SOAS’ Confused Management 

By Barty Roberts, SOAS News Editor

There seems to be an ever-growing chasm between the students and management at SOAS. Nothing encapsulates this more than SOAS investing more than £2 million in companies that support the Netanyahu-led Israeli regime. 

The SOAS student body prides itself on its opposition to the Israeli regime, with its campus covered in graffiti and stickers supporting a boycott of “Israeli Apartheid” and demanding “Free Palestine,” demonstrating the madness of SOAS investing in these companies. Universities do invest—it is a cruel fact of the commercialised nature of higher education—but one should expect their universities to invest in a way that somewhat reflects the values of their respective communities. 

It strikes me that SOAS only invests in these companies to act like a typical university. SOAS never will be, nor should it try to be, the typical university. SOAS’ respect within the academic world derives from its atypicality and the unusual specialisations of each of the departments. Investments like these represent what has come to be known as the “UCLification” of SOAS. Sycophantic behaviour like this – the attempt to act like the bigger, more powerful members of the University of London – is pathetic and just weird. 

No doubt, Adam Habib and the rest of SOAS’ confused management will justify these decisions as methods to ensure the long-term sustainability of the institute and prevent further financial trepidation. But what is the point of safeguarding SOAS’ future if the SOAS of the future is so far removed from the SOAS that everyone loves and respects? We are already witnessing the slow murder of SOAS’ soul; from how security seems transfixed on destroying any signs of student political expression, to the scrapping of the African Studies programme. Both of these demonstrate how intent on “unSOASing” SOAS the current management are. 

Obviously, students having direct involvement with how universities use their money would more than likely create unsustainable chaos. However, their views should at least be considered. The Students’ Union has regularly called for a boycott of an “Israeli Apartheid”. Yet, it seems these calls are entirely ignorable for managing staff. What, then, does the Students’ Union need to say to be heard? 

SOAS has an alternative nature, one which is celebrated by the students. Evidently, this requires mediating by its employed professionals, but the student body should not be silenced or ignored. Management should seek to celebrate the best and most unique elements of the student body – not hide them like some great source of embarrassment. The source of embarrassment should be their dodgy investments, not the political views of their students. 

Amongst its nine core values, SOAS lists ‘transparency’. However, it does not strike one as very ‘transparent’ that Palestine Solidarity UK – the organisation which initially reported SOAS’ Israeli investments – had to file a Freedom of Information request to obtain this information. Similarly, SOAS’ commitment to ‘promoting equality and celebrating diversity’  seems rather at odds with investing in a regime that is outrightly racist – with the government being partly made up of the incredibly homophobic Otzma Yehudit Party too. 

However, the most obvious breach of the core values must be the total disregard for number six – ‘community’. Allegedly, “SOAS recognises that its greatest assets are its staff and students. We will strive to create an atmosphere of community, collegiality and cooperation for all staff and students.” Yet one finds themselves struggling to understand how the relationship between the student body and management can be regarded as its “greatest asset” when SOAS’ management seems so committed to investing in a way which is contradictory to the values of both the institution and its students.