Political philosophy now illegal in the UK

The elite at Oxford and Cambridge have been granted a specific exemption, allowing them to hear dangerous ideas that might corrupt the ordinary youth.

‘Cause, lord knows, those institutions never produce any “extremists.”

Awesome. (Is there any point in saying more?)

I for one welcome our new Home Officer overlords. All Hail to the Home Office!

Will such institutions be permitted to discuss UKIP?

Probably, but only in derogatory terms.

This is an exceptionally blunt and stupid way of addressing the “liberal paradox”, the limitations of liberalism in coping with views that are antagonistic toward liberalism. No one is more in need of education on the political philosophy of illiberalism than these blokes.

@Phil #9: strictly speaking it’s the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, on the grounds that they’re not really part of the universities in question.

Pretty sure that Thucydides is out as well.

If you took the guidance seriously, JS Mill might be out. JS fucking Mill!

Since the Prevent program sounds like “active opposition to…individual liberty,” are universities prohibited from telling students about it?

Oh my.

Karma Nabulsi in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/theresa-may-prevent-bill-extremism-security-terrorism

“it looks like Plato is off the menu”

Yup, that was my first thought–Thrasymachus and Callicles are right out.

I also think that Shakespeare should be scrutinized rather carefully. Quite a lot of opposition to democracy throughout his works–“Take but degree away, untune that string, And, hark, what discord follows!” And a hundred passages more of elitist, royalist, anti-democratic sentiment. But then, what can you expect from a traitor to British values like Shakespeare?

Oh FFS. Working in an ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) department at an FE college in an area with relatively immigrants I can’t imagine what management will think of for us to comply with this and the dire warnings they’ll give for if we don’t.

Are debating societies of other universities exempt from this, or are the Oxford and Cambridge Unions different in their relationship to their respective universities?

Lest this old student radical, (Not at all the same flavor of student radical as you guys, I helped found a college chapter of the Libertarian Party way back when. But still, a student radical.) mislead you, I think there could be a real problem to be addressed, though this may be a clumsy approach.

Here in America we’ve got terrorists teaching the humanities, just because they managed to get off on a technicality. But the people who hired them, and retained them, know quite well they are murderers, and, what are they teaching impressionable students?

That murder in a political cause is ok, if you can manage not to get jailed for it?

I don’t know, so I’ll ask: You have anybody like Ayers in the UK, who might have inspired this? Are you so sure you’ve got nobody in your universities teaching murder?

In practice, this will obviously be used only against Muslims, and Muslim terrorists are the only reason why it was introduced. So would it be better or worse if it actually specified Muslims?

From Pink Floyd, another Brick in the Wall…….

“In practice, this will obviously be used only against Muslims”

Oh yeah right. Let me guess, you’re not an anarchist. Although Muslims will certainly be the majority of victims, I expect that it will also be used against some people found particularly annoying, or in some cases such as when a student turns down a professor’s sexual proposition.

Once the guy on the other thread finishes explaining how the Sign of Chaos is worse than a swastika, who knows — maybe it’ll be used on anyone bringing an Elric book to campus.

A sad state of affairs indeed. But how different is it, really, from a requirement on the part of faculty, in the sixties, to swear an oath of allegiance. Of course, now it’s the counter-terrorism measures that dictate the order of affairs — all in the name of our “liberty” to keep us safe and secure.

Strange as it may seem, I see a kind of disjoint here between this piece by the OP and the previous one, on the “ideal” theory. Will the real Chris Bertram please stand up!

“We define fundamental British values as democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs, and we expect institutions to encourage students to respect other people with particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010 (including with that being used for schools).”

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/388934/45584_Prevent_duty_guidance-a_consultation_Web_Accessible.pdf

Or maybe the right proportion of nails to explosive in a nail bomb. Who knows?

“Or maybe the right proportion of nails to explosive in a nail bomb. Who knows?”

