The Unholy Alliance: Cambridge’s Saudi Conundrum

The University of Cambridge has found itself at the center of a controversy surrounding its proposed staff training courses for Riyadh’s defence ministry. Sons of two jailed Saudi scholars, Hassan Farhan al-Maliki and Salman al-Odah, have written an impassioned letter to the university’s leadership, urging them to reconsider their plans in light of the kingdom’s dismal human rights record.

The case against Cambridge Judge business school is straightforward: despite its claims to uphold academic freedom and free speech, the university appears willing to provide training for a regime notorious for silencing dissent. Saudi Arabia’s public prosecutor has called for the death penalty for scholars like al-Maliki and al-Odah on “vaguely formulated charges,” highlighting the kingdom’s utter disregard for due process.

Cambridge’s decision to pursue this partnership raises questions about the university’s commitment to its core values. As Jemimah Steinfeld, chief executive of Index on Censorship, noted, even if an agreement is made to safeguard academic freedom, self-censorship can creep in when money is involved. This has already occurred in Saudi Arabia, where scholars like al-Maliki and al-Odah have been imprisoned for exercising their right to free expression.

The sons of these men are understandably outraged by Cambridge’s plans. They have spent years watching their loved ones suffer for speaking out against injustice. The university’s proposed partnership with the Saudi defence ministry risks legitimizing Mohammed bin Salman’s regime, which has executed at least 356 people last year – a modern record for the kingdom.

This is not merely a matter of moral principle; it also raises important questions about the impact on academic freedom and free speech worldwide. If Cambridge is willing to partner with a regime that suppresses dissent and silences critics, what message does this send to other universities and institutions? Does it suggest that even the most respected institutions are willing to compromise their values for financial gain?

The letter from al-Maliki’s and al-Odah’s sons highlights the need for Cambridge to reassess its partnership with Riyadh. They urge the university to insist that Saudi Arabia end its repression of freedom of expression as a pre-condition for engagement. This is not an unreasonable request, given the kingdom’s track record.

Cambridge has a reputation for excellence and integrity, but its decision to pursue this partnership risks undermining both. The university must consider the long-term consequences of its actions and weigh the potential benefits against the potential costs to its values and reputation.

Ultimately, Cambridge’s decision will be a test of its commitment to academic freedom and free speech. Will it prioritize its values over financial gain, or will it compromise on principle? Only time will tell, but one thing is clear: the university’s actions have far-reaching consequences that extend beyond its campus walls.