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

[exnihilo]

I think you may need a short lesson in the role of an SRC rep, you're not a constituency MP, so blarting on about representative democracy is pointless.

[Thackary]

I have been led to believe that the Kate Kennedy Club and Kate Kennedy Procession Committee are two separate entities.

Wait a second, there seems to be a HUGE hole in this whole deal here! The Kate Kennedy Procession Committee is the organisation officially in charge of the procession, and is not gender exclusive. So withdrawing support for the procession is surely distinct from withdrawing support for the Kate Kennedy Club? What is the logic behind this one? What, in fact, is going on?

By Jove, I think he's got it!


For others:
"Disinterested" means unaffected by the outcome - not the same as uninterested.
The Union building was built in 1972, and opened in 1973. Admittedly, the architects hadn't realised that 60s architecture was fairly crappy.
Turnout at debates, or SRC meetings doesn't really convey the true opinions of the student body. And while yes, the student body did elect its representatives, the issue of same-sex groups and affiliations to University or Union didn't rear its head during the elections campaign.

Thing is, it isn't actually relevant to this whole situation - I forgot to mention earlier that the Kate Kennedy Club is not affiliated to the Students' Association, and so there is actually no support to withdraw.

So are we going to agree on what the Principal meant to say in her email? I interpret it to meant that she's not going to offer any special privileges to any student group which doesn't allow all students the opportunity of joining. To be honest, I think that's fair enough.

I don't however agree with removing support from something which is open to everyone and actively benefits the University.

And for what it's worth, I think the Students' Association could handle an event like the Opening Ball, but with the current setup (staffing levels and commercial interests) it wouldn't be in its own interests to do it. The Kate Kennedy Club has been doing a decent job of staging the Opening Ball. The Principal withdrawing her support probably won't make any difference to that. We'll either see an Opening Ball held in an alternative location (and there are plenty of those around), or perhaps better still, we'll see a new group emerge from this mess; a Kate Kennedy Club Events Committee, open to everyone.

And I really don't think we need to get Bean in here.

[RandomMusings]

And I really don't think we need to get Bean in here.

Seconded

[Thackary]

Haha, I meant that we don't need to discuss democracy!


Having just read the motion to the SRC, I'm not sure it really makes sense. Withdrawing support and participation from an all inclusive celebration of the University because you disagree with a separate group's membership policy?
It's like saying "I disagree with the the policies imposed by the Biology department's laboratories, so let's boycott the Graduation dinner"

[Lid]

It's like saying "I disagree with the the policies imposed by the Biology department's laboratories, so let's boycott the Graduation dinner"

You're really not getting this, are you, Thackary? It's not the same as saying that, because those don't contain any of the same words. It's only a fair comparison if it's:

"I disagree with the policies imposed by the Biology department's laboratories, so let's boycott the Physics department's dinner."

or

"I disagree with the University offering its sports pitches to Real Madrid to train on, so lets disaffiliate the Real Ale Society."

Also, a small point with the motion. The SRC can't make policy for the SA. It can make SRC policy, but only executive, or an identical motion passed by the SRC and SSC can be SA policy, therefore "the Students' Association" having "no official presence at this year's procession or at future processions" should only be SRC, unless SSC has agreed too.

Like munchingfoo points out, "official support from the SA could help give the Principal's decision popular legitimacy" is bollocks, as nobody ran on this in their election campaign. That accounted for, you're no worse than the debating society on making a decision. Unless, of course each 'constituency member' has polled the opinions of his or her own constituents.

[munchingfoo]

That wasn't really my point either Lid. My point was that neither result can succesfully show what general student opinion the matter. Although, this does reach the same conclusion as you find; the status quo should be maintained in the event of insufficient evidence to alter it.

[Thackary]

You're really not getting this, are you, Thackary? It's not the same as saying that, because those don't contain any of the same words. It's only a fair comparison if it's:

No, I do get it; I just didn't pick a suitable simile. Yours were much better.

