about it, it hasn't happened. Don't be deterred by the fact that these two pieces of information are headline-grabbing and controversial. In fact under Blang's stewardship the Times regularly ran a column about improved funding revenues and new appointments to the University, so numerous and enthralling were they.

Golly I've really got my sarcasm hat on this afternoon. Must be that Wilton boy's influence.

[Frank]

As a loose measure of current students' popular opinion on this topic, I recommend a quick scan of Facebook - yesterday's flood of pro-Richardson statuses was a joy to behold. But then again that's probably to be expected since all my friends and I are hate-filled, limp wristed bleeding heart fascist liberals.

Frankly, I found the 'brief scan of Facebook method' particularly disappointing. The sycophantic voices of unreserved and uncritical support were somewhat disheartening, truth be told. It indicates, to me, that folks were jumping the gun or reading too much into it. The frantic self-(well, principal-)congratulatory statuses were definitely inducing some genuine facepalm action.

I might add that a quick scan of facebook also indicates there might've been a small measure of alcohol involved on the hate-filled limp wristed bleeding heart facist liberal front.

I'd also suggest that one's Facebook-status-updated-in-favour circle isn't directly indicative of actual opinion on the ground.

Joy to behold? More along the lines of eye-meltingly inane. I assume my Facebook friend circle isn't too different or distinct from that of most other regular sinner users.

Also, see my Avatar. It's registering a blip. Now two.

[irish200]

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. The Principal has made a decision on behalf of every student and member of this University based on her point of view. I have every right to say I disagree with it. Dr Richardson is not infallible. The support the University has given the KKC over the years has been more than reciprocated.

I'm a woman and she has made that decision on my behalf. I choose not to be outraged because a male club doesn't want to have me as a member.

777 is female?! *head explodes*