How do you maintain academic freedom while ensuring that extremists can never stifle debate?
More practically, for example, what if the college prayer room has what someone claims to be ‘offensive material’?
It’s a sensitive subject particularly in places such as unis that prize freedom of thought. Earlier official guidance in 2006 led to media headlines of ‘Universities urged to spy on Muslims’. Hence guidance from the Department for Education and Skills, updated in January. The earlier, 2006 document began: “There is a real, credible and sustained threat to the UK from violent extremism in the name of Islam.” It argued that the closer the relationship is between educational institutions, student unions, societies, security officers and police, the easier it will be to make the correct decisions on incidents. And as the document ended, unis had to ask whether staff could identify violent extremist behaviour; report it to the uni; and if the uni could pass it to police. In the 2008 update, that mention of security officers is removed.
Now, the new guidance says that while the main terrorism threat to the UK is ‘from Al-Qa’ida influenced terrorism’ threats also come from ‘the extreme far right, animal rights activists, anti-semitism, Islamaphobia’. That the document’s title – Promoting good campus relations, fostering shared values and preventing violent extremism in universities and higher education colleges – is so long suggests that the government is struggling to reconcile free speech and tackling extremism. In the ‘social cohesion’ language of the document, ‘HE [higher education] institutions should be alert to how different forms of unacceptable behaviour and extremism on campus can interact’. That includes use of the internet; and meetings and visiting speakers. As the guidance points out, the Terrorism Act 2006 made offences such as ‘publishing or causing to be published a statement which is likely to be understood as directly or indirectly encouraging terrorism’ and ‘disseminating terrorist publications’ which includes email. That could mean handing out leaflets, or selling DVDs.
“As part of their risk management process, institutions should consider having emergency plans in place to respond to an event or incident, for example, if a student is arrested under terrorism legislation.”
The security department only gets a mention in the document in this scenario: “A senior staff member whose staff and research students have been receiving letters from an animal rights group contacts the security team. Each year this group holds an ‘Awards Ceremony’ and sends out letters to people or groups they hold responsible for the worst aspects of animal cruelty. The institution confirms that a copy of the letter and the names of the recipients has been posted on the group’s website. The staff and research students are concerned that they are going to be targeted by an animal rights group and activists who are sympathetic to the animal rights agenda.” The document asks if there is a ‘reporting mechanism’ for staff to pass on concerns about intimidation; and whether the uni knows who would call the police.
The Dfes says that it welcomes comments to [email protected]
Commenting on the guidelines, NUS (National Union of Students) President Gemma Tumelty said: "Whilst we welcome the new focus on campus cohesion and the overall objectives of the guidelines, the document adds little of practical benefit to students or universities. The guidelines could have done more to detail the steps that universities can take to promote safety, eradicate bullying and protect vulnerable students."
Commenting on the Government’s recommendation that certain groups should not be prevented from speaking at universities, Gemma Tumelty said: "Whilst we agree with the Government that we should work to keep our university campuses safe, the guidance on freedom of speech is unhelpful and contradictory. The guidance argues that holding extreme views is "acceptable, provided these views do not pass the line of illegality" and that universities should encourage that they be debated, before admitting that extreme groups are likely "to be careful to keep their messages within acceptable limits" in campus settings.
“Given that there are groups in the community whose actions on campus are unlikely to be directly "violently extremist," but whose views and their espousal amounts to bullying and intimidation, both students staff and vice-chancellors are likely to be left baffled as to what to report and who to protect"
Commenting on the suggestion that academic staff should monitor student activity, Gemma Tumelty said: "Lecturers and students both have an interest in combating terrorism but we have concerns that encouraging lecturers to monitor groups of students could polarise their relationship. This would prove counterproductive to the dialogue and information-sharing that is essential to any sustainable counter-terror initiative."
And NUS Black Students Officer Ruqayyah Collector criticised the focus of the guidance: "Far from promoting tolerance and integration, the guidelines focus disproportionately on Islamic groups at the expense of other extreme views. This risks encouraging universities to treat Muslims with suspicion, creating a climate of fear around one particular group of students."
What the Guardian said about it:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2244955,00.html
