Steve Peers

The Brexit vote is often seen as an attack on both academic expertise and EU citizens in the UK, whether accurate or not. These two issues intersect in a recent dispute involving the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the London School of Economics (LSE). The FCO allegedly barred EU citizens from advising the government on Brexit, though the details are unclear.

The LSE reportedly informed staff that the FCO no longer sought Brexit advice from EU nationals, sparking a controversy that made its way to social media and prominent news outlets like The Guardian. This occurred amidst a series of government announcements perceived as hostile towards foreigners. While the FCO denies making such a statement, the LSE stands by its claim. Two central questions arise: Did the FCO implement this policy, and did the LSE act appropriately?

Determining the Truth

It’s possible this was a misunderstanding. However, it’s more plausible that the FCO did have this policy, and the LSE, or at least some within the institution, discovered a way to challenge and overturn it.

University administrators are well-versed in navigating government policies, especially concerning funding, student matters, and immigration. Their understanding of these policies is crucial as most university funding relies on it. Therefore, it’s unlikely that the LSE misinterpreted the FCO’s communication. When told that certain staff members are ineligible to contribute to a government project, university administrators would typically seek further clarification.

That said, it’s equally improbable that the FCO would advise the LSE of a policy likely to be deemed illegal, xenophobic, and detrimental. The FCO, known for its rigorous recruitment standards and the expertise of its personnel, wouldn’t create such a policy without a formal process or clear communication.

Perhaps recent shifts within the FCO, like the appointment of a controversial Foreign Secretary or the influence of a Prime Minister’s chief of staff known for his hardline stance on immigration, could explain this. Notably, an FCO official involved in this alleged policy publicly expressed support for criticism directed at it.

Evaluating the LSE’s Response

Assuming there was indeed such a policy, what options did the LSE have? It could have complied, though it’s unknown if other universities chose that route. It could have discreetly questioned the policy, requesting written confirmation or raising concerns privately. Alternatively, the LSE could have publicly challenged the policy, demanding an explanation. Finally, it could have taken a more indirect approach by informing its staff without directly confronting the government, likely resulting in public scrutiny and criticism—which is ultimately what happened. Perhaps a consensus couldn’t be reached internally, or a staff member dissented, leading to the public outcry.

So, what was the best course of action? Openly challenging the policy would have evoked the LSE’s history as a center of activism, but those days are gone. Today, the institution prioritizes navigating a highly competitive environment. Complying with the policy would have meant accepting a legally and ethically questionable directive.

This leaves discreet inquiry and indirect opposition as the remaining options. While the former is typically the most diplomatic approach when dealing with problematic government policies, the latter effectively pressures the government to reconsider without direct confrontation.

In a week marked by discussions about expelling foreign doctors, publicly shaming companies employing foreign nationals, and barring most universities from admitting foreign students, it’s crucial to take a public stand. If the UK is becoming less open to the world, academics must advocate for openness.

Photo credit: lsesuwomeninbusiness.org.uk

See also: David Allen Green’s blog post on this issue,

*Disclosure: I hold a degree from the LSE and have previously taught there part-time. I have no current affiliations with the institution except for a commitment to speak at the launch of Professor Conor Gearty’s new human rights book, On Fantasy Island, on December 8.