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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
See the CONTEST strategy, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/counter-terrorism-strategy-contest (accessed on 27.02.2018).
- 2.
S.26 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.
- 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.
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.
S.26 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.
- 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.
PDGHEB para. 22.
- 8.
See Universities UK/Safer Campus Communities, ‘The Prevent duty in Higher Education: An Introduction’, PowerPoint training presentation.
- 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.
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.
UNGA Res 70/291 ‘The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review’ (1 July 2016).
- 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.
See the CONTEST strategy, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/counter-terrorism-strategy-contest (accessed on 27.02.2018).
- 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.
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.
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.
Home Office, CONTEST, The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism (Cm 8123, July 2011) 1–125.
- 18.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, s 26(1).
- 19.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, Schedule 6
- 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.
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.
Human Rights Act 1998.
- 23.
European Convention on Human Rights, article 10 (1).
- 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.
European Convention on Human Rights (1950), article 8.
- 26.
R. (on the application of Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45.
- 27.
Per Wilson LJ at para. 45.
- 28.
[2017] EWHC 1930.
- 29.
Human Rights Act 1998, s 3.
- 30.
Human Rights Act 1998, s4.
- 31.
Home Office, Prevent Strategy Guidance (Cm 8092, 2011) 107.
- 32.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, s31.
- 33.
See Equality Act 2010, s 149, (1)(a)(b)(c).
- 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.
[2017] EWHC 1930 at para. 202.
- 36.
Butt at paras. 81–95.
- 37.
R (Catt) v Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland [2015] UKSC 9.
- 38.
Butt at paras. 254–255.
- 39.
Butt at paras. 227–237.
- 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
Dearden, L. (2018). Four far-right UK terrorist plots foiled since Westminster attack, police reveal. The Independent. Retrieved February 23, 2018.
Department for Education. (2017). Advice note: Safeguarding vulnerable individuals in Higher Education from terrorist groups. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from http://www.safecampuscommunities.ac.uk/uploads/files/2017/05/advice_note_safeguarding_in_he_050517.pdf
Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2017). Delivering the prevent duty in a proportionate and fair way. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/delivering-prevent-duty-proportionate-and-fair-way
Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2018). Brexit and the EU charter of fundamental rights: Our concerns. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/what-are-human-rights/how-are-your-rights-protected/what-charter-fundamental-rights-european-union-0
Gilmore, J. (2017). Teaching terrorism: The impact of the counter-terrorism and security act 2015 on academic freedom. The Law Teacher, 51(4), 515–524.
Greer, S., & Bell, L. (2018). Counter-terrorist law in British universities: A review of the “prevent” debate. London: Royal Holloway University of London.
HEFCE. (2017). Analysis of prevent annual reports from higher education providers for activity 2015–2016. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/2017/201711/HEFCE2017_11.pdf
HM Government. Security, law enforcement and criminal justice: A Future Partnership Paper. Retrieved February 23, 2018., from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/645416/Security__law_enforcement_and_criminal_justice_-_a_future_partnership_paper.PDF
Home Office. (2015). CONTEST, the United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism. London: UK.
Masud, S. (2017). ‘Rethink of Prevent strategy needed’ to end radicalisation. Eastern Eye. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.easterneye.eu/rethink-prevent-strategy-needed-end-radicalisation-says-rudd/
McGovern, M. (2016). The university, prevent and cultures of compliance. Prometheus, 34(1), 49–62.
Mendick, R., et al. (2017). Security services missed five opportunities to stop the Manchester bomber. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/
Olterman, P. (2018). Theresa may wants new security treaty with EU next year. The Guardian. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/17/theresa-may-wants-new-security-treaty-with-eu-next-year
Qurashi, F. (2017). Just get on with it: Implementing the prevent duty in higher education and the role of academic expertise. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. SAGE Journals, 12(3), 197–212.
Rights Watch UK. (2016). Rights Watch (UK) launches landmark report on the prevent strategy at the houses of parliament. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from http://www.rwuk.org/rights-watch-uk-launches-landmark-report/
Rudd, A. (2017). Amber Rudd’s Conservative conference speech. The Spectator. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/amber-rudds-conservative-conference-speech-full-text/
Sutton, R. (2015). Preventing prevent: Challenges to counter-radicalisation policy on campus. London: Henry Jackson Society.
UK Parliamentary Inquiry (2017). ‘Is Government policy on free speech in universities coherent? Retrieved February 27, 2018, 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/
UNGA Res 70/291. (2016, July 1) The United Nations global counter-terrorism strategy review.
Wolton, S. (2017). The contradiction in the prevent duty: Democracy vs ‘British values’. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice SAGE Journals, 12(2), 123–142.
Wragg, P. (2016). For all we know: Freedom of speech, radicalisation and the prevent duty. Comms. Law 21(3), 60–61.
Yezza, H. (2015, September, 28). Prevent will discourage the very students who can help fight extremism. The Guardian. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/28/prevent-discourage-muslim-fight-extremism-counter-terrorism-university-school-students-suspicion
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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)