It sounds like something out of the Cold War, but a piece of government legislation means that thousands of students nationally are being unwittingly spied on by their universities, academic rights are being infringed upon, and lecturers are being asked to compromise their relationships with their students.
It will come as no surprise then that this legislation has not been widely advertised to students by the government or their universities, and so many people would think that little has been reported on it by the national media too. But, in fact, these guidelines are a part of the controversial anti-terror laws, which last week seemed to become even more uncompromising with plans unveiled by the Home Secretary John Reid.
Under the legislation, universities are asked to “be vigilant” of any extremist activity, whether it be students giving out leaflets about meetings, or students looking at ‘inappropriate’ websites on the internet.
The guidelines, titled ‘Promoting Good Campus Relations: Working with staff and students to build community cohesion and tackle violent extremism in the name of Islam at Universities and Colleges’, were devised to offer advice to Vice Chancellors and principals of higher education. Bill Rammell, the minister for higher education and lifelong learning, produced the paper, claiming it aims to ‘respond to a number of challenging and sensitive issues’ under the Terrorism Act of 2006.
However, unsurprisingly within the current climate of Islamophobia, the guidelines only discuss Muslim forms of extremism and terrorism, resulting in the lecturers’ union, the University and College Union (UCU), labelling the guidelines as “Muslim-bashing witch-hunts.”
Indeed the paper completely centres around claims that higher education institutions should be more vigilant to “take responsible preventative action to tackle violent extremism in the name of Islam on their campuses”, “…to isolate and challenge the very small minority who promote violent extremism in the name of Islam”, and to assure “our Muslim communities that we all share in the fundamental values of free intellectual enquiry and free expression within the law”.
The guidelines claim that, “universities and colleges can provide a recruiting ground for extremists of all forms, and particularly those that target young people. Student communities provide an opportunity for extremist individuals to form new networks, and extend existing ones.” The idea that universities can be used to recruit extremists is one that has been perpetuated by the media, even leading to suggestions that the way universities accept student applications should be changed.
Professor Anthony Glees told The Guardian in 2006 that in order for campuses to not become vehicles of religious hatred, all potential university students should be interviewed. The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) has criticised these claims for being without substance, highlighting that there is no evidence to support these notions.
Faisal Hanjra, spokesman for FOSIS, said: “The continuous cloud of suspicion that has hung over Muslim students at universities has negatively impacted on the education experience of many young Muslims. The accusations put forward by the likes of Professor Glees have been dismissed by all those working in the higher education sector, including Universities UK, NUS and UCU”.
But the guidelines do not stop here. The paper goes on to list examples of how to spot ‘terrorist’ activity, whether it be ‘terrorist’ literature found in a classroom, speakers with ‘extremist’ views, students spying on others looking at images on the internet that may be ‘terrorist’-related, or students telling university officials that Islamic society meetings have become more ‘extreme’.
It seems to suggest that lecturers are being encouraged then to ‘spy’ on their students, and report them to the appropriate authorities if required. How exactly this legislation is allowed to go through in a country which prides itself on freedom of speech may be puzzling. But even freedom of speech is subject to ambiguous limitations; it can be restricted if it is deemed to be in the interest of preventing disorder or crime, to protect health or morals, or in the interests of national security. These vague phrases are open to interpretation by the government and the courts, and therefore can be applied to preventing terrorism.
But more disturbingly, according to information from an anonymous source gained exclusively by gair rhydd, higher education institutions nationally are allegedly also recording the names of students who borrow books from university and college libraries that may have terrorist or extremist-related content. This information has the possibility of being passed on to government and security service departments, despite the fact that the material may even be on course reading lists.
The Guardian recently reported that Mark Campbell, a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University, claimed that he knew of a student from Swansea who was arrested under anti-terrorism laws for taking a photograph of London Bridge, after a book titled ‘The Future Jihad Terrorist Strategy Against the West’ was found in his possession. It was recommended reading for his university course.
When asked what Cardiff student Javvad Haider, who is Muslim, thought about the guidelines, he responded: “To be honest I could just laugh about it. They can spy all they want and put us on lists as much as they like, we don’t have anything to hide and nothing’s going to happen.”
The second year Medic continued: “It’s not helping anyone and it’s just causing more distrust amongst people; if anything it’s more detrimental than it is beneficial.”
