1. Prevent, Free Speech, and Civil Liberties in Higher Education.
HERAG Think Tank 4: An inclusive university – travelling the distance to turn policy into practice
14th June 2017
Kanja Sesay and Sai Englert

2. Introductory Exercise
What Is Prevent?
Have you had any experiences with the Prevent Policy in the Past?
Does your institution have a Prevent policy?
What would you say are its risks and benefits?
Would you say students and staff members in your institution are aware of the Prevent Policy?

3. Background Facts Prevent was Developed as part of Contest in 2003
It was revised in 2008 and 2011, when it became increasingly focused on Higher Education
It became a legal duty in public bodies in 2015, under the Counter Terrorism and Security Act

4. Prevent – The Theory Conveyor Belt Theory Iceberg Theory
Non-Violent Extremism as a Gateway in the ‘process of radicalisation.
Non-Violent Extremism: ‘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. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces.’

5. Prevent – the Theory II
‘Non Exhaustive’ Guidance to spot radicalisation:
Identity Crisis – Distance from cultural/ religious heritage and uncomfortable with their place in the society around them.
Personal Crisis – Family tensions; sense of isolation; adolescence; low self-esteem; disassociating from existing friendship group and becoming involved with a new and different group of friends; searching for answers to questions about identity, faith and belonging.
Personal Circumstances – Migration; local community tensions; events affecting country or region of origin; alienation from UK values; having a sense of grievance that is triggered by personal experience of racism or discrimination or aspects of government policy.
Unmet Aspirations – Perceptions of injustice; feeling of failure; rejection of civic life.
Criminality – Experiences of imprisonment; poor resettlement/reintegration; previous involvement with criminal groups.
Vague and highly dependent on the judgment of the person reporting

6. Prevent – The Practice Since the 2015 Act (FOI request):
Sixty children a week are referred to Prevent every week.
By June 2016, 2311 referrals of under-18s (83% increase)
352 referrals of children aged nine or under.
Referrals from schools climbed to 1121 from 537 the previous year.

7. Prevent – The Practice II
National Police Chiefs’ Council: ‘Between April and the end of March 2014 the percentage of referrals that were recorded as being Muslim was 56 per cent per cent, with other religions accounting for 11 per cent and where the religion is not known accounting for 33 per cent’.
However, Muslims make up 4.4% of the population.
Over 80% of referrals did not lead to any further action.

8. Prevent – the Practice III
Targeting of political activists:
Anti-Fracking activist in Brighton
Living Wage student campaigner in Birmingham University
Palestine Activist in Luton College
Karma Nabulsi: ‘York City Council included ‘anti-Israel/pro- Palestinian activity’ in a list of ‘key risks’. Teachers have reported that during Prevent training police officers warned them to ‘keep an eye’ on pupils who went to demonstrations against the Israeli bombing of Gaza in One of the slides in an HEFCE-backed Prevent training session for universities a few months ago was captioned: ‘Palestine: Extreme, but Legal?’’

9. Prevent in HE I The 2011 Prevent strategy:
“[u]niversities and colleges – and, to some extent, university societies and student groups – have a clear and unambiguous role to play in helping to safeguard vulnerable young people from radicalisation and recruitment by terrorist organisations”.
“Whether radicalisation occurs on campus or elsewhere, staff in higher and further education institutions can identify and offer support to people who may be drawn into extremism and terrorism”.
Hosting speakers: “[Institutions] should consider carefully whether the views being expressed, or likely to be expressed, constitute extremist views that risk drawing people into terrorism or are shared by terrorist groups. In these circumstances the event should not be allowed to proceed”

10. Prevent in HE II Governmental pressure linked to Funding
Nabulsi: Non-compliance carries the risk of your institution losing its funding. The authorities require material proof that you have been on your guard throughout the year. There are spaces on the action templates where you have to demonstrate, in writing, exactly how you (and everyone you line-manage) have been looking out for extremist behaviour and views. You must offer concrete examples of how and when you have done this.
HEFCE – institutions judged by numbers
Increasingly tied to Equality and Diversity training – SOAS, Bradford, ex.
Monitoring of s and Internet use

11. Criticism of Prevent
EHRC: Prevent measures breach human rights law and ‘counter-terrorism laws and policies are increasingly alienating Muslims, especially young people and students.
MI5 Rejected the Conveyor Belt Theory in 2008
the Royal College of Psychiatrists asked for peer review in 2016
UN Special Rapporteur rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai: ‘the lack of definitional clarity, combined with the encouragement of people to report suspicious activity, have created unease and uncertainty around what can legitimately be discussed in public….. by dividing, stigmatising and alienating segments of the population, Prevent could end up promoting extremism, rather than countering it.’
David Anderson QC, former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation for the UK Government called for a review of Prevent
UCU,NUT, NUS all reject the policy and call for it to be scrapped – local branches have done the same

12. Criticism of Prevent II
Open Society Justice Initiative – Eroding Trust The UK’s PREVENT Counter- Extremism Strategy in Health and Education: the current Prevent strategy suffers from multiple, mutually reinforcing structural flaws, the foreseeable consequence of which is a serious risk of human rights violations. These violations include, most obviously, violations of the right against discrimination, as well the right to freedom of expression, among other rights.
Moreover, the statutory duty creates an incentive to over refer. This incentive is reinforced by the adverse consequences associated with non-compliance with the Prevent duty and the lack of adverse consequences for making erroneous referrals.
Second, Prevent’s overly broad and vague definition of “non-violent extremism” creates the potential for systemic human rights abuses.
University conferences relating to Islamophobia and Islam in Europe have been cancelled, raising questions of possible breaches under the Education Act (1986) and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More generally, the case studies and interviews in this report suggest that Prevent has created a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression in schools and universities, and undermined trust between teachers and students.

13. Where Next? - Discussion
How can practitioners take action?
Could Prevent be applied in accordance with general E&D Guidelines?
Are there other structures in place that could safeguard students?
How can institutions respond to the legal duty?