Rather have Ayers than Yoo everyday of the week and twice on Sundays…

I clicked through to the blog post that has the information, and found that itis also a bureaucrats dream, just like what the Tories claim not to like. Sentences like

“Those in leadership positions need to establish mechanisms to assess the risk, make sure staff understand the risk and know how to deal with it, actively communicate the importance of the duty and secure its effective implementation.”

Indicate the sort of structure and behaviour that Tories decry in other circumstances, such as health and safety.

No wait, I’ve got it: Edmund Burke.

The challenge is, who unambiguously *can* be taught?

Who needs political philosophy anyway. As long as there are many courses with names like security studies taught by ex military peoplee, everything students need to know about political science is sufficiently taught. The point of political science courses is to give students access to jobs related to the military budget as expert anylsts of the scary country du jour, not to learn political science. Teaching things that do not immidiatly translate into high paying jobs is post Jesus.

“The elite at Oxford and Cambridge have been granted a specific exemption.” No, the Oxford Union Society and the Cambridge Union Society are private clubs, just like the Durham Union Society that was founded in 1842.

There’s no exemption for Oxford and Cambridge. Those universities and their student unions are subject to the legislation in the same way as any other universities. Their Union Societies are not student unions or university bodies; they are private debating societies. There has simply been a clarification that they are therefore unaffected by the legislation, in exactly the same way as any other organisation that is not a student union and is not a university.

This is a perfect opportunity for the British government’s partly privatised Behavioural Insights Team, a.k.a. Nudge Unit. Give them an office at every HE unit in the United Kingdom. Each one can figure out the best application of paternalistic totalitarianism for their domain. Set up a central bureau of Guardians in London, which will coordinate the nudging of each office. Within several years staff and students will behave normally, that is, as desired by those who know what right thought is, in any academic situation. Infuse a bit of Martin Seligman’s positive psychology of happiness, and no Soma will be needed. Just the occasional electrode for the truly deviant.

Abbe#56 – that’s the point, that the government of the day will deploy this law against whomever they find annoying or is in the way.

Ugh – about to be, obv.

‘Opposition inside your head is still okay’

Computers using digital footprints are better judge of personality than friends and family

(b) only students at a few elite institutions benefit from access to this type of free-speech zone.

Isn’t the point here more that any student at London or Manchester who wishes to go and listen to speeches about any given topic by any given person under the sun can easily do so, hence there’s no need for a Manchester Union – whereas Oxford and Cambridge are small towns whose intellectual life is driven solely by the university? So asking the question about the independent, private Union societies makes sense, in a way that asking it about the myriad venues for political debate in major cities doesn’t.

(full disclosure: I joined the Oxford Union, it was a total waste of time, should have spent the membership fee on a fridge instead)

OTOH, did the actual investigative journalists bother looking where Griffin was pointing, back in 2004?

I get the impression, from across the Atlantic, that there’s been some seriously nasty things going on in England over the last couple of decades, that were being successfully hidden, and the cover ups are finally failing. I don’t think the whole of it is yet known, not nearly.

john b – I think a more parsimonious explanation for the concern and clarification achieved might be the institutional make up of the Lords? Bearing in mind the question was asked by the former Master of Jesus Cambridge and the question answered by an Oxford MBA.

Anyway, surely the universities most affected by the free speech ban are the campus universities located away from any town, rather than Oxford & Cambridge which are in the city centre?

Re: john b’s apologetics for child rape. The Jay report (into Rotherham and South Yorkshire Police) covers 1997-2013 and is quite clear children were trafficked to Bradford (covered by West Yorkshire Police) where Griffin made his speech in 2004. Grifiin’s source was court reports, the same source the Times used to break the story.

There was also investigative journalism in 2004, notably the Edge of the City documentary which the WYP attempted to suppress, and after which the story was not followed up. The police response at the time is very telling.

