Islamist Extremism and Universities

I have lived close to both politics and journalism, close enough to have gained a substantial, and unfashionable, regard for their practice and practitioners. Perhaps then I am entitled to a particular disappointment when both fall far from their aspirations. So it is with the debate surrounding extremism and universities. The recent pronouncements by Theresa May are politics, supported by cheap journalism, at their worst. Wrong in fact. Deceptive in intent. Damaging in effect.

Let us set the scene. We have a national problem, a facet of a broader global problem, with Islamist extremism. This extremism, born of an evil ideology, fosters hatred and nurtures violence. It must be combated. It must be combated first politically, second culturally and thirdly, where this extremism shades off into violence, through effective security measures. There can be no tolerance for this extremism. It can be afforded no quarter.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to the temptations of extremism. Simple solutions to  problems appeal to those struggling to come to terms with adulthood with all its complexities. The lonely, vulnerable and depressed are attracted by the enveloping nature of the extremist group. Idealism can be easily tainted when the critical faculty is under-developed. Thus, where young people gather, extremism can find a home. Universities are no exception.

The tactics of extremism are well understood, as indeed is the path of radicalisation that lies between extremism and terrorism. Its first tactic is 'entryism'. Taking a well intentioned organisation, a 'front', and subverting it. The logic of extremism is difficult to resist; once some basic principles have been accepted, each step towards greater orthodoxy becomes more difficult to overcome. Careful, patient, organisation alongside skilfully manipulated social pressures have proven remarkably effective tools for the extremist. Such fronts are very difficult to disrupt without impinging on civil liberties. Ironically however, the tactic contains the seeds it's own destruction. Deception alienates moderates and can motivate an oppositional moderate identity.

Universities clearly have a responsibility to confront extremism. As scholars we have a charge to challenge it ideologically, as teachers we have a duty to educate and care for our students, as citizens we have a broader responsibility for the safety of the community in which we live.

This responsibility is however constrained by our capabilities and by our other responsibilities, both legal and moral. This constraint has been falsely characterised as the product of complacency on the part of academics, or worse a liberal naivety (though why liberal sympathies would align with oppressive religious fundamentalism is unclear).

Students are (for the most part, young) adults. They are entitled to organise independently, and this is, in general, part of the educational experience. Though they use the facilities of the university they are largely not dependent upon them. They would, justly, resent the involvement of academics in their activities and indeed there is limited scope for such involvement. Universities can act in a limited capacity as mentors to student activity and can act as gatekeepers to facilities and resources. They must obviously ensure that legal responsibilities are met and that the norms of 'communal good citizenship' are adhered to. There is a need to set firm boundaries. Any excessive or heavy-handed involvement would, however, be counter-productive, leading to either activity moving outside the framework of the institution and/or an opposition between staff and student stretching beyond the immediate setting and politically damaging to the cause it is intended to serve. This is not complacency, weakness, fear of confrontation or an excuse to evade a societal responsibility. It is a realistic appraisal of the challenges of dealing with student organisation.

Those outside the university system, or those whose exposure was in a different epoch, are often surprised that academics are not more engaged with the lives of their students. In fact, though we play a pastoral role this is principally directed towards ensuring that students have the opportunity to succeed in their studies. I may ask tutees about their accommodation and their commute, very occasionally about their family and financial situation as it impinges on their work. I would never broach religion or politics and cannot recall discussing leisure activities beyond the most abbreviated small talk. I cannot envisage circumstances in which this would be appropriate. Even if I wanted to, I could not, because time simply does not permit. What precious time is available is spent discussing the finer points of programming language abstraction mechanisms, relational algebra, or similar. Our students are not strangers to us, but neither are they intimates.

I would suppose that extremist activity is carefully scrutinised by the agencies assigned these responsibilities, possessed of the legal powers that support proper investigation and tasked by Theresa May. Universities neither have the skill nor the resources, in the form of collateral intelligence, to monitor this activity. It is not a matter simply of a disinclination to 'spy on our students', if strictly required, legally sanctioned and morally justified, it is a task we would perform, but rather that we do not have the capacity.

The 'think tank' Quilliam has performed an important role in drawing attention to the threat of Islamist extremism. It is to be commended for this. Had it restricted itself to that role it would have been beyond reproach. It has however adopted an approach that goes well beyond confronting extremism. In searching for 'somebody to blame' they have lighted on universities. This is unfair and damaging to the cause it wishes to promote. Its work is long on the facts, amplified by anecdote, but short on any indication about what to do. It simply repeats the guidance that universities themselves have themselves developed and sought, imperfectly, to implement. Their interesting study of a UK university where Islamist extremism has taken hold fails to make clear how university management might have acted differently. Also it fails to clarify the extent to which universities differ. Implicitly a line is drawn from campus radicalism to terrorist violence. While a relationship does exist it is a nuanced and subtle one. Quilliam eschews such important subtleties.

Universities are home to debate. Dangerous, potentially world-changing ideas, are welcomed, subject to rigorous analysis, anatomised, and challenged. Freedom of debate is central to what a university does - and is legally protected. These protections having been established by precisely the most vociferous current critics of universities. Obviously provocation and abuse are unwelcome within the scholarly community and should be shut out or subject to disciplinary sanction. The function of the university is however to ensure that a bright light is shone on Islamist extremism and the delicate intellectual territory that surrounds it and from which ultimately the greatest threat emerges.

So what can universities do? First, they can invest in the scholars and intellectual capacity to analyse and understand political Islamism and its national and religious components. Second, they can invest in security and crime sciences in support of the prevention and detection of terrorism. Third, they can work to equip students with the critical and intellectual skills to spot and combat bad ideas. Fourth, they can support and work with student unions where students can acquire the political experience to understand entryism and subversion. Finally, they can implement the established and sensible guidance on the use of university facilities that UUK has promulgated and support members of the university community in satisfying their responsibilities as citizens to report crime and dangers to public safety. While we do these, perhaps Theresa May can set her own house in order.