FOSIS, agrees, a spokesman said: “Following the events of 7/7 there have been a number of allegations put forward that have suggested that universities are at particular risk of infiltration from those seeking to commit acts similar in nature to those seen on 7/7. This is simply untrue and no evidence has been put forward to substantiate these very serious allegations.”
These guidelines are a part of anti-terror legislation that has been steadily expanding with alarming frequency in the past five years. The Home Secretary last week renewed calls for the 28-day limit on pre-charge detention to be reviewed for terror suspects, but Javvad also feels that this legislation will not solve the threat of terrorism. He said: “Nobody’s doubting that it’s a problem, but it’s not going to go away by locking someone up for however many number of days.”
Javvad argues that instead the government should be focusing on the causes of why people may consider carrying out terrorist acts. He said: “The government needs to consider the roots of terrorism, it has roots in the UK’s foreign policy, the Middle East and racism in the UK. Draconian laws are not going to put a full stop to this.”
The guidelines though are just another issue in a long list for Muslim students across the UK to feel concerned about. In the past few years, FOSIS has highlighted the suspension of two Muslim students who criticised their college rules that prevent religious student groups on campus in a student-run newsletter; that the face veil has been banned at Imperial College, London in an attempt to ‘tighten security’; and various racist attacks on Muslim students and prayer rooms. This is on top of more legislation that restricts freedom in the name of anti-terrorism laws.
Andy Rennison, a third year English Literature student, was shocked to hear about the government guidelines. He said: “This seems like an Orwellian nightmare. It does make you feel like your rights are not only being infringed but don’t even exist in the first place.”
Dr Paul Mason, director of post-graduate research studies for JOMEC, has research interests in political violence and the discourse of terrorism in media culture. Asked what he thought of the idea of universities being used as ‘recruiting grounds’ for terrorists, he told gair rhydd about his personal opinion, stressing that he could not speak for JOMEC or the university more widely. He said: “Yet another example of knee-jerk paranoia by a government driven by high visibility, sound bite politics packaged for media consumption devoid of substance or evidence. Or to put it another way – it’s utter bollocks.”
In relation to the guidelines and the library accusations, although Dr Mason is not aware if these are true, he speculated: “Do the government really think that someone intent on carrying out an act of political violence is going to hand in their plan as a dissertation? Or sit in a public place Googling “Tower of London and Semtex”? There is no consideration that students, on my courses for example, may be researching ‘why’ it is that people are driven to acts of political violence-what their motivations might be. Perhaps the government don’t want students looking too closely into the actions in Iraq or US foreign policy – because it is those actions that breed hatred and the desire to fight for their beliefs. Sounds to me like it’s a list we should all strive to be on.”
When researching for this article, Cardiff’s Students’ Union’s sabbatical team were also not aware of the government guidelines and so were unable to comment. But Vice President Ed Jones did emphasise that with further investigation, this matter may be discussed at the first student council of the coming academic year.
Last week though, the UCU took direct action at a meeting in Bournemouth by voting to unanimously reject the government’s guidelines.
The UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, commented that UCU delegates had made it clear that they would oppose government attempts to restrict academic freedom and free speech. She said: “Lecturers want to teach students; if they wanted to police them they would have joined force.
“Lecturers have a pivotal role in building trust. These proposals, if implemented, would make that all but impossible. The last thing we need is people too frightened to discuss an issue because they fear some quasi-secret service will turn them in.”
When questioning Cardiff University about the claims that students who borrow library books with terrorism-related content were being recorded, all reports were denied including accusations of infringing on academic freedom; but a spokesperson did admit that the University is considering if current working policies need to be changed under new terror legislation. A University spokesperson said: “A discussion has been held with library staff about how the new legislation under the Terrorism Act should be handled, since the Library manages many of the open access workstation rooms.
“The University is considering the existing Acceptable Use Policy and regulations in the light of the new offences and with a view to ensuring that access to material about terrorism by students and staff is allowed where not restricted by the Act.”
Although gair rhydd cannot be certain that the allegations that university and college libraries nationally are recording students’ names is true; it is obvious that Muslim students in particular are feeling the brunt of restrictive government legislation that has been labelled by many as ‘witch-hunts’.
With news that the UCU is rejecting the government guidelines, perhaps Vice-Chancellors and principals nationally will take the indicative step to follow suit; allowing higher education to fulfil an important role in acting as a unique space to allow free discussion of controversial ideas and ideologies, without students feeling too frightened to contribute.
