University Withholds Name of Donor Mentioned in Stella Maris Report

Despite two Freedom of Information requests from the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), the University of St Andrews continues to withhold the name of the “prospective funder” mentioned in the independent investigation into Rector Stella Maris. The independent investigation was publicly released in July 2024, in response to Stella Maris’ October 2023 University-wide email which condemned Hamas war crimes and described Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocidal”.

Maris voiced her concerns to The Saint, “It’s concerning to see that the report references external influence in relation to a process involving an elected student representative. The Rector is chosen by students and is accountable to them, not to individuals or entities outside the University. It’s important that student representatives are able to carry out their roles independently and without undue interference. The mention of other considerations in the report raises concerning questions about the impartiality of the process."

An open letter issued in August 2024 by St Andrews societies including Amnesty International, the Muslim Student’s Association, Middle East and North Africa Society, BAME Students Network and the Socialist Worker Student Society stated, “the risk of a specific, unnamed donor withdrawing funding as a result of Stella’s statement was a key motivating factor for the University’s investigation and decision […] it is unacceptable for important institutions to be degraded and diminished by the demands of external voices.”

The investigation, conducted by Lady Morag Ross KC, mentions a donor when describing the ‘factual background’ of the period between 21 November to 15 December, 2023. It states: “The Principal [Sally Mapstone] had to consider potential financial consequences. She explained to me that a major project plan had been put in serious jeopardy because the prospective funder, [REDACTED], had been very concerned about information relating to the University and the Statement made by Ms Maris. The Court already has information about that issue. The Principal, in particular, but also others, had to work very hard to repair damage done and to rebuild that important relationship. I understand that the anticipated funding was secured.”

After the release of the investigation, BRISMES, the largest national academic association in Europe focused on the study of the Middle East and North Africa, filed two Freedom of Information requests for the University to reveal the identity of the prospective funder and “the nature and value of the ‘anticipated funding’. They were twice denied this information.

The University responded: “The identity of the requestor is irrelevant to the collective decision reached by Court to commission an independent investigation. [...] There was disclosure of the relevant facts to Court, and the public. Disclosure would be contrary to the public interest [...] Disclosure would be to the detriment of both parties and as such likely to give rise to a successful action by the witness and the funder (who is entitled to bring concerns to the University without their identity being made a matter of public record, as are others who contacted the University).”

The University added they have “robust controls in place to secure and accept funding [...] The relevant point [brought up by Ross’ report] was that funding was placed at risk and that had to be managed.”

BRISMES raised the “possibility” that the University “prioritised its financial interests and the views of a potential funder over its obligations to protect and defend Rector Maris’s freedom of expression.”

In their response to BRISMES’ FOI request on 5 February, the University mentioned that, in the 15 December, 2023 meeting to decide whether to investigate Stella Maris, Principal Mapstone “appraised Court of the external consequences that had arisen.” The University stated, however, that there was “no scope for the funder to have any influence” over Maris’ dismissal, pointing out that the donation had been made prior to the Court’s decision to launch the investigation.

Dr Lewis Turner, BRISMES Co-Vice President and Chair of its Committee on Academic Freedom, told The Saint, “The fact that the donation was made before the investigation was launched does not dispel our concerns [...] First, the University has disclosed that the Principal had to work ‘very hard’ to satisfy the donor, and we know from subsequent FOI disclosures that the Principal was subsequently involved in briefing the University Court on this issue at the meeting where the investigation was launched.”

“Donor relationships are not one-off events; they are ongoing,” Dr Turner continued. “This is why it is important to know the identity of the funder, particularly if it is a large or prominent funding body which might try to exercise influence over St. Andrews. There is precedent for this: in the United States, pressure from long-term donors has had a major influence over the way universities handled student encampments. We would be very concerned to see a similar pattern emerge in the UK.”

The University stated that “evidence given in confidence to an investigation is inherently sensitive; release could be damaging to witnesses and/or the conduct of future investigations,” and continued to deny revealing the identity of the donor.

In response, Dr Turner said it was “striking that the rest of the unredacted report does reveal information which seems sensitive [...] it is not clear why the identity of the donor would be more sensitive than this. For example, the report discloses comments of witnesses about incidents of antisemitism (2.5), about their feelings of lack of safety, distress and anger (2.56-2.58), and about conduct at a protest which took place on campus (2.49-2.50).”

Dr Turner repeated BRISMES’ desire to find out the identity of the donor: “The University should be willing to disclose relevant written communications and briefings to allow the public to scrutinise the decisions. We know these documents exist but the University is currently refusing to disclose them.”

In a statement, a University spokesperson said:

“No donor has influence on university governance, and it is mischievous and disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The University has clear regulations governing the receipt of donations.”

“The Rector was found by an independent investigation carried out by a leading KC, to have breached her important and legal responsibilities as a member of the University Court and a charity trustee. The Rector repeatedly refused to accept the findings of that report, or to comply with the steps Court asked her to take as a consequence.”

“For those reasons alone, Court had no option but to discharge Ms Maris from her role as President of Court and as a trustee of the charity. Ms Maris remains the Rector of the University, and we continue to provide her with support to undertake that role for the remainder of her term of office.”

Image by University of St Andrews