The rector of St Andrew’s University has been removed from the institution’s governing body, as a report found she had not acted in its interests during a row sparked by a statement condemning Israel’s “genocidal attacks” on Gaza.
Stella Maris issued the statement calling for an immediate ceasefire last November, claiming that Palestinians had been subjected to “practices such as apartheid, siege (and) illegal occupation”.
However, her statement caused “anxiety and fear” for some Jewish students at St Andrews, a report found.
It was published after an independent investigation was carried out into whether Ms Maris’ behaviour was “compatible with the responsibilities and standards placed on her” in her role as rector.
Now the university court – described as being the institution’s “supreme governing body” – has informed Ms Maris she is being removed from her role as its president, and will no longer be a charity trustee for the university.
Ms Maris, a former student at the university, said she was “disappointed” by the decision, claiming it “shows a lack of respect for the role of the rector in speaking independently for students” and also “sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech in higher education”.
Adding that she fully intends to appeal the decision, the rector said: “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 (King’s Counsel) investigation, all because I made a statement supported by the overwhelming majority of students, calling for an end to a genocide.”
Ms Maris, who only took up the post of St Andrews University rector on November 1 2023, will stay on in the role until her term expires in October 2026.
However, Ray Perman, the senior lay member and chair of the university court, said they had “unfortunately now reached the point where university court has concluded that she is in serious and persistent breach of her responsibilities and can no longer sit as president”.
He said the court stressed “this decision has no bearing on Ms Maris’s freedom of speech, to which she is entitled”.
Mr Perman added: “As the chair of university court, I wish to offer an apology to all students, and others, who were upset or feared for their safety as a consequence of the rector’s handling of this matter, and those who were subsequently upset by the rise in tensions and disagreements which ensued.”
It comes as the independent investigation carried out by Morag Ross KC – now Lady Ross – concluded that “Ms Maris did not act in the interests of the university”.
She described Ms Maris’ statement was being “unwise and ill-judged in respect of some its content”.
The rector’s statement, issued on November 21 2023, contained a disclaimer that it did not represent the views of the university, but Lady Ross said: “Nonetheless, some people formed an adverse view of the university as a result of the statement and were very critical.”
The report went on to say that social media posts by Ms Maris afterwards were “inappropriate, contrary to the interests of the university and contrary to her obligations as a member of court”.
The rector made an “error of judgement” by posting content from a controversial Palestinian activist Lady Ross said, adding that “Ms Maris ought to have known that this would exacerbate a difficult situation”.
She also said it was “insulting and discourteous” for Ms Maris to post on Instagram a message including the words “I don’t hate Jewish people. Please stop being weird.”
Ms Maris “failed to respond to those who criticised her.” the report added, with her social media approach described as being “combative and hostile” with “no willingness to defuse tension or to engage”.
As a member of the university’s court, Ms Maris should be “obliged to treat members of the university with courtesy and members of the public with respect” – but the report said that “some of her social media posts did not meet that standard”.
Lady Ross stated: “Taking account of all factors, I consider that Ms Maris did not act in the interests of the university.”
She added: “In summary, my view is that the social media activities were contrary to the best interests of the university and that Ms Maris was in breach of her obligations as a member of court and as a charity trustee. She was also, in my view, in breach of her duty to act with courtesy and respect.”
Ms Maris said the report was “biased”, although she added the university “has chosen to go further than the report” which she said “explicitly falls short of calling for the removal of my trustee status”.
She also stated: “The university gave me no opportunity to present my case or to have someone represent me in the discussions that led to this decision.”
Ms Maris continued: “I have repeatedly made clear that I accept that I am bound by a code of conduct and the requirements placed on me as a charity trustee.
“I do not accept that these allow the university to interfere unilaterally and unduly in my right to express my views or manifest my protected beliefs, and I fully intended to appeal the decision.
“I will continue to advocate for students in my role as rector to ensure that their voices are represented and that their right to freedom of speech is protected.”