“A spokeswoman from the West Yorkshire police says, “In the case of alleged sexual exploitation of young women in Keighley, social services and the police have been conducting extensive enquiries for the last two years. A number of girls have been interviewed, aged mainly between 13 and 16. We have found no evidence of systematic exploitation. Some of the girls admitted having relationships with older men but they described them as their boyfriends and did not feel they were being exploited.”

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/aug/09/channel4.otherparties

WYP are now conducting a massive cold case review.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/crime-investigators-recruited-west-yorkshire-8142502

But Phil, Collecting a bunch of current regulations under one heading, is itself pretty intimidating, as what falls under that heading can be extended, almost at will and certainly to meet new perceived or cooked-up threats. Also, an admittedly quick look at the actual text in the link, suggests that the terms you use to define others, are often not in the definienda. Those terms are themselves intimidating at least, as some are open-ended. Today’s current official enemy might not be one next year, and can be replaced by another, almost at will. Now, suppose you agree with today’s government about enemies. Suppose further, that this text is retained unchanged for at least five years. Suppose finally, that five years from now a fascist regime attained full power, in the UK or, say, the entire EU as one politically ruling entity. Then some other current official enemy might fall under the terms of this construct. That is one reason why this is not good, apart from its current applicability, whatever its morality.

“john b’s apologetics for child rape”

Good grief.

Phil: “But even there, I think a course about Nietzsche, Heidegger and Schmitt would go through on the nod. ”

No one is seriously saying that people are going to be brought up before the police for teaching Heidegger. That is an Internet “ooh isn’t this ironical” kind of concern. What the plan seriously says is that higher education staff are going to be trained and expected to turn suspicious students over to the police for monitoring and potential further action.

That has certain historical implications no matter what the ostensible definition of suspiciousness is, especially since it was left very broad. But it’s OK if people here don’t get that: it’s not like you study politics or anything.

All very boring but there’s no substitute for detail. Here are the general principles.

“Both higher and further education institutions are subject to the duty and the guidance.

All authorities caught by the duty are expected to apply a risk-based approach, meaning a bespoke assessment of the risk of radicalisation in their area. They are however all expected to respond in the following broad ways:

Those in leadership positions need to establish mechanisms to assess the risk, make sure staff understand the risk and know how to deal with it, actively communicate the importance of the duty and secure its effective implementation.
Authorities need to work in effective partnership and demonstrate productive co-operation with the police, local authorities and multi-agency forums such as Community Safety Partnerships.
Authorities need to build the capabilities within their organisation to spot potentially vulnerable individuals and to take appropriate action.
Authorities need to share relevant information, but must do so lawfully.
These themes are picked up in the sector specific guidance, dealt with below.

Compliance with the duty will be monitored centrally via the Home Office and through appropriate inspection regimes in each sector.”

As I read this, it is essentially the forthright declaration that teachers are police agents; that students who have not committed any specified crimes may nonetheless be deemed at risk of committing crimes and therefore assigned to non-judicial supervision/psychological intervention, allegedly of a non-punitive nature; that the educational system is to be organized to examine the entire student population for behaviors designated as “risk,” which would necessarily include expression of inappropriate opinions.

There is no serious threat to college curricula here, not in political philosophy or any other field. The threat is wholly directed at the students’ persons, not knowledge, except
for the teaching of terrorist theory and apologetics.

This is not equivalent to an anti-bullying program that directs teachers to systematically report bullying, since those behaviors are specified infractions. This is more like a program that requires teachers to survey all students for signs of possible adult criminality, like possible drug addiction. Or perhaps male chauvinism that apologizes for rape, so that they can be placed into a preventive treatment program. And requires of course that no curriculum would provoke undesirable sexual fantasies.

In my opinion, there are already too many police functions assigned to teachers. But conflating police work with psychotherapy and handing the task to an army of untrained teachers already socialized to conformity and authority is a sure prescription for massive, systematic abuse. Which of course may be the ultimate intent, not an error.

