Stella Maris vs. the University Court

After three years, Stella Maris’ tenure as Rector is coming to an end. She leaves her role reluctantly, as the University has considered her nomination for re-election invalid. 

The University has asserted that this decision aligns with Ordinance 124 from The Universities (Scotland) Act, 1966. This rule states that “a person shall neither be eligible to be nominated for election as Rector nor shall hold the office of Rector if that person [...] has an active involvement in any Scottish Higher Education Institution.” The University claims that Maris was reminded of this rule ten days prior to the nomination deadline, and that she could maintain eligibility if she resigned as Rector. Maris chose not to do so.  

According to the University, Maris also stated in her nomination that she would refuse to acknowledge the rectorial election as a lawful one, which rendered her nomination invalid on a second count. 

Student societies such as Muslim Society, Middle Eastern and North African Society, and Students for Justice for Palestine, say this is “no doubt a targeted move to prevent Stella Maris from rerunning after her condemnation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.” The document outlining rules and regulations for the 2023 rectorial elections, they claim, states that "incumbent Rectors are eligible to stand for re-election.” These societies have noted that the 2023 document only restricts rectorial candidates “who are actively involved in any other Higher Education institution.”

Amnesty International Society, among others, have called the University’s position an "erroneous interpretation” and “unconventional and unequal treatment.” The University has admitted “previous election rules have not reflected this [rule] accurately.” 

The University of St Andrews Students’ Association has supported the University’s interpretation of Ordinance 124, citing a precedent set by former Rector Alastair Moffat. In 2011, Moffat was bound by this rule, and his eligibility for Rector was predicated upon his resignation as Chancellor’s Assessor on the University of Stirling’s Court.  

In a statement released via Instagram on 9 October, Maris questioned the “independence” of the rectorial election. She alleged that there exist “conflicts of interest” and that “clear independent safeguards are absent” in this election. 

This came after Maris made allegations against the University and her representatives commissioned a review into complaints raised by Maris against University officials. As reported in The National, the review concluded that there was an “arguable” case that Maris was a victim of “disability discrimination and racist treatment by university Officials.”

In this review, which was carried out by Philip Dayle of 39 Essex Chambers, Maris alleges that she was subjected to “misogynoir” — a term used to describe discrimination experienced by black women. She alleges that she was characterised as “aggressive or angry” when challenging senior colleagues. She alleges that reasonable adjustments were not made for her autism and ADHD. She also alleges that her complaints to the University were not investigated fully because the subjects of her complaints held authority over which complaints should proceed.

As reported in The National, a University spokesperson described this report as Maris “trying to mark her own homework” and has referred to her as a “serial complainer with a long and documented history of making allegations against staff, students and members of the University community.” The University claims that the evidence featured in the report was provided solely by Maris, and that Dayle did not engage with the University when compiling this report. 

These recent disputes come after three years of bitter infighting between the University Court — St Andrews’ official governing body — and Rector Maris, the student-elected representative. 

On 21 November 2023, a letter was sent from the rectorial email address to the University body that accused the Israeli government and Hamas of war crimes. She called Israel’s attacks in Gaza “genocidal.” At the time, 13,000 people had been killed by Israel in Gaza. The claim that the attacks were “genocidal” was put forward by some genocide scholars, but was not supported by the UN, MSF, or Amnesty International until late 2024.

The University states that they provided counsel to Maris regarding the contents of her email prior to its sending and gave warning of potential media backlash. The University also states that this email, though authored by Maris, was sent by the University on behalf of the Rector.

The email received a mixed reaction from students. One open letter, which Amnesty St Andrews estimated to have received 1,106 signatures from students, thanked Maris for her “courageous stance.” St Andrews Jewish Society stated that Maris’ statement was “divisive, harmful and not based on fact.” Another open letter, from Jewish students and alumni, urging Maris to apologise or resign for her “abuse of [her] university position and accessible resources,” received over 1,400 signatures. 

Pressure was mounting on the University from external sources as well. According to the minutes of a December 2023 special meeting called by the University Court of St Andrews in direct response to Maris’ statement, Principal Dame Sally Mapstone told the University Court that the “level of external scrutiny” was “unprecedented.”  

