What was Saïd
'BUILT WITH BLOOD MONEY'. The poster unveiled by protesters on the Saïd Business School last December summarises their objections to it. Ever since 1996, when Wafic Saïd, the billionaire Syrian businessman, donated £20 million for the creation of the School, allegations that his suspected involvement in arms dealing taint the entire enterprise have never been far from the surface. But as the formal opening approaches next week, after the successful introduction of the MBA programme, the completion of a building lauded by architects, and the high-profile endorsement of Nelson Mandela, it is time to ask two questions: first, is Mr Saïd really that bad? And second, does it really matter who he is, or where the money comes from, as long as it makes Oxford's Business School a success?
The answer to the first question would appear to depend upon the definition of 'arms dealer'. Mr Saïd rejects such an epithet, stating that he has "never sold as much as a penknife". Yet he does not deny acting as the facilitator of the 1980s Al-Yamamah deals, the largest transfers of arms on record. It was revealed by BBC's Dispatches that it was Mr Saïd's close friendships with both the Thatcher family and Saudi royalty which led to an estimated $35 billions worth of British arms being transported to Saudi Arabia.
The arms exchanged included not only fighter planes and tanks, but electro-shock batons widely believed to be used in order to torture political dissidents. It is this fact which leads to the assertions of student protestors such as Ed Davey, of Brasenose, to say that the School is "built with profits from the deaths of thousands of people". And whilst it may appear strange to single out Mr Saïd as a hate-figure from a deal which had many other parties involved, his own involvement remains beyond question.
The second question may prove even more difficult to answer. At first, it could appear as if the shadow of Mr Saïd's past has placed a cloud over every stage of the School's development. From the first failed attempt to build on land belonging to Merton on Mansfield Road, reputedly rejected in part due to the college's concern over Mr Said's reputation; then to the failure of the Government to hold a planning inquiry with regards to the present site, despite the fact that it was to demolish a Grade 2 listed building. A leaked memo suggested that this was due to the Blair government's links to Mr Saïd, via his good friend Peter Mandelson.
Professor Anthony Hopwood, Dean of the Business School, told Oxstu, however, that he does not believe that such publicity has harmed the School. He stated that the "speed of development" of the School had been "quite phenomenal", a claim supported by the fact that, in only its second year of assessment, it was placed 28th in the influential Financial Times Survey of Business Schools worldwide. Mr Hopwood also made reference to the fact that the school will benefit the University as a whole, "facilitating discussion and dialogue", through involvement in arts weeks and high-profile public lectures.
Such an occasion occurred last week, when Nelson Mandela spoke at the school. The former South African President went out of his way to make specific reference to Mr Saïd, saying that "in his concern to build bridges we deeply associate ourselves with him". He emphasised the fact that the creation of a Chair in globalisation would help to lead towards "eliminating the inequalities of outcome". This would seem to be tacitly lending support to the view that the source of money is not important if it is used for research which will benefit society as a whole.
These remarks have been interpreted as "misguided" by Paul Ingram, Deputy Leader of the City Council, and an expert in the international arms trade, however, explaining them with the statement that "even great men sometimes make the wrong decisions". Mr Ingram also questioned the ethical dimension of the Business School's courses. Prof. Hopwood strongly denies this claim, pointing to the compulsory ethical component of the MBA, and adding that Mr Saïd has "no involvement whatsoever" in the academic syllabus of the School.
Management students remained unclear as to whether they considered the ethics of the School to be important. One E&M undergraduate from Brasenose pointed out that Mr Saïd is "hardly Osama Bin Laden" and said that "the University should try and get any funds it can". All Management students whom I spoke to stated that they had had no qualms about the record of Mr Saïd when applying to Oxford. Such apathy is reflected by the attitude of OUSU, who were angered by the original donation, but have since fallen silent on the subject.
History suggests that the Business School would be right to assume that it will soon ride out the storm. After all, there are scarce few at Balliol who would support John Balliol's military tactics today, and not that many even at Christ Church who would admire Cardinal Wolsey's judicial policies.
It is also worth noting that Mr Saïd is hardly unique in his role in the arms trade. Margaret Thatcher is arguably considerably more open to public disapprobation for her role in the Al- Yamamah arms deals, yet it is unlikely that the University's Ethics Committee would be expected to look twice at a donation proffered by her, or by any of the BAE Systems management who are, after all, responsible for the manufacture of the arms in the first place.
Paul Ingram concedes this point, but argues that the importance of protesting against the Business School is down to the fact that it is "a global issue which has been brought down to a local level". By protesting about the School, he argues, it is possible to register a general protest against the arms trade which the Government continues to carry out in our names.
Complaining about the Saïd Business School is therefore only consistent if one holds the same opposition to every member of the political elite who condones the arms trade in any form, and to every institution which accepts money from anyone who does. The majority in Oxford who do not hold this view are right to support the Business School in the continuation of its search for academic excellence, and whose success will bring greater kudos to Oxford as a whole.
2nd May 2002