The Big Branding Debate

Both BL and QM Debating Society held a historic debate earlier this term. Our esteemed president and vice-presi­dent, Rob Tucker and Numa Ali, represented BL with 2 others in a 4-man team with the QM team having 4 formi­dable debaters in their ranks. The debate was run in a British Parliamentary style. The topic? An issue that has been in the spotlight for the past couple of years. ‘This house believes that Barts and the London should not be rebranded’ As you may well know, there has been considerable efforts to rename Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry (BLSMD) to Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) School of Medicine and Dentistry. Such a move has been met with sizeable opposition from current students and staff as well as alumni with the ‘#weareBL’ petition gaining 10,000 signatures . Many are unhappy with this change for various reasons which will be stated below. How­ever, some impressive points were made by the opposition which made for a good debate.

The purpose of this article isn’t to persuade you to choose a particular side (there are many other articles and people to do that!) but rather to summarise the points made in the debate and lay before you the reasons why some people are in favour of rebranding BLSMD, and some are against. This will hopefully give you a better understanding of the intricacies of the debate and enable you to come to a more informed conclusion.

FOR

• Closer unity between Queen Mary and Barts – there has been a trajectory of ever-closer union between Barts and the London and Queen Mary that was begun in 1995 when Queen Mary and West Smithfield College merged with Barts and the London, not too long ago (27 years). We already use QM premises for our anatomy and physiology sessions and therefore merger proponents do not rebrand­ing as a significant change since we are operating closely together already.

• Synergistic collaboration – it was argued that the possibilities of Barts and the London and Queen Mary combined will be greater than if we remained sep­arate when it comes to research opportunities and sporting competitions. By being a bigger entity, the new proposed union will be able to have a bigger presence and secure better research opportuni­ties for the medical school and the university than if they both operated separately. Another point was that by combining sports teams together, better teams would be formed leading to a greater chance of sporting success for the university. Proponents would see this merger as a win-win scenario.

• The history of Barts isn’t necessarily one to be proud of – this made for some uncomfortable hearing. Barts students are proud of their medical school heritage but it was pointed out that in times past, the med­ical school engaged in morally questionable behaviour. (see the story of Joseph Merrick aka the Elephant Man). So it was argued that Barts should not be boasting in its history but be willing to hold it with a loose hand unless it is willing to accept the negative aspects of its history along with the good.

• Replacing an elitist spirit with a collaborative one - There may be an elitist spirit behind why Barts want to keep separate from Queen Mary. It has been argued that Queen Mary cannot hope to match the pres­tige of Barts since many academics and prospective students around the world have heard of Barts but not of Queen Mary and therefore Barts would be hindered by the merge. However, this goes against the inclusive and welcoming spirit that is championed at both campuses. The sense of a condescending sneer from Barts to QM can be felt by some and this goes against the core values of both Barts and Queen Mary.

AGAINST

• Barts has a prestigious reputation –St Bartholomew’s Hospital was founded in 1123 by the Anglo-Norman priest Rahere making it the oldest hospital in the country. It made its reputation as a hospital providing medical care for the poor who were brought in via the River Thames and since then, it has built on that reputation on international renown and is considered a world-leader in cardiovascu­lar medicine, oncology and preventative medicine. This is a medical school with a great history and to flagrantly erode it away with the proposed merger is unpalatable for many.

• It is a world-leader in medical education – Barts is able to stand on its own two feet when it comes to medical education. With the ‘canonical’ Kumar and Clark’s Clinical Medicine originating from two doctors working for Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Barts occupies a serious presence in the medical education world.

• It would seriously affect Barts’ identity – one of the chief objections of the proposed merger is that it undermines the existence of cur­rent societies and sports teams. One of the great things about BL societies and sports teams is that it is democratic with student members able to create and run societies and vote for the com­mittee. It enables such societies to work on the ‘grassroots’ level. Merging and getting rid of Barts societies will take the control out of the hands of the BL students and could result in decisions being made about their society which are out of their control.

• Without consent – This may be one of the biggest rea­ignored and trampled on without due consideration. With such a decision, would it have been so unreasonable to see what the students and staff think about this before moving ahead with the proposed plan?

• 10,000 staff, alumni and students oppose this action – 10,000 signatures are a large amount with the Government obliged to respond to such a petition if it was directed towards Parliament. These signatures represent a broad range of people: staff, students and alumni so there is widespread resistance to the change and not just a small group within the medical school. These voices need to be taken seriously if talks are to proceed in an honourable fashion.

The debate was highly successful in highlighting the reasons why people were in favour or against the proposed merger. They were set out and articulated beautifully giving the audience much to chew over. Something which can be so easy to underrate but so good to see was the civil way the debate took place with no raucous behav­iour or insults taking place. Being a Barts student myself, I am naturally biased to one side but the debate has opened my eyes and helped me to appreciate and understand better why the other side holds their position and I think it is incumbent on us as a medical school to acknowledge that those who disagree with us have legiti­mate points and we ought to carefully think about why we believe what we believe making sure our reasons are robust enough for heavy debate.