Mapstone admitted that £2 million in donations from the Wolfson Foundation, a pro-Israel academic funding group, was secured “but by a whisker” after concerns were raised about “the situation” regarding antisemitism in St Andrews following Maris’ email. Mapstone then wrote a “twelve-page letter” to reassure the Foundation that their grant “could be supported.” The University has stated that no donor had influence on governance, and a University spokesperson told The Courier that “it is mischievous and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.”

Freedom of Information (FOI) requests reviewed by The Saint have shown that UK Government ministers also put pressure on the University following Maris’ remarks. Mapstone said that Robert Halfon, a former Conservative MP, serving at the time as the UK Skills Minister, had “pronounced concern in relation to the Rector’s conduct and a strong interest into how it [was] being handled by the University.” Mapstone said that she met with Halfon in the context of her role as President of Universities UK, not as Principal of the University. She said: “But [Halfon] insisted on using ten minutes of it to discuss the situation in St Andrews in relation to the Rector and our Jewish community.”

The University subsequently commissioned an independent investigation from Lady Ross into whether Maris’ email and social media behaviour following this criticism violated her responsibilities as ‘Charity Trustee.’

After six months, the investigation found that Maris had breached the terms of her role, but that these infringements “did not merit dismissal [from Court] in themselves.” Lady Ross’ report, however, maintained that Maris exercised “poor judgement” in her email and that her online behaviour “fell below the standards required of a Court member.”

In August 2024, an email sent by the Court Office to all students shared that the University Court had dismissed Maris. The Court asserted that “[Maris’] repeated refusal to confirm that she accepts [these findings]”, collective responsibility, and “apologise for the distress and fear experienced by some of the students she represents” were grounds for her removal from Court. 

Maris appealed this decision to the University Chancellor, Lord Menzies Campbell. Nearly a year later, he answered Maris’ appeal, ruling in her favour and reinstating her to the University Court in May 2025. 

A mere eight months later, in January 2026, Maris was again discharged from the University Court. 

The University found Maris culpable of overstepping her responsibilities as Rector, citing that she wished to chair the University Court, have control over “all aspects of the management of Court meetings,” and refused to accept she was bound by “collective responsibility.” 

In a statement released on LinkedIn, Maris’ lawyers claimed that it is her legal right to chair these meetings. 

The University’s position was endorsed by the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), the regulatory body that funds and oversees governance at all Scottish universities. Both University and SFC agreed that it was incorrect for her to claim sole authority over the Court Chair. Her refusal to accept the rules outlined in the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance, the University asserted, provided valid grounds to remove her from Court. Maris dissented and argued that the SFC is not a court of law and thus has no jurisdiction to properly interpret the law. 

Maris appealed this decision to the Rt Honorable Lord Keen KC. She claimed that the Senior Lay Member of the Court forced her expulsion if she refused to accept that the Rector has no authority over the Court. Lord Keen clarified that, while the Rector has the legal authority to chair meetings of the Court, the Senior Lay Member maintains the authority to chair business concerned with policy, resources, accountability, and performance review.

Lord Keen also clarified that Maris must accept the “collective responsibility” of the Court, a measure which she described as a “perpetual gag” on any disagreement. Following Lord Keen’s review, however, Maris reversed her position and accepted that she was bound by this collective responsibility.

Both Maris and the University, however, released statements claiming that each of them was proven right by Lord Keen’s review.

Over the course of this three-year-long dispute, the University has spent nearly £200,000 in legal fees against Maris. The University has also excluded Maris from a graduation ceremony and Court away day. 

The University Court has now ruled Maris’ nomination for Rector invalid.

Speaking to The Saint in February 2025, Andrew Merill, Vice Principal (Governance) of the University, said that “the role of Rector is becoming a ceremonial role.” The repeated removals of Maris from Court have caused many in the student community to question whether or not the role still holds practical representative power. What began with an email has spiralled into a debate over freedom of speech in higher education and the status of student democracy.