La London School of Economics de finales de los 70 e inicios de los 80 era una facultad con una gran presencia de estudiantes extranjeros que pagábamos una matrícula simbólica como la de los estudiantes británicos. Nos convertíamos, -los agradecidos-, en probritánicos de por vida y muy vinculados a la escuela. Thatcher lo cambió todo, con lógica presupuestaria pero torpeza estratégica. La LSE se convirtió rapidamente en una máquina de recaudar fondos. Primero con estudiantes más ricos, también más conservadores, y acudiendo a menudo a los “alumni” o antiguos alumnos. Sin embargo, no pensábamos que llegaran tan lejos como para vender doctorados a uno de los hijos de Gaddafi por millón y medio de libras.  Al actual director le honra haber presentado la dimisión pero deberemos replantearnos algunas preconcebidas ideas sobre la financiación privada de las universidades que en nuestro país, -en el otro extremo-, ni se huele, y en general sobre tantas relaciones con paises detestables  y sospechosos (huy Qatar!).

A través de un LSE alumni group de Linkedin me llega un texto de un compañero desconocido que inicia una discusión sobre este tema. Me parece adecuado y sobre todo ante el espectáculo de desorientación que todos en occidente estamos dando ante los acontecimientos de Líbia y del resto de paises árabes:

> I don’t think anyone is suggesting that this is an LSE only problem. You
> are right that other institutions should be investigated. Presumably the
> LinkedIn pages of Oxford and Cambridge will be debating similar
> questions. The real issue here is that British Universities and British
> Politicians are very eager to get their hands on money of any country
> with a huge balance of payment surplus and to hawk whatever they are
> offering at any price just to get a slice, even if it means being silent
> on human rights and democracy.
>
> This is the fundamental challenge for western nations as they diminish
> globally not just in their military might, but in their economic
> position as well, as other developing nations emerge. Sometimes, the
> softly softly approach works in moving dictators towards more political
> and economic liberalisation. But you need to investigate thoroughly
> their commitment to these issues. While Gaddafi might have toned down
> his anti-western stance for fear of being chased out of Libya by the
> Americans like they did Saddam, he was still creating politically
> instability by financing rebel groups in places like Sierra Leone and
> Liberia, who went on to commit a lot of atrocities in those countries.
> We have seen how he has relied on the same African rebels for support
> against his own people.
>
> Against this backdrop, LSE should have been judicious about who it is
> getting into bed with and not just accept the £1.5m in the hope that
> Gaddafi (or his family) were reforming simply because he was now
> acceptable to western leaders like Blair, who simply wanted to get
> Britains hands on Libyan oil. LSE’s role is to continue to expose,
> critically evaluate and challenge these sorts of political developments,
> not become part of the process by prostituting themselves for money.
> Houghton Street should continue to create space for political and
> economic debate and discussion both inside and outside the lecture
> rooms.