At its most anodyne, what this means appears to be:

Students deemed “at risk” and “vulnerable” will all be Muslims, redefining those words in traditional Orwellian fashion to mean “they may be attending a radical mosque.’

Certain variants of political and other theory will be identified with vulnerability to being drawn in by a radical mosque or radical imam. Those variants will either be discouraged, or will be discouraged when they’re touched on by apparent Muslims but not by others. Or else students who are apparently Muslim, and who apparently seem attracted to or influenced by those variants, will be referred to the police for “special attention.”

This seems quite bad enough, without imagining the worst. I agree with steven johnson on the inadvisability of turning classrooms into places where students’ psyches are going to be scrutinized, whether the basis for it is sensible or not.

There’s been a lot of speculation on this thread about the legislation having an effect on university curricula and being used against left- and right-wing activists as well as Muslims.

I can see this happening–or not–depending. In Chris’s other thread, the question arose of the right to resist the existing government. How will this be treated (keep in mind that I don’t know how this is treated in the UK already: I know from talking to English colleagues in the past that it’s handled differently than it is in the US, or was in the past)? Will the right to resist the government be denied more strenuously in all cases? Will it be denied, with a reason given, overtly, that signals “because Islamic extremism is wrong”? Or the right to resist be considered a valid point of view, but in practice suppressed unless the person defending the right is of the right race and religion? Or not suppressed, but made more difficult to hold? Or openly not suppressed, but in practice resulting in a referral to the civil power?

That is a good question that leads to another point. Why limit such ratting to schoola of any type? Fifteen minutes ago the Swedish radio had a programme about Islamic activities: should an Imam be required to report members of his congregation? All I know is that such questions are being asked in the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden, at least. Everything I have heard concerned only Moslims. But this British proposal is so broad that asking a question about Marx might be bad for a student’s career.

@84 I think all your concerns are justified. I am a Dutch citizen of American birth now living in Sweden. Many good people I know live in the UK. Each issue is live in at least one country. The rejection of absolute submission to authority has been a live issue in the Netherlands since the Reformation, given the type of Camvinism that developed there. It won’t vanish.

@George Berger’s “But this British proposal is so broad that asking a question about Marx might be bad for a student’s career.”

I’m reminded suddenly of Corey Robin’s “Fear: The History of a Political Idea”, particularly the bit on McCarthyism. I’ve flicked through the linked article, but I confess to some confusion as to how discipline would be enforced in practice. Mention of the Home Office does sound rather ominous. Could someone who understands these things better explain to me what kind of disciplinary procedures would be used against students, or teachers who failed to adequately monitor students, in practice? Are we talking institutional (fired, expelled), criminal, or both?

*prosecutions under anti-terrorist legislation – most of which don’t get into the papers*

I’ve noticed this too. There have been plenty of people arrested and charged: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/terrorism-arrests-analysis-of-charging-and-sentencing-outcomes-by-religion/terrorism-arrests-analysis-of-charging-and-sentencing-outcomes-by-religion ; seemingly 838 charges resulting in 241 convictions. Seemingly without news coverage. I can’t name any of them off the top of my head, and when a UKIP politician wanted to make a joke about Humza Yusuf recently his go-to terrorist name was Abu Hamza – who was never convicted in the UK.

Are the press more interested in talking about “the terrorist threat” but not *actual terror convictions*? It it because it can’t obviously be used for partisan purposes (unlikely)? The response to Rotherham seems to be mostly stunned silence and incomprehension.

Those of us who are old enough to remember Gerry Adams having his voice dubbed on television will be familiar with illiberal and absurd responses to terrorism.

I expect the police in some areas will use this legislation to take an interest in the extreme Right or Left, but currently – I stress that word again – it’s a bit of a sideshow in comparison with the suspicion Muslim communities will come under. The parallel I’d draw is the difference between police harassment of Black youth and police harassment of hippies.