[tordenskjold]

I think it is important to note that the Kate Kennedy Club is NOT the same as the Kate Kennedy Procession which, as others have pointed out, is run by a procession committee which is inclusive rather than exclusive. Do people want the procession to stop happening? Is the SRC perhaps going to take it over? I think not, in fact I think linking your opposition to the KKC with the procession is stupidity of the first order since in this instance it is the Procession which wants your help and support and not the club itself.

Still there are other points which perhaps warrant a mention. One is that the KKC is not the public face of the University. Granted, I am sure there are some people who are not members of the university who know of its existence but most people think Prince William, Golf, Scotland... or something else. So cracking down on the Club as a way of distancing the University or the Association from "this sort of thing" is perverse.

Onto the SRC. I find it puzzling that the SRC, which obviously has such strong views on the matter of the KKC, decides to come out with the statement AFTER the Principal voices her opinion. Yes, I know it is a statement in support, but if the SRC really cared so much then surely it would have spoken out a long time ago and it would be the Principle adopting the poodle tone of "er... we agree with what that other person said. You know.. this kind of thing is wrong.... and.. er.. well until you do what she says we can't play with you any more."

Surely if the SRC was as important and all powerful as some of its members think it is it should have come with its OWN demands of what it expected from the Club rather than saying do what the Principal says and we can talk. Can the SRC not define its own agenda? Afterall the members were "democratically elected" to be the student voice. They are representing 8,000 odd people and yet they haven't the balls to make up their own demands or at least phrase them in their declaration, instead they are saying "what she said". Saying that your criteria for recognising the KKC is once the Principal has accepted them is pathetic.

I don't think anyone has ever been in doubt about the Club's relationship to the University or the Association. Both the University and the Association are clear in their policies regarding equality and the like. So this turn of events seems completely unnecessary.

The SRC could merely have said "bla bla bla it is our continuing policy to distance ourselves from this sort of thing.. our beliefs are x,y,z (no dicrimination etc etc which is why we don't play with the CU).. always have been, always will be and our policy towards the KKC is unaltered until they decide to do a,b,c." The SRC could prove itself to be the leader rather than the follower.

Also if the SRC is representing the student body and has the support it claims to have why say that supporting the Principal "could help give the Principal's decision popular legitimacy"? If your power has popular legitimacy then surely your support DOES lend the Principal's decision popular legitimacy? Unless of course you aren't sure and think perhaps people in general don't give two hoots about you or the KKC (or the Principal for that matter).

Where is the SRC declaration regarding the Royal and Ancient by the way? Surely this piece of hypocricy is more pressing and something that actually might find the support of more than 18 people. In fact I am willing to bet there are millions of supporters for a declaration against the R&A. All those lady golfers! Now THAT would be worthwhile.

Also what are opinions on other men only clubs or for that matter women's clubs? Should I start picketing the WI meetings in my local village because I can't go rambling with them? Or perhaps the club I am a member of in London should be burned to the ground because women cannot be members? Perhaps the local council in London, as guardian of the community, should pass a resolution saying that it would cease to support the club (by taking away their rubbish) until they admit women?

At the end of the day it seems people are incapable of embracing quirks and oddities which make university life and life in general more interesting. If people are so bothered maybe they should start their own club, a club where the constitution bars non self-important moralising pinheads from entry (you could call it the SRC --self righteous club) I think there is a readymade core membership.

Maybe, just maybe, there isn't the groundswell of popular opinion against the KKC that some people think there is. If there was I am sure that some of the protests and boycotts people have threatened against things such as the procession etc would have been better attended. Or perhaps the SRC could consult the student body, I hear they have something called "E-mail". Then again people probably care so little that they would not get a reply.

Perhaps people should learn to live and let live and embrace the differences in life. I don't think University is a the place for promoting a homogenisation of views and lives,

[Craig]

I'm not sure how the procession committee etc. all work but could I, a common or garden pleb, apply to play Kate Kennedy?

[munchingfoo]

Not as it currently stands, no.

[Craig]

So in what sense is the procession inclusive?

[munchingfoo]

I can't see where anyone has said the procession is inclusive. Above me, and throughout, there is reference to the procession committee being inclusive. Is this what you are thinking of?

