BRISMES renews call to St Andrews University to reinstate elected student Rector

30 September 2024

Earlier this summer the Committee on Academic Freedom of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) protested the decision of the Court of St Andrews University to suspend Stella Maris from her elected positions as Rector and trustee of the University. The reply from the Court is reprinted below, along with the Committee’s considered response.

For those unfamiliar with the controversy, the following summary may help: Stella Maris, a recent graduate of St Andrews, was elected by the student body last year to represent them on the University’s court as Rector of the University and as an ex officio trustee of the University. In January this year the International Court of Justice issued its nearly unanimous finding that the charge of genocide set out by South African lawyers against Israel for its massive assault on Gaza was ”plausible’. Stella Maris anticipated this finding in several social posts when she described the Palestinians of Gaza as victims of Israeli policies of genocide and apartheid. Predictably, several pro-Israel students claimed that her statements made them “fear for their safety”. The barrister hired to advise the Court then affirmed that Stella Maris had been “discourteous and disrespectful” to these students in her social posts and made statements that “might, directly or indirectly, encourage the expression of antisemitism by others”, and were therefore “ill-judged”. The Court thereupon suspended her from her elected roles as Rector and trustee, and, when their decision was challenged, claimed it had nothing to do with Israel, Gaza or her right to free speech but was merely because of the divisiveness of her statements and refusal to disavow them. By now the claim by pro-Israel students that they “fear for their safety” has been used countless times at universities across Europe, North America and beyond to justify the suppression of support for Palestine. It has been hugely successful. However, the following thought experiment may place it in perspective: Imagine what university managers in the 1980s might have done had one or more pro-South African students claimed that campus demonstrations against the apartheid policy in South Africa – demonstrations supported by the great majority of the student body – made them “fear for their safety”; or what university managers today would do if one or more pro-Russian students claimed that demonstrations against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine made them “fear for their safety”. Would these claims be likely to have prompted or prompt the managers to charge the demonstrators with divisiveness, suppress their demonstrations and even suspend them from the university?

From: Ray Perman
Senior Lay Member, University Court
University of St Andrews
c/o Court Office, College Gate, North Street, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AJ, Scotland
T: +44 (0)1334 46 2526
E: [email protected]

To: Professor Nicola Pratt, BRISMES President
Dr Lewis Turner, Chair of BRISMES Committee on Academic Freedom

23 August 2024

Dear Professor Pratt and Dr Turner,

Thank you for your email to the Principal about the discharge of the Rector from University
Court.
The decision to discharge the Rector was taken by the 24 governors of University Court, not
the senior management of the institution. I am therefore replying to you as Senior Lay Member and the Chairperson of Court, the University’s supreme governing body.
We note your arguments and the contents of your letter. They are, however, largely based on the assertion that the Rector was discharged because she spoke out against Israeli aggression in her statement of November 2023. That is absolutely not the case.
The University Court has made very clear that the Rector is entitled to freedom of speech,
as an individual was entitled to make the statement she did, and that parts of her statement
were an important source of comfort to some students and staff in our community. This was
acknowledged by the report following the independent external investigation into the Rector’s
actions and activities by Morag Ross KC.
Ms Maris was discharged because she repeatedly refused to accept the findings of Ms Ross’
independent external investigation, and by that repeated refusal placed herself in serious and
persistent breach of her governance obligations and legal responsibilities, both as a Court
member and as a charity trustee.
Ms Ross’ report established that by her actions and activities on social media after her
statement, Ms Maris had breached her legal responsibilities as a Court member and charity
trustee.
It found that she failed to act with courtesy and respect, and made some St Andrews
students, whom it was her duty as Rector to support and represent, fear for their safety.
Ms Ross addresses the Rector’s use of social media in her report, and her treatment of and
attitude towards students who expressed fears and concerns to her.
This included making a public post on social media, in reply to Jewish students who had
sought reassurance from her, in which she told them to “stop being weird.” In response to
further questions from students, she re-posted content from a Palestinian activist alleged to
be an antisemite.
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 when
reported instances of antisemitic attacks and abuse were rising significantly across the UK.
Two alleged physical assaults had been reported in St Andrews.
Court received the Ross report in April, and accepted it in full, including Ms Ross’s
observation that she believed dismissal would be a disproportionate sanction, but that other,
lesser sanctions were appropriate and necessary.
That is why we made exhaustive and constructive efforts over three months to reach a
resolution with Ms Maris which would allow her to continue to be a member of Court.
In essence, we asked her to recognise that some of her behaviour on social media was
discourteous and disrespectful to some of our students, and fell below the standards required
of a Court member.
Regrettably, she persistently chose not to do that, or to offer a meaningful apology to
students to whom she had been discourteous. Court engaged in an extensive dialogue
process with the Rector, as well as offering facilitated discussion with an external mediator,
which she declined.
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 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.
I should also point out that the decision to discharge was unanimous, with one abstention,
and that the 24 governors of Court include student, staff and trade union representatives,
several of whom are committed personally to the Palestinian cause.
The full reasons for the decision to discharge Ms Maris are set out in the statement from
Court of 1 August.
It is important to stress again that these are nothing to do with freedom of speech, or her
statement of November 2023. They are entirely a matter of governance. You raise the issue
of concerns expressed by a University funder. That matter was addressed and resolved fully
prior to Court’s receipt of the Ross report. It played no part in the subsequent discussions
and deliberations of governors.

