Wednesday 30-03-2016 - 13:48

On 18^th December 2015 through method of proxy voting, our Executive Committee (The Highest Policy Passing Committee at EHSU) unanimously voted to condemn the PREVENT strategy and Theresa Mays Counter Terrorism and Security Bill passed in November 2014. This was due to a number of serious concerns shared by EHSU Executive Committee in relation to the statutory requirement for RHEB (Relevant Higher Education Bodies) to comply with PREVENT, as introduced in September 2015.

Our motion lays out various criticisms of the policy including; the almost singular focus on Muslim communities which could lead to a deeper isolation of our Muslim students, that any expectation by the state for academic staff to be involved in monitoring their students is deeply worrying (students are not suspects) and that students suffering from mental health issues could miss out on the support they need due to the vague outlines given for signs of extremism.

Unfortunately, all criticism of the decision to make PREVENT a statutory duty on Higher Education Institutions was ignored and as such all relevant Higher Education Bodies now must comply with PREVENT.

Universities’ responsibilities include a legal obligation to maintain a partnership with local PREVENT authorities, carry out risk assessments and undertake WRAP training as part of the overarching duty to prevent extremism and students being drawn into terrorism.

EHSU have been involved in all discussions with Edge Hill University regarding the implementation of PREVENT. Whilst we agree that the method in which Edge Hill University have chosen to comply with PREVENT is the best method they could have chosen, we as a Students’ Union still ultimately oppose the PREVENT agenda itself.

In the months since the PREVENT duty began, we have seen an unprecedented level of interference into the everyday life of students across the country. You will have seen various news stories in recent months of children being pulled out of school for writing Allah on their book, or a Masters student in Manchester being quizzed on his thoughts on ISIS, Al Queada and persecution of homosexuals due to reading a book on terrorism in the library for his studies or a 14 year old being interrogated about his views on ISIS because he mentioned a word he’d learnt in debating club; “eco-terrorisme,” in a French class.

Under The Education (2) Act 1986, Universities and all concerned in their government are required to take all steps possible to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for its members, students and employees and for visiting speakers. The very vague requirement for our University (or any University) to assess the risk of “non-violent extremism” which in itself is ill-defined really curbs our right to Freedom of Speech in Higher Education

Our academic freedom as a student is incredibly valuable to not only the expansion of our minds and ideas, but to our self-progression throughout University and further on in life. To be limited to the resources we can access because of the fear of being deemed a terrorist is a very real intrusion on our rights as a student and what we’ve essentially “signed up” for by coming to University.

It is incredibly difficult to imagine how the governments PREVENT agenda being forced upon Higher Education Institutions can work alongside a Universities requirement to ensure freedom of speech amongst it’s student body. Students around the country have said they feel silenced and are choosing to self-censor rather than openly debate critical issues, shying away from anything that will mark them out as “radical”. It is because of this we must Unite to fight against the PREVENT agenda.

 

PREVENT makes reference to potential indicators of radicalisation as:-

“A need for identity, meaning and belonging.”

“A desire for political or moral change.”

“Relevant mental health issues.”

By using vague, and open to interpretation indicators of radicalisation, we are not only giving the government unprecedented access to interfere with Universities and their students (which should thrive on open debate, and where there is often a desire for political change) but are also at risk of stigmatising mental health, an issue of huge emerging importance for university settings.

Extremism is defined by “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.” 

When we define extremism by opposition to fundamental British values, we again leave this very open to interpretation. What can one define as fundamental British Values? How can this be measured by universities in order to make concrete decisions on violations? How can universities be under obligation to ensure British values are promoted when the majority of people can’t even define them, much less promote or teach them?

In light of this EHSU reiterates its policy on PREVENT: 

- We have no obligation to comply with PREVENT

- We believe students should not be victimised for suffering from mental health issues.

- We believe the PREVENT strategy gives the Government undefined powers to order that “extremist” speakers be banned and enforces Universities and asks Students’ Unions to monitor student activity for ‘extremism’

- We believe that any expectation by the state for academic staff to be involved in monitoring their students is deeply worrying, and could have a damaging effect on relations between staff and students

- We will work with other students’ unions and NUS to condemn the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill in its current format.

- We will ensure we are involved or are kept involved in any conversations around PREVENT with the Institution

- We will raise awareness about the dangers of the counter terrorism and security bill and the PREVENT strategy.

- We will lobby the government to prevent PREVENT

Our services will remain confidential, safe spaces for students to use and engage with.

Steven Rouke, EHSU President

On behalf of EHSU Executive Committee