St Andrews rector stripped of roles over Gaza comments

Accusing Israel of ‘apartheid’ and ‘genocidal attacks’ provoked ‘anxiety and fear’ among Jewish students, investigation says

八月 1, 2024
A protest against the Israel-Palestine conflict on a university campus
Source: iStock/FooTToo

The University of St Andrews has stripped its rector of her role on its governing body after she wrote an open letter accusing Israel of “apartheid” and “genocidal attacks”.

Stella Maris was also removed as a trustee after she wrote a letter to the university’s 10,000 students condemning Israeli attacks in Gaza as “war crimes”, which an independent investigation found provoked “anxiety and fear” among Jewish students. 

The letter, written in November 2023, one month into Ms Maris’ term, also called for an immediate ceasefire.

The university court – the university’s governing body – reached a unanimous decision to remove her after she “repeatedly declined” to accept that she had made some students “fear for their safety”, but said she will retain her role as rector until her term ends in October 2026.

The independent investigation, carried out by Morag Ross KC, concludes Ms Maris “did not act in the interests of the university”, and added that in her consequent social media posts she appeared to “have closed her eyes to the upset and to have lost sight of the responsibilities which the rector has to all students”.

Ms Ross says that while the statement issued by Maris was not antisemitic, it “risked generating antisemitic sentiment”. 

However, the investigation notes that to dismiss her entirely would be “disproportionate”, accepting that Ms Maris had acknowledged this was a divisive issue and the suffering of Jewish people following the 7 October attacks. “[The letter] increased division within the university, but it would be unfair to attribute that division in its entirety to Ms Maris and the statement,” the report says. 

Ms Maris has said she will appeal the decision, and said it “shows a lack of respect for the role of the rector in speaking independently for students as their elected representative” and “sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech in higher education”.

“It is clear that I have been removed from university court because I called for an end to Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, and I will not apologise for doing so. As a young, neurodiverse black woman with limited financial resources, I have faced the full force of the university, including a KC investigation, all because I made a statement supported by the overwhelming majority of students, calling for an end to a genocide,” she said.

Ray Perman, chair of the university court, said after “extensive attempts at dialogue”, the court has concluded that Ms Maris was “in serious and persistent breach of her responsibilities and can no longer sit as president”.

“Under charity law and the Scottish Code of Good HE Governance, regrettably, [the] court has no choice but to discharge Stella Maris from two of the administrative roles that are traditionally associated with being rector of a university,” he said.

The conflict in the Middle East has sparked backlash among students, with protests taking place at universities calling for a ceasefire and divestment away from Israel. However, universities appear to have made a breakthrough following months of campus disruption, after a court decision supported the University of Birmingham’s right to end encampments.

Dame Sally Mapstone, principal of St Andrews, said: “We can disagree passionately on the most difficult issues, but it should always be with courtesy and respect for those whose views may differ from our own.

“I believe that we can all learn from what has happened over the past few months, and that the values of listening, tolerance and respect will become even more important to our university community.”

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (2)

How does one reconcile "We can disagree passionately on the most difficult issues, but it should always be with courtesy and respect for those whose views may differ from our own" with removing roles from someone who has expressed a view that not everyone agrees with?
The university court justifies its action because Rector Maris refused to accept some conclusions or recommendations of the report, thereby demonstrating that it did not accept the conclusion of the report that dismissal would be disproportionate. Not exactly Catch-22, but a relative. Further, having commissioned an independent inquiry which failed to recommend dismissal, the Court found another way to justify their decision. Anyone catch a whiff of double jeopardy?