Why UK’s ‘Prevent’ programme doesn’t work


In 2015, a fresh statutory accountability used to be positioned upon universities across the UK: to stay vigilant to signs of extremism. A attach of abode of pointers, dubbed “Prevent”, had been introduced to oblige universities to set distress assessments on the probabilities of students being drawn into “extremism”, in addition to to prepare personnel on “trouble extremist suggestions”. These punitive and excessive policy measures, imposed by the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act of 2015, are aiming to rework lecturers into counterterrorism practitioners. 

Nevertheless, unsurprisingly, “Prevent” is failing. A recent gape I was obsessed on confirmed that tutorial faculty are now now not contented with stress-free such duties. Lecturers are now now not specialised law enforcement officials that can assess and acknowledge to extremist threats. And, on high of now now not serving to to curb “extremism” in universities across the UK in any colossal intention, these measures are also endangering commonplace tutorial freedoms.

Identifying ‘indicators’ of extremism

When I took piece in the Residence Office‘s counterterrorism e-studying coaching kit, I was first presented with questions and explanations of the that implies of “terrorism”. Then, likely “indicators” that I may perhaps perhaps also simply quiet “take into narrative out for” as piece of my role in serving to to fight extremism had been introduced. As an instance, “absenteeism”, “crying” and “unhealthy use of the Web” had been listed as some of the behaviours that will perhaps perhaps perhaps also simply be “a motive for wretchedness”. The recommendation used to be easy: If folk show these behaviours, then they may perhaps perhaps also simply be liable to extremism, and likewise it is likely you’ll perhaps perhaps perhaps also simply quiet picture them.

These so-known as “indicators” for extremism are further detailed in the Channel Responsibility Steering (the governments pointers on picture suspicious behaviours). Within the steering, 22 extensive-ranging criteria that will perhaps perhaps perhaps also simply repeat a student’s chance to be drawn into terrorism are identified. Amongst others, tutorial personnel are anticipated to picture on:

– A necessity for pleasure and adventure

– A necessity for political or factual swap

– Household or guests involvement in extremism

– Being at a transitional time of life.

Such extensive steering is now now not up to suited for these tasked with performing this fresh-came upon role. The indications, as outlined above, lack precision, and secondary recordsdata is continuously required. As an instance, the steering means that tutorial personnel ought so as to title the wider causes of radicalisation. Also, and perhaps extra importantly, these pointers witness a questionable evidence terrible which can perhaps perhaps perhaps also perhaps be harmful in addition to counterproductive.

The ambiguous nature of these pointers already led to several cases of unfaithful accusation. As an instance, in September 2015, Mohammed Farooq, a postgraduate student of counterterrorism in Staffordshire University, used to be profiled and wondered for simply studying a tutorial textbook known as, Terrorism Analysis, in the college library. 

The educational group is ‘anxious’

After studying the governments “Prevent” pointers, I was puzzled as to how the governmentcan quiz a tutorial to title a “terrorist”. I puzzled: Develop other lecturers utter similar reservations towards their fresh-came upon counterterrorism accountability and the intention in which does this fresh role affect their university tasks?

To find an acknowledge to those excessive questions, with my colleagues Dr Keith Spiller and Dr Andrew Whiting, I conducted a gape entitled: “What does terrorism take into narrative like?: University lecturers’ interpretations of their Prevent duties and tackling extremism in UK universities”.

As piece of the gape, we interviewed 20 university lecturers from establishments across the UK, and examined their reactions to their fresh counterterrorism duties.

What we came upon used to be that the academic group is “anxious” and certainly sceptical concerning the duties imposed upon them by the government19459003]. Lecturers educated us that the counterterrorism measures had been combating them from building believe with their students, and that they feel they lack the knowledge to title radical behaviours in their students. One interviewee said: “Employees are proper simply now now not exact to conclude this, tutorial personnel are now now not psychologists or psychiatrists, they don’t seem like counterterrorist practitioners.”

Our gape also demonstrated that authorities are now now not giving enough pork up, coaching and steering to the academic personnel concerning the counterterrorism duties imposed upon them.

We submitted a Freedom of Recordsdata (FOI) demand of to the Residence Office in relation to referrals made of the education sector wanting for pork up and recommendation on the Prevent pointers. The response we bought used to be ambiguous and actually didn’t acknowledge all our questions, nonetheless it undoubtedly demonstrated that 29,238 Greater Education/Additional Education (HE/FE) personnel (this involves any submit-secondary college gape towards a stage or a vocational qualification) cling bought coaching on their counterterrorism duties. 

As there are roughly 201,380 tutorial personnel and 208,750 non-tutorial personnel working in UK Universities by myself, the numbers offered by the Residence Office confirmed our fears that the coaching efforts are inconsistent at simplest, and tutorial personnel are completely left to their very cling devices to title and picture “radical behaviours” in most cases.

A threat to tutorial freedoms

Nowadays, thanks to the governments insurance policies that scheme to rework tutorial personnel into counterterrorism police, openness, tolerance and freedom of expression in UK universities are under threat. 

Academic personnel are being impressed to picture their students for causes like discussing sure “gentle” subjects, asking sure questions or even studying “suspicious” textbooks. Also, universities are being educated now now not to give platform to sure speakers due to the they had been labeled – mostly without any colossal evidence – as extremists or radicals.

All this is stifling tutorial debate, making university lecturers feel under rigidity and forcing them to steer sure of “harmful” subjects and concepts in desire to worrying, questioning and confronting them. The University and College Union attested that the Prevent accountability “critically threatens tutorial freedom and freedom of speech”.

With the “Prevent” pointers, the governmentis attempting to incorporate tutorial personnel into a remark surveillance programme. Lecturers are being forced to show screen and mediate their students in opposition to an ambiguous, all-inclusive framework that few came upon precious. Lots of these measures can in no intention counter fear threats, and can finest result in an Orwellian society in which the police and the remark cling extensive and intrusive powers and tutorial debate is silenced.

Essentially the most easy solution to trouble the hateful rhetoric espoused by extremists is to make sure we continue to cling an extraordinarily good time democracy, free speech and freedom of expression – the very things extremists would want to curb. The Prevent technique, alternatively, is a threat to all these suggestions. We urgently want an fair overview of anti-extremism insurance policies.

The views expressed here are the author’s cling and conclude now now not necessarily replicate Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.