Teaching about terrorism in the United Kingdom: how it is done and what problems it causes (original) (raw)
Related papers
Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2017
The UK Counter Terrorism and Security Act (2015) (CTSA) calls for a partnership between the government, individuals, organisations and communities to prevent the radicalisation of individuals and to prevent their participation in terrorist and illegal activities. As part of this strategy, universities have a statutory duty placed upon them to remain vigilant to signs of extremism. Based upon 20 interviews with UK university lecturers, the paper examines reactions of the academic community to this governmental mandate. Key to our understanding is the deputisation of lecturers into a security regime and how they perform the duty of identifying and monitoring extremism. Equally, forms of resistance are evident in how lecturers understand their new roles and for universities themselves a conservative approach to risk may be gaining traction. We argue there is confusion around the CTSA based upon the ambiguous language in which it is presented and the conservative and defensive reactions that have subsequently produced concern amongst lecturers and UK universities.
Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2018
The UK Counter Terrorism and Security Act (2015) calls for a partnership between the government, individuals, organisations and communities to prevent the radicalisation of people and to prevent their participation in terrorist and illegal activities. As part of this strategy universities have a statutory duty placed upon them to remain vigilant to signs of extremism. Based upon 20 interviews with UK university lecturers the paper examines reactions of the academic community to this governmental mandate. Key to our understanding is the deputisation of lecturers into a security regime and how they perform the duty of identifying and monitoring extremism. Equally, forms of lecturer resistance are evident in how lecturers understand their new roles, and for universities themselves a conservative approach to risk may be gaining traction. We argue there is confusion around the duty based upon its ambiguity and that this has instructed conservative and defensive reactions that have subsequently produced concern amongst lecturers and a debilitating effect within UK universities.
This article examines the impact that the Prevent strategy has had on British universities. Guided by a review of the literature on Prevent, data was collected from semi-constructed interviews of several academics who teach counter-terrorism in British universities, one individual who overseas IT usage at a university, and one individual responsible for implementing Prevent at a university. This is used to build an understanding on the impact Prevent has had on academic freedom and expression, and how appropriate this strategy is in countering radicalisation amongst student populations. This paper utilises elements of Grounded Theory to build theories based from these interviews in order to answer this paper’s titular question. Grounded Theory was chosen as the principle methodology for this research for two reasons: First it was established that due to relevant legislation only coming into effect within the last year, there was little pre-existing theories, therefore this paper conducted ‘theory-building’ research; and because interviews were conducted with academic ‘experts’ in counter-terrorism – experts that interwove their empirical observations with academic theory unprompted – which made the emergence of theory from the data, automatic and logical. It was discovered from this that in some ways it is too early to tell on the full impact of prevent. However, the policy has proven ineffective at understanding the complexity of radicalisation, and whilst it has done little to limit academic freedom in general, it has alienated Muslim and minority ethnic students and staff. This can only be detrimental to counter-radicalisation strategies.
Oxford Review of Education, 2019
Government advice in relation to ‘countering violent extremism’ (CVE) in English schools requires teachers to identify students ‘at risk’ of radicalisation whilst also encouraging them to facilitate open classroom discussions of controversial issues. Data collected in seven schools illustrate how teachers are responding to this advice and illuminate three tensions within ‘controversial issues’ pedagogy. First we discuss the tension between depth and coverage in case studies, which risks treating history as parable. Second, we identify a problem with finding a genuinely open ethical dilemma to discuss, which entails the risk of adopting a hypocritical stance in the classroom. Third, we identify a tendency to perceive school as the antidote to undesirable social attitudes. The teachers’ responses highlight the usefulness of framing certain issues as ‘controversial’ but also illustrate how difficult this can be in practice, especially in the context of CVE, which is perceived by many as a controversial policy.
This paper explores the ‘spaces’ left over for Muslims to be ‘radical’ and the management of minority identities in light of their securitization in the UK. The paper considers a key site of this management of ‘radical’ identities: the university. The university works as prototypical case because of the ways in student activism and identity are a priori drawn together but also because of the prevalence of higher education among terrorists in the UK and USA. As a result, universities have been specifically targeted in counterterrorism and counter-radicalization measures. The paper reveals through student narratives how security discourses of ‘radicalization’ constrain their activism, university experience and identities. Yet, alternative identity constructions emerge that work against the moderate/radical binary. These narratives show how incomplete the process is of incorporating Muslims into the nation.
Jahrbuch f??r P??dagogik
Exception in western democracies in response to the increased terror threat these nations are (perceived to be) experiencing. The aim of 'Prevent' is to identify individuals who might be becoming radicalised, and prevent them from going on to become terrorists. Drawing on the work of Judith Butler I argue that the so-called 'war on terror' is being used to justify new regimes of control and that the education system plays a central role in the creation of the State of Exception. Employing 'Prevent' in HE as an example, I investigate sovereignty as a banal, anonymous and bureaucratic norm, practice and discourse, and the State of Exception as constituted via the performativity (repetition of spoken and unspoken citations) of this norm in education. I also argue that educational policies and practices such as 'Prevent' are central to the creation of Muslims as non-human subject as under the State of Exception their rights are being potentially-and in some cases, actually-suspended under the pretext of public security which places them (potentially) beyond the law. The ongoing use of extreme measures are 'the means by which the exceptional becomes established as a naturalised norm' (Butler 2004, 67).
Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2019
The enactment of the counter-terrorism 'Prevent duty' in British schools and colleges: Beyond reluctant accommodation or straightforward policy acceptance When Britain imposed the 'Prevent duty', a legal duty on education, health and social welfare organisations to report concerns about individuals identified as atrisk of radicalisation, critics argued it would accentuate the stigmatisation of Muslim communities, 'chill' free speech, and exacerbate societal securitisation. Based on 70 interviews with educational professionals and a national online survey (n=225), this article examines their perceptions of how the duty has played out in practice. It then provides an explanation for why, contrary to expectations, not only has overt professional opposition been limited, but there has been some evidence of positive acceptance. It is argued that these findings neither simply reflect reluctant policy accommodation nor do they simply reflect straightforward policy acceptance, but rather they comprise the outcome of multilevel processes of policy narration, enactment and adaptation. Three processes are identified as being of particular importance in shaping education professionals' engagement with the duty: the construction of radicalisation as a significant societal, institutional and personal risk; the construction of continuity between the Prevent duty and existing professional practices; and the responsibilisation of first-line professionals. The conclusion reflects on the wider public and policy implications of these findings.
Securitising Education to Prevent Terrorism or Losing Direction?
British Journal of Educational Studies, 2015
This article examines the growing relationship between security and education, particularly in the light of the UK government's Prevent Duty that seeks to tackle radicalisation in a variety of milieus, including universities. However, rather than seeing this process as being merely one-way, through a so-called securitisation of education (in the parlance of the Copenhagen School of International Relations), what is explored here is the dialectic between these two spheres. It is suggested that a heightened sensitivity to the supposed consequences of inflammatory rhetoric on the well-being of supposedly suggestible or vulnerable students has been in existence within education for quite some time. In that regards, the securitising efforts of politicians and officials are pushing against an open door. What's more, it is proposed that the inability of the authorities to hold the line in support of absolute freedom of expression, within academia and beyond, tacitly encourages the very people the government would hope to detract.