This sounds very plausible: thanks for explaining.

that’s just the reaction of somebody aware of how many things can be used for making bombs

The people in question actually said they’d stockpiled the stuff in order to make bombs – for self-defence, when the race war kicked off as they expected it to. One of them had talked about assassinating namedpoliticians & had downloaded a copy of the Anarchist’s Cookbook. Virtually the first thing the police said when they arrested him was “He is not a terrorist”. (IANMTU. The guy’s called Robert Cottage.) Go, as they say, figure.

George: Why limit such ratting to schools of any type?

It’s not limited to schools by any means. There’s a long list of public and semi-private bodies which are under these obligations, including health authorities, police forces and probation services (not to mention all schools, down to pre-school level). Universities get off lightly – there’s a specific clause (added when the Bill was discussed in the House of Lords) saying “in the case of universities, do remember about academic freedom and freedom of speech, ‘kay?”. I suspect that’s the main reason why the duty to ‘deliver’ Prevent-related material is limited to FE and not HE.

In Chris’s other thread, the question arose of the right to resist the existing government. How will this be treated

“The right to resist the existing government” isn’t really a thing over here – the idea of militias being organised against central government boggles British brains. We tend to take the view that the govt would only need resisting if it was illegitimate and undemocratic, which ours isn’t, so never mind.

(Saying that we don’t think in terms of a right to resist doesn’t mean that we think the government should always be obeyed or that its actions are always just and correct. It just means we don’t think in terms of a right to resist, as something lying dormant in peaceful times, to be invoked when necessary.)

Luke (and George): at the outset it will just be a contact name circulated on an “all staff” email, a policy to add to the list of policies, and a box to tick in some senior manager’s annual report. Obviously it could get much more intrusive than that; it could become something that individual staff are asked to take responsibility for. But it doesn’t have to go that way, and I hope it won’t. Also, there’s no commitment to de-radicalising the curriculum, for which small mercy much thanks.

Peter:
Are the press more interested in talking about “the terrorist threat” but not *actual terror convictions*?
It’s odd. I can only imagine that the press are following the police’s lead, and the police aren’t making a big deal of the minor convictions – which tend to be for things like possessing the wrong sort of documents – because they’re just not very scary. But there are a lot of people getting prison time for terrorism-related offences.

Brett Bellmore : “I’d rather have neither, personally, and I think anybody who knew me, rather than just assuming I was some sort of liberal stereotype of a conservative, would be able to figure that out.”

Well, it’s quite simple. If you don’t want to be taken for the liberal stereotype of a conservative, stop acting like one.

“One of them had talked about assassinating named politicians & had downloaded a copy of the Anarchist’s Cookbook. ”

In light of the latter, I’d guess they were more dangerous to themselves, than to the named politicians. I would NOT advise using the Anarchist’s Cookbook as a guide to how to make real bombs.

“Virtually the first thing the police said when they arrested him was “He is not a terrorist”. (IANMTU. The guy’s called Robert Cottage.) Go, as they say, figure.”

Doesn’t sound like a terrorist to me, either. I knew a lot of people like that in Michigan during the 90’s, they certainly weren’t terrorists. They just figured that the time to prepare for fighting off a tyrannical government was before it became tyrannical, that you wouldn’t have to opportunity to stock up in the middle of a civil war. Didn’t mean they had any intention of starting things themselves.

“With what sort of gage does the engineer measure this probability? A clairvoyanometer?”

Well, that’s the way things are trending here, anyway. We’ve got a President who doesn’t want to utter the phrase, “Islamic terrorism”, and official government policy seems to be that the real threat is public attacks on Muslims.

the idea of militias being organised against central government boggles British brains.

Really? How odd. (I’m tempted to insert one of those snarky British responses that make no sense, something like, “Let the market decide, eh?” Does someone wake up one morning and decide, “I’d like to belong to a militia, I think; obviously, I want to help the government do its job; I think I’ll organize my own”?)

I mean, that’s all fine, I guess. I imagine it gets some pressure put on it at the university level, though, and probably even before.