Should all processions be inclusive? Should I be allowed to march amongst the war veterans on remembrance Sunday?

before any smart arse points this out, yes I have marched on remembrance Sunday, but not amongst the ranks of the veterans.

[Craig]

I might have been misinterpreting this quote -

Wait a second, there seems to be a HUGE hole in this whole deal here! The Kate Kennedy Procession Committee is the organisation officially in charge of the procession, and is not gender exclusive. So withdrawing support for the procession is surely distinct from withdrawing support for the Kate Kennedy Club? What is the logic behind this one? What, in fact, is going on?

To be honest, I'm a bit muddled - I'm a tad burned out from project writing. So feel free to disregard me.

[classydriver]

Sounds like there needs to be a referendum or something on whether or not the SA should be taking a stance or leaving well alone. From what I recall, a referendum only needs a YES/NO question and 25 student signatures to call.

[classydriver]

Or it might be more than 25- some constitutional guru on the sinner might be able to help out with that one...

[Thackary]

In the Procession, Kate is traditionally played by a first year member of the Kate Kennedy Club (the Procession Committee invites him to take the role).

The costumes for the rest of the Procession are a fixed size, so participants are limited by size/shape etc. The costumes themselves are pretty expensive, and from what I understand, the funding is unfortunately lacking to buy several sizes of each costume.

I agree with Tordenskjold - I think there are other more pressing matters than whether or not to withdraw support from a group that is not actually currently supported by the SRC, SA or SSC.
On first reading his post, I thought that picking up on the wording of the SRC motion wasn't that important, but seeing as a lot of this debate has been sparked by the wording of the Principal's email, perhaps he's right - if the SRC's opinion is so strong, perhaps this motion should have been raised much earlier, having first gleaned the general feeling of the student populous, rather than a knee-jerk "Yeah, what she said" reaction to the new Principal's statement.

But maybe we're getting caught up with semantics.
- Do I think that the University and/or Students' Association should support/affiliate/associate itself with the Kate Kennedy Club? No - until their membership policy allows access to the wider student body.
- Do I think that the University and/or Students' Association should support/affiliate/associate itself with the Kate Kennedy Procession? Absolutely, as such support would benefit everyone.
- Do I think the students of the University of St Andrews should be given the opportunity to voice their opinions and decide whether or not to provide support to the Kate Kennedy Procession (an entity separate from the Kate Kennedy Club)? Yes, and it would be a great opportunity to trial electronic voting!

In the meantime, I wonder if the owner of The Sinner would like to implement a poll to determine The Sinner's members' opinions?

[Admin]

I'll get right on it Thackary

[Admin]

KK Procession poll now listed on front page: www.thesinner.net

(New Polls module needed to improve functionality!)

[RandomMusings]

I think the poll really needs another option to say I 'am ambivalent/undecided (spelling!) to the KK's policies, but I agree with the procession.

I think there are so many people who really are not sure about the KK and its policies.

[Jono]

Onto the SRC. I find it puzzling that the SRC, which obviously has such strong views on the matter of the KKC, decides to come out with the statement AFTER the Principal voices her opinion. Yes, I know it is a statement in support, but if the SRC really cared so much then surely it would have spoken out a long time ago and it would be the Principle adopting the poodle tone of "er... we agree with what that other person said. You know.. this kind of thing is wrong.... and.. er.. well until you do what she says we can't play with you any more."

To be fair, the SRC has attempted to extricate the KK from its privileged position for quite a while now. Thus far, success has been limited because the former Principal privately supported the club (Presumably because he doesn't get as many complaints about the KK as he does about some of the Students' Association's ventures).

Where is the SRC declaration regarding the Royal and Ancient by the way? Surely this piece of hypocricy is more pressing and something that actually might find the support of more than 18 people. In fact I am willing to bet there are millions of supporters for a declaration against the R&A. All those lady golfers! Now THAT would be worthwhile.

Best of luck with that. The most vocal supporters of the R&A thus far have been the women's golf clubs!