Statement in response to claims made by Stella Maris

It is disappointing that Ms Maris has chosen to focus on herself on a day on which the University and everyone associated with it is celebrating the achievements of our graduates. She was informed weeks ago that she would not attend Graduation, but chose to wait to until the ceremonies were underway to complain. The Rector does not have an automatic right to attend Graduation.

It is concerning that Ms Maris and her advisers continue to repeat the false assertion that she was discharged from University Court because she spoke out against Israeli aggression in Gaza.

That is completely untrue, Ms Maris and her advisers are well aware of that, and we believe it is a claim which is intentionally designed to mislead.

The Rector was discharged because she repeatedly and knowingly placed herself in breach of the code of conduct for members of Court, and her legal responsibilities as a Court member and charity trustee.

The independent report carried out by Morag Ross KC (as she then was) found that the Rector had breached her responsibilities by her use of social media after she made her statement. In response to Jewish students who messaged her seeking reassurance, she called them “weird” and used social media to invite supporters to attack the University, of which she was a serving member of Court.

Ms Maris, who was elected Rector on a personal promise to support and “show empathy to all St Andrews students”, chose to make these remarks and to act as she did at a time a few weeks after her election and when reported instances of antisemitic attacks and abuse were rising significantly across the UK.  Assaults had been reported on two Jewish students in St Andrews, and Ms Maris was aware of these.

Court accepted the findings of the investigation in full, and over three months made exhaustive efforts to reach a resolution with Ms Maris which would have allowed her to remain a member of Court.

Regrettably, Ms Maris declined Court’s requests to reach a resolution including the offer of a facilitated discussion with one of the UK’s leading mediators.  She repeatedly refused to apologise for the discourtesy she had shown the students who she was elected to represent. She has still not offered any meaningful apology.

By her repeated refusal to engage constructively with the efforts Court made to find a resolution, Ms Maris knowingly placed herself in persistent and serious breach of her responsibilities both as a Court member and charity trustee.

If a trustee is in persistent and serious breach of their responsibilities, the law states that fellow trustees must take action to resolve the breach, and if that is not achieved, to remove the trustee from office.

Ms Maris is currently engaged in legal action against the University. In these circumstances, the Principal considered it was not appropriate to invite her to attend Graduation, which should be a day focused on the achievements of graduates. She was informed of this on 18 November.