Government targets extremism at universities
The government last week published a new set of guidelines to curb the spread of religious extremism on university campuses. Concerns about the influence of extremist and terrorist groups at universities began after the July bombings in London 2005. Since then research has shown that such groups are active at over 30 higher education institutions with some linked to known cases of terrorist activity. However, the higher education minister, Bill Rammell, describes the problem as "serious but not widespread".
The new guidelines, which update earlier advice given in 2006, recommend that universities limit religious segregation of the campus community by refusing to accommodate requests for separate prayer and washing faculties. Also, the report encourages universities to communicate with one another about violent Islamic speakers who should be banned from addressing students. Additionally, it suggests that lecturers should monitor their student’s interest in extremism and report to the authorities if individuals cross the line between engaging in research and debate about radical ideas and perpetuating violence.
Whilst the advice has been widely accepted by vice-chancellors as necessary, it has been criticised by the University and College Union and the National Union of Students for inhibiting universities academic freedom, focusing unequally on Islam and charging lecturers with the inappropriate task of ‘spying’ on their students. Having considered the full recommendations of the report I would agree that it has a definite bias against Islamic religion. A diversity of religions are represented at our universities often with their own societies and facilities such as churches. Therefore, refusal to provide prayer rooms and washing faculties seems to single out Muslim students by denying them the right to observe their religion at university. This move in itself may do more to inspire radicalisation and segregation of the Muslim community on campus than the presence of marginal extremist groups. The report singles out violent Islamic speakers to be prevented from addressing students. The fact that there was no intervention when in November last year Nick Griffin and David Irwin, both of whom have been previously charged with inciting racial hatred, were allowed to take part in a debate at the Oxford Union demonstrates that non-Islamic religious views are considered less threatening.
While the recommendations are not heavy-handed and they are after all a set of guidelines rather than instructions, their disproportionate emphasis on Islamic rather than all brands of extremism is unlikely to foster the tolerant and integrated campuses which it aims to promote. I think that the report patronises students by viewing them as vulnerable to ‘grooming’ by extremists, infringes the rights of students and staff to religious and academic freedom. In singling out the Islamic faith the measures may even prove counter productive.
Write a comment