To be less cryptic, Bianca

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_loyalism

Afaict it’s the same dynamic as Brett’s ‘backwoods Michigan militia’ ie incomprehensible to anyone either not from that specific area/that specific militia. Id assume the majority in the US sees the idea of rustling up a militia against central Gov as bizzare.

These are also militias in support of local government. To be opposed to central governent is just to be in support of local government (if you get me)

It should be possible to discuss a topic concerning British society without a bunch of trolls immediately relating everything to US politics and their respective hobbyhorses, no?

I mean forfucksakes, how parochial and self-centered can people get?

I like the fact that the place errs on the side of cosmopolitanism. Just a pity that the cosmopolitanism is a little limited at times. Shame to make it more parochial in the name of fighting parochialism.

I was going to comment on bianca & Ronan’s exchange on militias, but I realised that I literally don’t know what they’re saying.

What I’m saying is that the idea of it being the citizens’ right (nay, duty) to be prepared to resist their own government, militarily if necessary, just sounds crazy to me and always has done. And I don’t mean “that would never work” crazy – let alone “yeah right, have you heard of Ruby Ridge?” crazy; it’s more “why would anyone even think that?” crazy. Just doesn’t resonate.

I certainly believe in the right to protest, and I think the line between “appropriately democratic political engagement through protest” and “political violence which should be suppressed” is drawn at different places at different times, generally as a result of a shift in the balance of forces between the people doing the protesting and the people trying to control it. But I do think there is a line; the idea of political violence being legitimate is… odd.

Revolutionary and counter-revolutionary guerrilla groups (such as the IRA and the UVF) are a whole different argument.

I certainly believe in the right to protest,

This is what was at issue in the other thread, so why you’ve brought up “militias” (and italicized “against,” as if the British find armed vigilantism in support of government somehow more plausible) was what confused me. Thanks for explaining.

Yeah, I guess my eyes glazed over and tried to skip the whole Bellmore, Faria thing above. I know Phil and I think I know what he’d getting at, for the most part. But on the one hand, based on past discussions with Brits, I’m not clear that something as peaceful and broadly accepted as legitimate, as the Million Man March, wouldn’t be considered somehow “violent” rebellion by many in the UK–maybe it would, and I just caught one or two people on a bad day. And on the other, I don’t think most Brits understand federalism well–any more than I understand Empire–or, for that matter, Union–and besides that social democrats often get prickly when they have to talk to someone who feels the “more government” side is the side with the burden of proof–etc. So maybe I don’t really understand what Phil is getting at, after all, I don’t know.

“I was going to comment on bianca & Ronan’s exchange on militias, but I realised that I literally don’t know what they’re saying.”

I’m also a little lost as to what my point is. Really, I’m not being snarky.
I guess all I’m saying is that I was a little surprised by the idea that raising a militia to resist an illegitimate government is incomprehensible to the British mind.

” and I just caught one or two people on a bad day. ”

I hope you dont think me. I agree with you. ( I think) I certainly didnt mean to be hostile to your point.

On “right to protest” vs “right to resist”, I thin I’d say that protest (if non-violent) is per se a form of legitimate politica activity; it may involve denunciation of the government’s entire strategy, it may even entail non-compliance with particular legal obligations, but it doesn’t imply rebellion or delegitimation of the government.

I’m not clear that something as peaceful and broadly accepted as legitimate, as the Million Man March, wouldn’t be considered somehow “violent” rebellion by many in the UK

No, violence (as opposed to legitimate protest) is when the police are hitting people. I mean that seriously – a conservative would say that the threat of violence makes it OK for the police to hit people, a radical would say that it’s violence when protesters hit first & hit hard. They’d both agree that something called violence is wrong as a political tactic. (A revolutionary would say that – sometimes – protesters should hit first & hit hard.)

JanieM – what I find hard to understand is the founders of a new nation, staunch believers in the national project, thinking it vital that citizens should have the right to rebel against it. I’m not sure many other post-colonial nations – or federations – have that clause in their founding narratives.