Thank you again for writing.

Yours sincerely,

Ray Perman Esq.,
Senior Lay Member
Court of the University of St Andrew

BRISMES’s response:

To: Mr Ray Perman
Senior Lay Member, University Court, University of St Andrews

23 September 2024

Dear Mr Perman,

Thank you for your reply of 23rd August.
The BRISMES Committee on Academic Freedom has carefully considered your response to our
letter, but unfortunately it does not provide us the reassurances we sought. We remain deeply
concerned about how the University has handled this matter and reiterate our expectation that Rector
Maris be reinstated. We would also like to make the following observations regarding your letter, and
request your response to them.
Your letter seeks to clarify that the decision to dismiss Rector Maris had nothing to do with her
statement to students of November 2023. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Since the Court’s
decision was purportedly based on Rector Maris’ refusal to accept the findings of the report by Lady
Ross KC, the conclusions of the report regarding the statement and the Court’s endorsement of this
judgment remain inseparable from the decision to dismiss her. Moreover, both the report and the
University’s statement announcing the Court’s decision make several baseless and deeply concerning
claims about Rector Maris’ statement. They form part of the basis on which the decision to dismiss
her was publicly justified. Our letter sought to correct these claims, but we note with concern that
your reply does not acknowledge or respond to these arguments. We would reiterate our request that
these claims are retracted and an apology issued.
Your letter also draws attention to social media posts made by Rector Maris, and her refusal to accept
the findings of the report regarding them, as a further basis for her dismissal. Yet we also find no
basis in the findings of the report for the conclusions drawn or the decision reached by the Court in
this respect. The report refers to three social media posts to determine she was in breach of her
obligations. The first was a post in which, according to Lady Ross’s report, ‘she posted a message referring to a message supporting her and stating: “These are the voices the university is refusing to acknowledge. Let’s make it harder for them.” This was followed by a watermelon emoji (signifying support for the Palestinian cause) and a fist emoji.’
Lady Ross determines that ‘encouraging people online to do something which “makes it harder” for
the University is plainly not acting in the University’s interests’ (para 6.14). Yet this ignores the
possibility that encouraging the University to acknowledge the voices of its students and stakeholders
on a matter of importance to them could in fact be fully consistent with upholding the interests of the
University. This is also a vital aspect of her role as Rector, which (according to the ‘Role of the
Rector’ document shared as Annex A to the report by Lady Ross) includes ‘familiarity with the views
of the student body, and ability to intervene with authority on their behalf if necessary, outside the
proceedings of the Court’ and a ‘willingness to champion a cause without fear or favour’.
The second social media message that the report discusses is a post in which Rector Maris, in response
to an allegation of antisemitism against her wrote: ‘I Don’t Hate Jewish People Please stop being
weird’. The Ross Report finds that in particular the use of the word ‘weird’ was ‘insulting’ to Jewish
students, and that the Rector ‘must have known that [Jewish students] would read it’ (para 6.18).
While Rector Marris might have chosen a better way to express herself, she made this post at a time
when she was receiving a huge volume of racist abuse and intense and unreasonable criticism on
social media. We find it concerning that the University continues to make no acknowledgement of
this environment, and the immense strain and distress it caused Rector Maris, in its handling of this
matter. In our view, this comment, while perhaps imprudent, is not a basis for dismissal, as the Ross
report itself concludes, or for insisting on a retraction on pain of dismissal, especially in the
circumstances she was facing.
We would furthermore note that while your letter insinuates (through reference to her election
promise to support and show empathy to all St Andrews’ students), that Rector Maris has shown no
