Education,Citizenship and Social Justice

The Prevent strategy at UK universities is designed to reduce the possibility of university students becoming radicalised and so working against them supporting or directly engaging in terrorist activities. In this study, we were concerned to reflect on our reading of some relevant literature by exploring the views of a sample of British Muslim students regarding Prevent and, in particular, its impact on their sense of personal and national identities as British Muslims. Nine British Muslim undergraduate students completed an online questionnaire. We discuss findings suggesting that there is limited general understanding and negative characterisations of Prevent, with perceptions of this policy being ineffective and inappropriate for higher education contexts. We suggest that more work is needed to develop relevant educational initiatives in the development of a tolerant society and that there is potential in discourse analysis to help reveal further insights into Muslim students’ identities.

The article interprets changes in human rights education in English school policy on values which have increasingly been framed by PREVENT and a move from international to national expressions of values. It reveals the extent of the impact and nature of this change on human rights education in school policy for the first time. It reports changes from minimal to maximal expectations compounded by an increased focus of school performance. It illustrates the extent to which values are politically framed and significantly how recently ‘sudden’ political changes in the United Kingdom can be seen as part of a change trend which is almost 10 years old. It draws on Schwartz’s theoretical structure of values, Baxi’s conceptualisation of rights and Lohrenscheit’s notion of learning about and learning for human rights as these, respectively, reveal conceptual clarity in values, human rights and pedagogy.

The duty to monitor ‘the failure to uphold British Values’ in the Prevent strategy, introduced in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, is itself an attack on British democracy. This article explains the contradictory nature of the Prevent Duty. First, the current state of democracy in Britain is examined and contrasted to a common teaching topic, the Suffragettes. Under Prevent, Suffragettes’ extremist tactics place a burden on teachers to explain how terrorist activities may have once been legitimate. Second, Prevent’s focus on extremism and radicalization assumes a moral consensus, which is confirmed by its incorporation into the Safeguarding agenda. The article, however, argues that fear of radicalization does not create a new moral universal. Democracy involves a struggle to influence parliament both in expanding the suffrage in the 19th century and in the contemporary discussion of political power. Prevent’s insistence on the importance of democracy, while denying the contestation of ideas which is integral to the working of a democracy, further evacuates the concept. Democracy is described as separate from the struggles that created it, a ‘value’ that everyone shares, rather than a means by which the majority can struggle to construct policy.

In this article, I test the claims of the UK government and universities that the Prevent programme aims to create a safe space for the discussion of ‘extremist’ ideas in universities. I do this by comparing the main elements of the Prevent duty that has been imposed on universities with those of safe spaces as imagined by student campaigners and some educational writers. I conclude that, while there are manifest and significant differences in the harms that the two strategies aim to prevent, and in the sources, nature and targets of the coercion that the two strategies entail, their overall form and the underlying assumptions that rationalise them are shared. I consider some implications of their differences and of their shared characteristics for the critics of the two strategies.

A dominant narrative on many British campuses is ‘Prevent’, which is part of the government’s counter-terror policy, an ideology based on fear. Muslims, in particular, are considered to be at risk of radicalisation on campus, and being under suspicion makes them self-censor. Additionally, the no-platforming student lobby creates a utopian, idealised atmosphere that seeks to reduce dissent. Self-censorship and no-platforming are reducing the diversity of opinions expressed at universities, yet there is no evidence of illegality on campus. Spinoza, JS Mill and Hannah Arendt demanded various forms of free speech for a healthy society, and the free speech issue is the key to ‘Prevent’ which suppresses opinions that are different from the dominant government narratives. The challenge now, in the tide of BREXIT and Trump, is how to free speech, even a little, from the pincer grip of establishment ideology and student utopia. Between the extremes of ideology and utopia is a vacuum that must be filled; if we do not fill it with free speech and discussion, others can colonise it with stories that inspire fear and suspicion. Similarly, a vacuum exists naturally between laws (that set norms) and state guidance on laws (application). If we do not use debate to negotiate the contents of this vacuum, it will be filled with the bureaucracy of fear and even a state of exception. A vacuum demands to be filled. In both cases, we need to actively reclaim each ‘vacuum’ for discussion, debate and questioning in order to try and understand our current cultural imagination and develop a better one.

This article addresses the way in which the securitisation of education, effected through initiatives in counter-terrorism such as Prevent, leads to what I call ‘pedagogical injustice’ for students and teachers. It analyses the implications of the pre-crime agenda in the space of the classroom and draws upon literature on epistemic injustice, communicative injustice and institutional prejudice to explain why bringing counter-terrorist legislation into education undermines the educational endeavour. It argues that by re-framing the Prevent agenda in the language of therapy, resilience and well-being, indicators guiding its implementation that might otherwise be seen as illegitimate or even illegal forms of profiling are given credence in the spheres of education and other domains which demand pastoral care from professionals. By targeting ideas instead of focusing on violence, Prevent undermines educators. Foucault describes this kind of blurring of discourses as ubuesque and examines the veneer of legitimacy given when professionals engage in discourses and practices beyond their specific expertise. This new figure is the counter-terrorist educator operating between the spheres of security, psychology and education. To contest this image of education and outline the dangers of this approach, we turn to Arendt’s writings on education and her commitment to ‘training the imagination to go visiting’.