LSE Philosophy and Libya: A Naïf's Questions

Here are some questions that arise from the Woolf Inquiry (from which all the quotes below are drawn) into the connections between Libya and the London School of Economics Philosophy Department. (Saif got a PhD; LSE got £1.5 million from companies doing business with Libya. Milord was asked: Is there an improper connection between these two occurrences?)

1. Professors in LSE Philosophy state that Saif Ghaddafi would not have been admissible to a PhD programme at schools such as Stanford. However, "LSE is part of an international economic and political community and it hopes to train future national leaders." Question 1: Is this a legitimate criterion for admission to a doctoral programme? Is a PhD in Philosophy the right credential for such training? . . .

. . . Especially given that "Professor Cartwright, Saif’s official supervisor in the Philosophy Department, was not an expert in all the matters which came within the scope of the thesis."

2. A letter of recommendation from the Philosophy MSc programme in support of Saif's application for the Government PhD programme stated: "There is no question but that Saif... has played a key role in this most welcome change in Libya’s stance, and I believe that LSE can take pride in the thought that the exposure we provided for him." Question 2: If you read a statement like that by a philosophy professor about a secretive regime such as Libya's, would you be impressed? Or would you say: "How could you know that?"

3. The Government Department turned down Saif's application, because they judged him unqualified. Philosophy then admitted him to their PhD programme under a revised research proposal. Question 3: How did rejection by Government pave the way to being admitted to the Philosophy PhD programme? A more speculative question: Was Saif being shopped around? -- Either by his own staff, or by LSE?

4 According to Lord Woolf:

The LSE Philosophy Department ascribes to an element of idealism in providing an education to appropriately qualified students who also come with a promise that they might do some good for the world. That “idealism factor” played a part in the decision to admit Saif to the PhD, . . . The “idealism factor” is not, however, uniformly applied across departments in the LSE.

Question 4: Apparently, then, it is not the School but the Department that inherits such ideals from its "Fabian founders". But: "Professors in the Philosophy Department made efforts to have Saif admitted to the Government Department, but to no avail." And: "Saif’s admission to do his PhD in the Philosophy Department has been described to me by one of the professors involved in his education as “the option which was least attractive to us..." How come? Is this not a strange way to implement your ideals: i.e., by getting somebody else to implement them?

5. The Philosophy Department recommended that Saif get a tutor to help him not only in English but to teach him how to construct an argument. Question 5 (purely rhetorical): When is the last time you recommended that somebody stay in your doctoral programme under such advice? Lord Woolf writes: "Guidance which is as precise as possible should be provided by the university on what assistance it is and is not appropriate for a postgraduate student to receive."

6. Lord Woolf again: "the evidence does not show that any of the academics or staff at the LSE acted other than in what they perceived to be the best interests of the School." Question for Milord: Umm . . What was the question? We thought it had something to do with degrees for donations. We trust nobody suggested degrees for bribes.

7. "The LSE is behind the standard of many global companies. It falls down on the first hurdle in not having an embedded ethics code adopted by the institution, which sets out clearly the values, principles and procedures with which everyone associated with the School ought to comply." Thank you Milord. No further questions.

"A Panel appointed under the Procedure for the Consideration of the Allegations of Irregularity in Relation to University of London Awards will determine whether the assistance Saif received amounts to academic misconduct. I repeat that is not for me to decide whether the assistance which Saif received was improper and this report makes no comment on that." Me neither.