Your report (Cambridge University seeks deal with Saudi defence ministry despite rights concerns, 11 May) should be a lightning rod for anyone who cares about academic freedom in this country. According to it, Cambridge’s leadership has approved a proposal by the university’s Judge business school to form a “memorandum of understanding” with Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry.

While this has yet to be formalised, the idea itself is repugnant. The Saudi government is among the most repressive in the world. Last year – a bumper year for executions there – a journalist was among those killed simply for reporting. Scores more remain behind bars all for speaking out about abuses. It is hard to see how any deal with the petrol state would not come at a cost to us. Even if an agreement is fleshed out to state academic freedom would be protected, self-censorship has a terrible habit of creeping in when money is on the line.

Sheffield Hallam University provides a cautionary tale. Important research into China’s human rights abuses was shelved due to the university’s partnerships in China. It only resumed after the professor affected, Laura Murphy, took legal action.

Sheffield Hallam is just one example of the increasing prevalence of transnational repression at universities across the country. Cambridge itself provides another: the Pakistani human rights defender Roshaan Khattak had PhD research into enforced disappearances in Balochistan put on ice following threats.

We have a proud tradition of academic excellence in this country, hence why many foreign states want to partner with us. We need to protect this tradition. Cosying up to foreign states who care little for academic freedom risks its erosion.
Jemimah Steinfeld
CEO, Index on Censorship