Cambridge University’s business school is seeking to provide “leadership development” and “innovation management” to Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry despite concerns over its government’s record on human rights and climate change, the Guardian has learned.
Cambridge’s leadership has approved a proposal by the university’s Judge business school to form a “memorandum of understanding” with the ministry for services and training, after an initial introduction by the UK’s Ministry of Defence.
Senior academics described the proposal as “horrifying” and a betrayal of Cambridge University’s commitments to freedom of expression.
Documents seen by the Guardian state that an agreement “would set preliminary goals and terms for potential collaborations to develop executive education, innovation management, leadership development and healthcare administration strategies, working exclusively with the civilian administration of the [Saudi defence ministry].”
The university’s press office declined to comment and passed inquiries to the business school. A spokesperson for the business school said: “Cambridge Judge business school has not signed such an MoU [memorandum of understanding] with the Saudi Arabia defence ministry.”
But Judge business school officials told Cambridge’s committee on benefactions and external and legal affairs, which scrutinises funding and research proposals for reputational risk, that it “was requesting permission to enter into a memorandum of understanding” with the ministry.
The benefactions committee, chaired by the vice-chancellor, Prof Deborah Prentice, approved the request by a majority vote at its meeting in January. It said an agreement “would in principle be acceptable” but required the committee to be consulted on individual contracts.
Confidential minutes of the meeting show committee members expressed concerns over the Saudi government’s “record on human rights and climate change … and the ability of the university to safely maintain its staff’s academic freedoms”.
A senior academic who sits on Cambridge’s university council said: “This is horrifying. The University of Cambridge’s values are to protect ‘freedom of thought and expression’ and ‘freedom from discrimination’. Instead of fighting for our principles, we’re selling them out to the most murderous regime in the world.
“The idea that our academics would be safe in a country that arbitrarily imprisons and murders those who dare diverge from state dogma is shameless and disgusting. It’s a total betrayal of what we should stand for”.
UK universities regularly sell consultancy and training to foreign governments, with individual contracts running into millions of pounds. But the proposal to work with the Saudi defence ministry has stirred alarm given its involvement in regional conflicts including in Iran and Yemen.
An “executive MBA” at the Judge business school charges tuition fees of £98,000, while a “global executive MBA” starting in January charges £107,000.
David Whitaker, the business school’s director of alumni relations and external engagement, told the benefactions committee: “The proposal aligned with the university’s mission to benefit society through education and was strategically aligned with the UK government.”
The committee was told: “Strong mitigations were in place to protect against reputational risk, including emphasis within the draft MoU of its civilian-only scope, and noting that any future funded contracts could be contracted with the [Saudi government’s] Institute of Public Administration, rather than the MoD.”
Those on the committee advocating for the deal claimed it offered “an opportunity to effect change positively within the [Saudi] government”.
Darragh O’Reilly, a student representative on the university’s governing council, said: “Cutting a deal with a foreign military is a very serious error of judgment. Cambridge’s unique university democracy, with its delicate checks and balances, is on the verge of collapse.
“I am deeply worried that the university regulator is asleep at the wheel. Our governing statutes are being constantly reinterpreted by senior staff, there is an increasingly uncomfortable atmosphere in our council meetings [and] the accountability mechanisms are broken.”
