At Rising East we don’t normally do student life, on the basis that journalists, including student journalists, are obliged to look beyond themselves to find their stories. But Theresa May’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill has made student life into an issue of national significance. Equally, it’s important that students should take the opportunity to discuss and debate this potentially life-changing measure. Here are the voices of six of Rising East‘s student journalists – Azana Francis, Kawther Ayed, Sandra Egbaran, Schahrazade Halfaoui, Miftaul Islam and Marius Holtan – entering that debate:
At Risk From Fear Itself
At a time of heightened fear of terrorism and extremism, is the UK prepared to risk losing freedom of speech?
There is good reason for thinking that home secretary Theresa May’s new Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill would rob us of that right.
If enacted, the Bill would make it the legal duty of universities to monitor and report students who are ‘extremists’ or in danger of becoming so.
This puts an intolerable burden on staff; and it violates the first principle of democracy – that we should have access to the full spectrum of opinion, in order to make up our own minds.
This principle is currently enshrined in legislation. The Education Act of 1986 was purposefully put in place to protect free speech within institutions such as universities.
I fear that the loss of this right would only result in more hostile feelings between different communities. Many Muslim students are likely to feel more excluded and disenfranchised since it is they who will be monitored most; while non-Muslims may feel resentful because their freedoms have been curtailed in response to ‘terror’ associated with somebody else.
Luckily I am not alone in opposing the home secretary’s Bill. Former head of the Civil Service, Lord Butler has said that the government is going ‘too far’ in trying to limit free speech.
When we look back at the tragic events in France last month, it is understandable that across Europe many people are fearful. But even if the threat of a future terror attack is currently put at ‘substantial’, there is already a significant danger of losing the values we hold dear to a climate of fear. Azana Francis
Not The Right Place To Start
I believe there are many ways of tackling the rise of radicalism in the UK, but monitoring students in universities is not one of them.
Firstly, we need to define radicalism. The recent rise of IS in Syria and Iraq has led to an increase in Western Muslims leaving their countries to join the ‘war’. They are ‘radical’. But radicalism doesn’t stop there. For example, the new movie American Sniper has also fuelled some non-Muslims with hate towards Muslims. Following the release of this film, which focuses on a Navy SEAL sniper whose ‘accuracy saves countless lives on the battlefield and turns him into a legend,’ many people tweeted about their intention to ‘kill ragheads.’ You might say that they, too, have been radicalised. Therefore, before any action is taken, it is vital to make it clear that ‘radicalism’ is not a term which only applies to Muslims. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill aims to stop radicalisation, but if it does, it should stop all radicalisation, in all its forms.
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that students are paying up to £9k a year so they can drop everything and become terrorists. However, even if some of them choose to do so, there are other, more effective ways of preventing them from going ahead. Social media offer the most powerful platforms on which new movements gather momentum. Twitter and Facebook, for example, were the tools that sparked the Arab Spring in 2011. As a result, more radicals have taken to social media sites to gain ground and increase the size of their networks. Online media sites are already monitored, the home secretary already has the power access what people post, and using this authority to good effect would be far more effective than monitoring public meetings on campus.
Theresa May should re-evaluate the locations from which she seeks to root out terrorism. To make a real difference, universities are not the best place to start. Far from being the frontline in a clash of civilisations, as she seems to think, they are places of study, and no one on campus should be prevented from bringing in useful speakers to discuss contemporary issues. Kawther Ayed
Drawing A Line
Students don’t only come to university study. The extra-curricular activities they take part in are also an important part of their education.
But although they are adults and should, some would argue, be left to decide what speakers they want to listen to, a lot of them are also young and impressionable.
So it is only right that the government should seek to stop them being radicalised by extremist speakers, in case they decide to purse the goals of those speakers in a violent way.
Also, although some critics of the Bill argue that it will turn lecturers into spies, I think we can trust these qualified professionals to know where to draw the line. Sandra Egbaran
My Two Minds Must Become One
One part of me completely disagrees with Theresa May and another part of me agrees with the way she has chosen to tackle radicalism at universities.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill proposed by the home secretary is designed to guarantee my safety but on the other hand my main reason for attending university is to gain freedom and independence, whatever the risks.
So you can see my quandary.
Recent events have shown me that these two aspects are not always entirely compatible and the likelihood is that I will have to decide between them. Freedom and independence versus safety and security: not only me, but my whole generation will have to make that choice.
There’s no denying that safety and security are important. In some ways I do agree that putting in place extremist speaker policies and banning fanatics from university premises may help to ensure that vulnerable young adults are not unduly affected. Similarly, a university is an institution which provides young people with the care and support needed to complete their last few steps into the professional, adult world. Therefore universities should be the safe haven for students to work together with people from all religions and backgrounds without fear or apprehension. On these grounds, I am tempted to support the Bill in the hope that it will serve to provide a secure and stable platform for all students.
Yet freedom and independence are also two very important things which I have gained only through coming to university. Freedom of speech specifically is vital to maintain a balanced and democratic society. Nobody should feel that their freedom of speech has been breached, or fear that what they say could put them in jail. I’m saying this not because I want to hear all the nasty stuff that’s out there; but because I don’t want anyone stepping in to prevent me deciding for myself what’s nasty and what isn’t.
Not only will this Bill restrict and invade the lives of students across the UK but it will target Muslim students in particular, creating further stigmatisation and hostility. The whole procedure of monitoring students should be carried out, if at all, equitably and not solely focused on a particular group.
Also, enacting a law whereby teachers must monitor students is simply impractical. How will the government know that the law is being enforced, what evidence will tutors have to provide and how will they be expected to obtain it? Take a picture? Record a video? Or will it be enough to write in an email that they spoke to so and so? Ridiculous.
On balance, I would rather be in a vulgar and unpleasant environment filled with extreme opinions than be denied the freedom to judge for myself. Schahrazade Halfaoui
The University Is Not An Island
The limitations written into the Bill mean that it is misguided, right from the start. Focusing on the confines of a university – hoping to stop ‘radical’ students from sharing their rhetoric across campus, does nothing to prevent the spread of such ideas beyond the domain of the university.
The Bill seems to suggest that universities are like a closed world, with next to nothing beyond it. If that were really the case, perhaps it would make sense to ban a speaker deemed to be ‘extremist’ from speaking on campus. But that’s not how the world is!
Banning a speaker from coming onto campus does not prevent him and his followers from uploading his speeches on to social networking platforms; neither does it prevent them from talking about this material while on campus. Universities adopting ‘extremist speaker policies’, as the Bill requires them to do, will not stop ‘extremists’ holding their own events round the corner from the campus. ‘No Platform’ cannot be an effective university policy when there are so many other platforms which do not belong to the university.
Another hurdle is the ambiguity that surrounds expressions such ‘freedom’ and ‘freedom of speech’. The lack of clarity concerning these concepts, on a national and even a global scale, has led to countless confrontations and misunderstandings – if not war. A Bill such as this could only be successful if it were much clearer on what constitutes ‘freedom of speech’. But it is not possible to hold the line if the line itself is unclear. Miftaul Islam
If We Need This Bill, What’s The Point Of University?
Universities should take a stand against extremism, but the proposed Counter Terrorism and Security Bill is not the way to go about it.
The Bill has a lot to say about the responsibility of universities. But let me say that the first responsibility of the university is to afford its students the capacity to arrive at informed opinions and rational decisions.
At this level of maturity, we will have no problem in repelling extremism – unless such ‘extremism’ happens to be extremely well-informed and extremely rational.
The question underlying the Bill is whether students are mature enough to be trusted with freedom of speech. If we are thought to be able to handle it, then surely we can handle whatever comes with it — be it extreme tendencies or outrageous speeches. On the other hand, if we are deemed incapable of coping with free speech, then surely the education system had better take a good look at itself. What else is it for, if not to enable young people to graduate as autonomous adults capable of making rational judgements?
Universities need to stand by their students’ ability to separate right from wrong and rightful opinion from extremism, not least because the ability to do this lies at the heart of university education. The question of whether or not students can be trusted in this regard, cannot but raise the question of whether university education is fit for purpose. If it is fit for the purpose of enabling us to become rational human beings, capable of making up our own minds, then there is no need for the Counter Terrorism Bill. But if we need the Bill, this surely means that we don’t need universities the way they are now, i.e. failing to foster independence of mind. Adopting the Bill, in other words, would be a sign of failure on the part of ‘higher’ education.
Universities should take a stand against extremism by providing high quality education, which will equip students with all the skills they need to handle free speech. This includes showing them the world that’s out there, and taking the rough with the smooth. Marius Holtan
I don’t want to die on my campus!
Unfortunately when most people hear the word “terrorism” they think of Muslims. Is this fair? The vast majority of those who follow the Qu’ran are peaceful worshippers who abide by the word of Allah. Islam teaches us that Muslims and Christians are cousins.
But a small minority of Muslims, such as those responsible for the 2005 terrorist attacks in Britain, twist the word of Allah to suit their own ends. This extremism is what is also responsible for the murders being carried out by Islamic State.
Therefore, though small in number, these extremists are dangerous, and so the government has no option but to tighten up security to stop UK nationals from becoming radicalised and wanting to do us harm. If that also means monitoring visiting speakers to universities then so be it. But it is important not to make the innocent Muslims I know feel singled out. The government therefore needs to emphasise that the new Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill is designed to counter all terrorism, not just Islamic terrorism.
I spoke to Sadiq, a Muslim male who also agrees with the proposed legislation, and wanted to make the point that British colonialism was also a form of terrorism. Ebony Bell
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/202956522″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]