Have you noticed, thronging in quads and staring at architecture, groups of Malaysians that any sensible person would describe as ‘tourists’? And did you also notice that they were wearing academic dress, but not as we as Oxford students know it?
This is a branded age, where a single prestigious name becomes instantly recognisable, as does an equally lucrative opportunity for the unscrupulous. No students are unaware of how heavily the Oxford University brand is marketed in 2007, whether it be for clothes, books or on CVs. But what happens when the brand is usurped and used, in the words of Keble’s Domestic Bursar, to deliberately "mislead" all concerned?
The Oxford Centre for Leadership (OXCEL) is an unwanted bruise on the University’s shoulder. The company purports to having only been set up in the United Kingdom since April, but has been awarding ‘qualifications’ in Malaysia for far longer. The numerous Malaysian celebrities ‘awarded’ these have raised the company’s profile in the region, yet all the time exploiting the credibility of the University with which they claim to share a name, but not be affiliated with.
Naturally, OXCEL plays up to all the false perceptions that outsiders have of the University. By charging money for easily obtainable awards, the stupid and idle rich can buy themselves the sort of credentials usually only obtained by years of hard work. It takes only a few seminars, a quick trip to an Oxford college and dressing up in gowns and soft caps to become a great leader, if you would believe the information distributed by the Centre. The same is true of the equally unlikely ‘5-Day Millionaire MBA Programme’, warning that you will "be shocked at how simple and easy steps can be used to accelerate that incredible potential of yours to become a millionaire".
And at the heart of it all stands two men, the men behind both OXCEL and the ‘Oxford Business Club’, Saiful Bahri and Ernest Yeap. They claim that although they came up with the idea, they no longer have responsibility for the Club’s website as it was their students, doubtlessly inspired by those testing motivational sessions, who have since assumed power. It hardly seems remarkable that a Malaysian minister agreed to officially ‘launch’ their company last year.
The scandal is that the University has allowed such activity to go unnoticed in its own quads for so long. In the mad scramble for profit from companies and conferences, ethical concerns have been sidelined. It seems surreal that the University could passively encourage an organisation so detrimental to its own interests to hire out its accommodation and facilities, at the expense of its reputation at home and abroad. The University was only spurred to action after the government, in the form of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, referred the matter to it after months of ignorance about OXCEL’s activities.
But pleading ignorance, for a University that prides itself on its formidable intellectual reputation, is not good enough. Students, and OUSU in particular, must demand not only socially responsible investment from colleges for the long-term, but also socially responsible revenue for the short-term. For all our emphasis on where colleges’ money goes, few ask where it comes from originally and bursars, like any public figures, must be held to account. And yet they will sigh, and complain, and sulk, as the sad irony is that everyone is making money out of Oxford, except for Oxford itself.
