Cambridge University’s Judge Business School is pursuing an agreement to provide leadership development and innovation management training to Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from senior academics who describe it as a betrayal of the university’s founding principles. The proposal, approved in principle by the university’s Committee on Benefactions and External and Legal Affairs (CBELA) at a meeting in January, follows an initial introduction by the UK Ministry of Defence.
The business school sought permission from the committee — chaired by Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice — to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Saudi defence ministry. Confidential minutes of the meeting, seen by the Guardian, show that committee members approved the request by a majority vote, stating that such an agreement “would in principle be acceptable” but would require further consultation on individual contracts. Documents describing the proposal set out “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].”
Academic concerns over human rights and academic freedom
The committee’s own minutes record that members expressed concerns about Saudi Arabia’s “record on human rights and climate change … and the ability of the university to safely maintain its staff’s academic freedoms.” Those concerns reflect a far broader unease among Cambridge academics. One senior academic who sits on the university council called the proposal “horrifying”, accusing the institution of selling out its principles. “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,” they said. “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.”
Human rights organisations have long documented severe abuses in Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have reported an exceptionally high rate of executions, including for drug offences and crimes allegedly committed by minors, with an unprecedented spike in 2025. Critics, human rights defenders and journalists have faced long prison sentences, unfair trials and travel bans. The execution of journalist Turki al-Jasser in June 2025 for exposing royal corruption has been cited as a stark example of the suppression of dissent. Migrant workers remain vulnerable under the kafala sponsorship system, and women continue to face discrimination under male guardianship. There are also allegations of transnational repression by Saudi authorities against individuals in other countries. Academics who spoke out against the deal said these conditions raised serious questions about the safety of Cambridge staff and students who might travel to the kingdom as part of any collaboration.
Business school’s response and the committee’s rationale
A spokesperson for Cambridge Judge Business School said: “Cambridge Judge Business School has not signed such an MoU with the Saudi Arabia defence ministry.” The university’s press office declined to comment and passed inquiries to the business school. However, documents and minutes make clear that Judge Business School officials did ask CBELA for permission to enter into the memorandum, and that the committee approved it.
Speaking to the committee, David Whitaker, the business school’s director of alumni relations and external engagement, argued that 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 that “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.” The Institute of Public Administration, established in 1961, is an educational body focused on training government sector employees as part of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 transformation agenda. Some committee members who advocated for the deal claimed it offered “an opportunity to effect change positively within the [Saudi] government.”
CBELA’s role is to scrutinise external engagements for ethical and reputational risk, and to approve prospective donations and naming opportunities. At its January meeting, chaired by Vice-Chancellor Prentice, the committee voted by a majority to approve the request, despite the concerns noted in the minutes. A previous version of the story from the Guardian had reported that the university’s leadership had approved the proposal; the business school’s spokesperson confirmed that no MoU has yet been signed.
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.”
The UK’s long-standing defence relationship with Saudi Arabia — including multibillion-pound arms sales, the Al Yamamah deals from the 1980s, and a Ministry of Defence programme for the Saudi Arabian National Guard — provided the context for the initial introduction between Cambridge and the Saudi defence ministry. Saudi Arabia’s involvement in regional conflicts, particularly the war in Yemen, as well as tensions with Iran, have drawn international criticism. Meanwhile, the business school’s executive MBA programmes command fees of £98,100 for the Executive MBA and £107,400 for the Global Executive MBA, underlining the financial scale of such international partnerships.
The proposal has revived past sensitivities about Cambridge’s ties to Gulf states. Academics pointed to previous scrutiny over the university’s investment fund and its connections to the defence sector, and to instances where freedom of speech in relation to Middle Eastern countries had been challenged. The committee’s decision to approve the MoU in principle, while requiring further consultation on individual contracts, leaves the door open for a formal agreement — but the academic and ethical opposition shows no sign of abating.
