Skip to main content

The ‘Choice to Challenge’ Extreme Views in the Classroom? Counter-Radicalisation and the Prevent Agenda in the University Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Investigating Radicalization Trends

Abstract

The university sphere has become an increasingly researched topic as a unique institution that can aid understandings of extremism and radicalisation. Current extremism and radicalisation methods such as the Prevent strategy have become intertwined within university frameworks, which have become an interesting point of study. With recent events within the UK, this research is valuable to aiding law enforcement and the judicial sector concerning the upcoming risks and methods that can be observed within universities. This nuanced research can wider contribute toward the creation of new strategies and can reframe current societal understandings surrounding extremist risks in the UK. To understand the increasing risks to students within universities, this chapter reflects upon the current UK Prevent strategy and the levels of engagement this has with universities nationally. To do so the chapter explores the relationship between higher educational and policing bodies. The chapter conducts an in-depth analysis of the findings within a large quantitative survey disseminated using purposive sampling, given to students and staff at a law school within a UK university. The survey was framed to explore student and staff perceptions of the UK Prevent strategy and how its policies are implemented within universities. From the discussion themes surrounding the effectiveness of the prevent strategy in terms of: discrimination particularly for Muslim students, the creation a censorious atmosphere within universities and how it aids vulnerable students. From these findings the chapter presents the recommendation that the environment for discussing extremism concerns needs to be reframed, creating a more open environment that encourages discussion. This proposed atmosphere is framed by a soft prevention approach to tackling extremism within the classroom and wider campus. By creating a balanced framework this approach gives academic staff the responsibility to report any concerning behaviour to protect vulnerable students and to give students the freedom to freely express their views on contemporary UK risks to challenge current censorious atmospheres within universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the CONTEST strategy, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/counter-terrorism-strategy-contest (accessed on 27.02.2018).

  2. 2.

    S.26 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

  3. 3.

    S.29 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and para. 22 of the Prevent Duty Guidance for Higher Education Bodies (PDGHEB) in England and Wales

  4. 4.

    S.31 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, discussed in Steven Greer and Lindsey Bell, ‘Counter-Terrorist law in British Universities: a review of the “prevent” debate’ (2018) P.L. 85.

  5. 5.

    S.26 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

  6. 6.

    Strictly speaking, university educators will be under employment law duties of contract to their institutional employers to report extremist views/worrying, potentially radicalising behaviour based on their training. A university itself may take the decision to then report the matter to the police. As Greer and Bell explain, ‘if the staff in a given students’ welfare service think any concerns raised about a specific student may require it, they may make a formal referral to a chief police officer who may then refer to a local authority panel, but “only if there are reasonable grounds to believe the individual is vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism’, referencing the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 in s.36(3). See Greer and Bell, p. 94.

  7. 7.

    PDGHEB para. 22.

  8. 8.

    See Universities UK/Safer Campus Communities, ‘The Prevent duty in Higher Education: An Introduction’, PowerPoint training presentation.

  9. 9.

    For example, consider the thwarting of four far-right terrorism plots since the Islamist attack in Westminster in London in 2017: see Lizzie Dearden, ‘Four far-right UK terrorist plots foiled since Westminster attack, police reveal’, The Independent, Tuesday 27th February 2018 (accessed at 27.02.2018).

  10. 10.

    HEFCE, ‘Analysis of prevent annual reports from higher education providers for activity 2015–2016’ (HEFCE 2017) http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/2017/201711/HEFCE2017_11.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2018.

  11. 11.

    UNGA Res 70/291 ‘The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review’ (1 July 2016).

  12. 12.

    See, for example, anonymised case study A from Annex A to Department for Education, Advice note: Safeguarding vulnerable individuals in Higher Education from terrorist groups, from http://www.safecampuscommunities.ac.uk/uploads/files/2017/05/advice_note_safeguarding_in_he_050517.pdf (accessed at 27.02.2018) p.11.

  13. 13.

    See the CONTEST strategy, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/counter-terrorism-strategy-contest (accessed on 27.02.2018).

  14. 14.

    See the EU counter-extremism strategy published at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/eu-strategy/ (accessed 27.02.2018).

  15. 15.

    See Equality and Human Rights Commission, Brexit and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: our concerns, from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-are-human-rights/how-are-your-rights-protected/what-charter-fundamental-rights-european-union-0 (accessed at 27.02.2018).

  16. 16.

    See details of the UK Parliamentary inquiry that is currently asking ‘Is Government policy on free speech in universities coherent?’, from https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/news-parliament-2017/freedom-of-speech-uni-launch-17-19/ (accessed at 27.02.2018).

  17. 17.

    Home Office, CONTEST, The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism (Cm 8123, July 2011) 1–125.

  18. 18.

    Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, s 26(1).

  19. 19.

    Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, Schedule 6

  20. 20.

    Home Office, Individuals referred to and supported through the Prevent Programme, April 2015 to March 2016 (Statistical Bulletin 23/17, 9 November 2017) 4

  21. 21.

    The freedom to manifest religious belief (under Article 9 ECHR) and the supplemental freedom from discrimination in the enjoyment of ECHR rights (under Article 14 of the Convention) may also be engaged by the operation of the Prevent duty; however, the leading Butt case, discussed later in this chapter, did not significantly address these issues.

  22. 22.

    Human Rights Act 1998.

  23. 23.

    European Convention on Human Rights, article 10 (1).

  24. 24.

    See Department for Education, Advice note: Safeguarding vulnerable individuals in Higher Education from terrorist groups, from http://www.safecampuscommunities.ac.uk/uploads/files/2017/05/advice_note_safeguarding_in_he_050517.pdf (accessed at 27.02.2018).

  25. 25.

    European Convention on Human Rights (1950), article 8.

  26. 26.

    R. (on the application of Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45.

  27. 27.

    Per Wilson LJ at para. 45.

  28. 28.

    [2017] EWHC 1930.

  29. 29.

    Human Rights Act 1998, s 3.

  30. 30.

    Human Rights Act 1998, s4.

  31. 31.

    Home Office, Prevent Strategy Guidance (Cm 8092, 2011) 107.

  32. 32.

    Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, s31.

  33. 33.

    See Equality Act 2010, s 149, (1)(a)(b)(c).

  34. 34.

    See Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘Delivering the Prevent duty in a proportionate and fair way’, from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/delivering-prevent-duty-proportionate-and-fair-way (accessed at 27.02.2018).

  35. 35.

    [2017] EWHC 1930 at para. 202.

  36. 36.

    Butt at paras. 81–95.

  37. 37.

    R (Catt) v Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland [2015] UKSC 9.

  38. 38.

    Butt at paras. 254–255.

  39. 39.

    Butt at paras. 227–237.

  40. 40.

    In reJR 38 [2015] UKSC 42; although see the criticism by Lord Kerr of a simplistic application of the reasonable expectation of privacy at para. 56.

Bibliography

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamie Grace .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Steadman, A., Grace, J., Roberts, R. (2020). The ‘Choice to Challenge’ Extreme Views in the Classroom? Counter-Radicalisation and the Prevent Agenda in the University Context. In: Akhgar, B., Wells, D., Blanco, J. (eds) Investigating Radicalization Trends. Security Informatics and Law Enforcement. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25436-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25436-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25435-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25436-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics