The question that bothers the minds of the students and the academics alike in the U.K.. Varsity Campuses is whether in the name of containing extremism, the U.K. Government has unleashed an era of spying on the students and whether such measures are targeted towards a particular community. According to analysts, this appears to be the case and this write-up analyses the likely impact of the recent guidelines issued by the U.K.Government to contain extremism and seek to answer the above questions.
Sometime back, the Government had issued guidelines to University and College Authorities to the effect that they should inform the Police if they detect signs of extremist behavior among the Muslim Students. The guidelines were revised, but, they were merely in nature of toning down a little bit in language and did not contain any major changes on the contents of the document.
KEY PROVISIONS:
1. The Universities should help in fighting with Islamist Extremism by working with security services to identify potential suspects. Such potential subjects are broadly males, below 30 who support and participate in violent extremism. Though the focus is on males, the guidelines do not preclude women who are of late attracted to radicalism which is on the increase.
2. According to the Higher Education Minister, Mr.Bill Rammell who had unveiled the document such Universities have become recurring grounds for Al-Queda and radical groups and measures are needed to protect the impressionable students who may be susceptible to getting brainwashed. However, though the threat is real and serious, in his own words, it is not at present widespread.
ARE THE MEASURES DRACONIAN IN NATURE?: Both the students and academic community feel that the guidelines are draconian in nature; the word monitoring used in the document is nothing but an euphemism to spying. As there is no objective definition of extremist behavior, the field is left open for the Universities to interpret it the way they like. As it is targeted against a particular community, viz, Muslim Students, it would lead only in aggravating the existing climate of Islamophobia.
Consider, for instance, whether a student who considers himself a devout Muslim, sports a beard, observes Ramzan, offers customary prayers even if it means skipping of classes at times, attend meetings of radical Islamic group in the campus is to be considered as an extremist? A strict interpretation of the guidelines would brandish him/her as an extremist.
The Academic Community is also united against the measures. The views of them were summarized by Mr.Martin Everett, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East London in these words. ‘I cannot support the idea that staff should in someway act as informer or spies. Students are here to gain an education and part of that education is to promote free speech and encourage debate. Staff must be seen as the catalyst that helps move students thinking on. Any thing that compromise that role undermines the primary goal of higher education and I think what the Government has proposed would precisely do that.
GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLAY FEARS: M.Bill Rammel had sought to ally the fears of the student and academic community by denying that the government was muzzling academic freedom or free speech. It is legitimate and permissible for students to research the origin of violent extremist;but the line has to be drawn between an analysis and advocacy. When an analysis tends to go towards advocacy of violent extremism, it needs to be curbed and these guidelines are geared towards that.
But the crticis who remain unconvinced point out a case in example. A young Muslim shop assistant was charged with terror offences and put on trial for describing herself albeit in a jocular manner as a ‘lyrical terrorist’ on a website. This is not a case of extremism and at worst can be considered as an act of stupidity. Although her sentence was suspended, this only highlights the extent they can go. When the country is having draconian anti terror laws in force, there is no need for duplicating them with such guidelines especially they are all the more harsh considering the fact that it is directed towards a particular community, despite the fact that there is no evidence that they have broken any law. These measures would only unleash a climate of suspicion and fear and extremism cannot be fought through censorship.
CONCLUSION; A similar proposal introduced by the Government when Tony Blair was the P.M two years ago had to be shelved due to severe criticisms from all quarters. Thus the answer to the question central to the issue seems to be in the affirmative and these guidelines if implemented would result in the curbing of the civil liberties of the students and hence need to be withdrawn.
Leave Your Comments