VP Wellbeing Update Anti PREVENT Policy
Posted 117 Months Ago
The Union has passed a policy to hold a stance against the PREVENT policy that the university shall be following. The PREVENT policy is heavily based on discrimination and is damaging the ability of students and lecturers to carry out research freely. It goes against the right to freedom of speech/ expression, confidentiality from support staff, legalizes racial profiling and incites islamophobia. We are one of many Unions to have condemned PREVENT (Durham Students Union, London School of Economics (LSE) Student Union, Swansea University Student Union, University of East London Student Union, University of Manchester Students’ Union and many more).
The executive committee voted:
This Union opposes the PREVENT policy and stands to hold its own Public Speakers Policy. It's important that our Union works to recognise the diverse student populations and maintain progress on inclusivity and representation.
The Anti- PREVENT Policy outline can be found here. The Public Speakers Policy can be found here.
For details of the background to these, please read on:
What does the Counter Terrorism & Security Bill do?
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act proposes a number of new measures, such as placing a statutory requirement on public bodies – including universities – to ’PREVENT people being drawn into terrorism’, permitting for the seizure of travel documents of those ’suspected of intending [to travel] in connection with terrorism-related activity’, and allowing the temporary exclusion of individuals from returning to Britain, including British nationals.
PREVENT and the Government’s ‘anti-extremism’ agenda have been used to create expansive surveillance architecture to spy on the public and to police oppositions. The Act builds upon decades of previous ‘anti-extremism’ legislation that has served to legitimise mass surveillance and erode the civil liberties of people in the UK. Any expectation by the state for academic staff to be involved in monitoring their students is deeply worrying and could have a chilling effect on relations between staff and students. We fundamentally believe that universities and colleges are places for education, not surveillance.
The Government’s anti-terrorism/security policy is fundamentally flawed in its approach, and its operant concepts of ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalism’ are ill-defined and open to abuse for political ends. Criteria of being seen as “radical” is heavily based on racial profiling and discrimination against faith groups and those with mental health issues. Local authorities would be mandated to set up De-radicalisation panels. The panels mandate would be to draw up a “de-radicalisation” plan for the person identified as being at risk. The Bill is being acted on heavily in English Universities where having a PREVENT Officer is common.
Wait- what is PREVENT?
According to the current PREVENT Strategy, potential indicators of “radicalism” or “extremism” include:
- “A need for identity, meaning and belonging.”
- “A desire for political or moral change.”
- “Relevant mental health issues.”
Muslims and Black communities are systematically targeted by this state surveillance and authorities to a greater degree – they are the object of a political climate of intense paranoia and scrutiny, with fewer safeguards against such a process.
Healthcare and mental health practitioners have been provided the above guidance as well. This criteria for “spotting radicalization” is ill fitting, vague and heavily based in discrimination. Our students should not be subjected to this in general, but those with mental health difficulties face further stigma based on this policy.
Why should we take a stand against PREVENT?
PREVENT is heavily based on discrimination of faith groups and includes criteria for prejudice based on a student’s mental health and ethnic background. PREVENT perpetuates islamophobia and mental health stigma. Staff spying on students can’t be good for fostering a positive educational environment. And such “surveillance and monitoring” within this bill undermines our basic civil liberties. With PREVENT the University would be monitoring and clamping down on certain student led activities- thus censoring us and our right to freedom of expression. It would start aimed at Faith groups, so what other groups will they target next?
So, that’s scary, what are we going to do about it?
The Bill has been passed; BUT as a separate organization to the University, and a Charity, the Union does not have to have the PREVENT scheme practised. Instead we can choose to oppose it, and better yet, have systems in place to protect and represent our students.
What do we want?
This Union acknowledges and celebrates the huge diversity we have here on campus. Part of that includes ensuring that we remain a safe space for all students- of different identities, sexual orientations, ethnicities, age, gender, mental health, disabilities, socio-economic backgrounds and religious beliefs.
The PREVENT policy that is becoming legislation in all universities (due to the government passing the Counter-Terrorism Bill) is based on racial profiling, islamophobia and discrimination of those with mental health difficulties. The Union opposes such legislation, and as a separate organization from the University, will have its own code of conduct, an example being the Public Speakers Policy.
Why do we need a Union Public Speakers Policy?
Our societies are affiliated through us. Therefore we have a mandate to protect and promote their interests and make sure they are able to express themselves freely. The University would want students applying through them to ask permission in having an external figure speaking/ performing at a society event. However they will be expecting a 4 week notice period which is unsuitable for students, but also will have extensive screenings as to whether the external speaker should be allowed.
This would mean the university monitoring society activity and approving externals at events- something that shall be based on the discriminatory criteria from the PREVENT policy. This would be detrimental in censoring free speech for our students whilst also discriminating against faith groups in particular on campus.
Having a Union Public Speakers Policy inserted in to Society Affiliation Forms means our student groups- who are affiliated through us- are also protected by us. They can come to the Union to get approval of external speakers. Societies would inform the Activities Coordinator of their external speaker a minimum of two weeks before their event. A thorough check will be done by the Activities Coordinator and seconded by an elected student representative (Sabbatical) to make sure the external speaker did not go against our Safe Space values (i.e. no homophobia, transphobia, racism, facism, sexism, ableism etc is tolerated). There would be steps in place to discuss any controversial issues about a speaker, but this would be democratic and student led.
The Union having its own Public Speakers Policy would mean not allowing the University to have control over society events and student led activities. It would allow us to maintain our right to freedom of expression and speech. It also would be the first step in tackling the PREVENT policy which is damaging to many diverse student groups on campus.