empathy for those who disagreed with her, namely, some Jewish students, as the report notes, on 25
November 2023, the Rector stated clearly ‘To the Jewish community who feel unsafe due to my
words, I am deeply sorry’ (para 6.6).
The third social media post with which the report finds fault raises wider issues of concern to us as
an organisation that aims to promote academic freedom in the research and study of the Middle East.
The post is a quotation from an article by Rabea Eghbariah, a Palestinian human rights lawyer, entitled
‘The Ongoing Nakba: Towards a Legal Framework for Palestine’. Despite the article having been
‘commissioned, edited, fact-checked, and prepared for publication’ by the Harvard Law Review, the
editors of the journal then refused to publish this article in a concerning act of censorship, as has been
publicly documented. The piece was subsequently published online in The Nation magazine instead.
Rector Maris’ quotation from the article reads as follows:
‘We must imagine that one day there will be a recognized crime of committing a Nakba,
and a disapprobation of Zionism as an ideology based on racial elimination. The road to
get there remains long and challenging, but we do not have the privilege to relinquish any
legal tools available to name the crimes against the Palestinian people in the present and
attempt to stop them. The denial of the genocide in Gaza is rooted in the denial of the
Nakba. And both must end, now.’
In her report Lady Ross takes no issue with the content of the quotation itself. This is quite correct,
since it merely articulates a widely held and legitimate position in scholarly, legal, and political
debates on Palestine. Instead, Lady Ross finds the quotation objectionable on the grounds of a
misattribution to Mohammed El-Kurd, a Palestinian poet and journalist. Lady Ross says of El-Kurd
(para 6.15):
‘Internet research shows that Mohamed El-Kurd is a controversial figure, with claims that
he expresses antisemitic views. Whether or not that can be fully substantiated, and I have
read arguments in both directions, inclusion of material from him was distressing for those
in the Jewish Society who read it, and Ms Maris must have known that that would be the
case. This was very unwise. It exacerbated a difficult situation and was contrary to the
University’s interests.’
We would add our voices to those who would refute allegations of antisemitism against El-Kurd,
which are part of a wider trend of false accusations against Palestinians who express political opinions
critical of Israel. Lady Ross herself does not feel sufficiently confident to make this accusation, and
with good reason. Even if the words were from Mohamed El-Kurd, quoting them would be no basis
for dismissal. Moreover, though, this claim is factually incorrect, and instead the false attribution (and
associated smears) have been used to achieve the perverse effect of redoubling the censorship of the
original article by Rabea Eghbariah. We reiterate that this allegation should form no part of the basis
for any actions taken against Rector Maris.
Finally, in response to our request for reassurance regarding the ways in which the University dealt
with concerns raised by an external funder you write: ‘That matter was addressed and resolved fully
prior to Court’s receipt of the Ross report. It played no part in the subsequent discussions and
deliberations of governors.’ We note that you make no comment on how the concerns were ‘resolved
fully’, even though it would clearly be in the interest of transparency to do so. We would request a
full account of how these concerns were handled, and particularly whether this had any role in the
decision to commission the Ross report in the first place, which ultimately formed the basis of the
disciplinary action against Rector Maris.
We conclude by reiterating our request that Rector Maris be reinstated, an apology issued, and full
transparency regarding the role of the funder provided. This case represents not only an injustice to
Rector Maris, but more broadly an erosion of the principle of freedom of speech, which is a
cornerstone of academia and democracy.
We look forward to your response to each of the issues raised in this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Nicola Pratt Dr Lewis Turner
BRISMES President Chair, BRISMES Committee on Academic Freedom

cc. Professor Dame Sally Mapstone
Principal, University of St Andrew