“What’s hard to understand is this idea being seen as patriotic rather than revolutionary, to the point of being commended by the founders of that same government.”

Well, “Novus ordo seclorum” is on the US great seal, and what it means is that our government was decidedly NOT intended to be in the British model. And that’s one of the ways. But, not to hijack the thread, it’s just that making sure you have the capacity to become violent if circumstances eventually warrant it, is not the same thing as being violent. It’s closer to the Boy Scout motto, “Be Prepared”.

There are a lot of things about Britain that Americans don’t understand, either, like the tolerance for censorship. The sort of “guidance” we’re talking about here would be cause for tar and feathers in the US, and maybe not metaphorically.

Re. the militia, I believe it’s worth mentioning that one of the complaints against Parliament was for not defending the colonies well enough from the French, in the Seven Years’ War. There was little trust that the government could do better, and not much precedent.

Well, as someone living in the UK, I can say that I have very rarely met people who get exercised about gun ownership. These people do exist, of course, but I’d say they were rare. This might be reflective of circles I travel in, of course, but I see nothing in the papers and hear nothing by most political parties (there was a big thing about fox hunting, but that’s not a groundswell of opinion about guns for self defence, and isn’t about general gun ownership, being tied into particular class practices). The exception, I guess, is UKIP who do advocate some change in the UK gun laws, but it is so rarely a policy they make any noise about – despite being quite voluble about most of their commitments – that I read that as quite a low priority for them.

You could say that was all simply indicative of “elite” opinion, I suppose, but there is no populist outlet – talk radio, national organisations, or public demonstrations – that indicate the issue to be particularly pressing for anyone.

I guess I am saying that I see no evidence at all for any movement in the UK to liberalise the gun laws, and I think that one should take that as evidence that there simply isn’t such a political faction, absent a good argument as to why it isn’t visible. “Elite opinion” is far to vague to serve such a purpose, in my view.

Self-defence against criminal incursion is pretty popular, but – as with ‘violent protest’ – it all depends what you mean by ‘self-defence’. In my experience, a lot of the people who call Tony Martin a martyr become less enthusiastic when you point out that his victim was shot in the back.

Here in the US we tend to think that if you don’t think burglary merits being shot to death, then don’t commit it.

Who’re you calling “we”, white man?

@js.
@nvalvo

Thirded. WTF indeed.

Meredith – I’m sure that a lot of governing bodies will give the proposals their urgent consideration, in depth. I’m not too worried about university teaching in any case, particularly since we’ve got a statutory “academic freedom” concession. As Philip (no relation) @110 points out, the guidance for further education is much more intrusive. And even there I wouldn’t underestimate the potential for pushback (“isn’t free speech a British value? isn’t that one of the ones we’re supposed to be exemplifying?”).

Free speech isn’t a British value. The fundamental British values are: anti-intellectualism, philistinism, xenophobia and house-price inflation.

Shorter Brett @132- We can’t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell ’em stories that don’t go anywhere – like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ’em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you’d say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones…

I agree though that “exposure to arguments” was poor wording (because it stops them countering such arguments as well).

In the recent, 1000-comment “what is communism” thread, I tried to point out that democracy is hardly an uncontested practice that has a clear, single meaning that everyone is on board with. A good deal of recent activist history around e.g. Occupy has been exactly about tensions with regard to democracy: rejection of representative democracy in favor of direct democracy, consensus as a replacement for democracy, etc.

Organizing all teachers to carry out (amateur) psychological assessments of all student in target populations to slot them into behavior control programs, with systematic review of compliance on the part of schools and teachers, is a new step. Not only does it do away with actual evidence about criminal or delinquent acts, it categorizes potential thoughts as something demanding expressions of conformity.

I really can’t see how curriculum is threatened more than the students.

“And I was born in 1959. I didn’t grow up in an era when chewing a pop-tart into the shape of a gun got you detention. I grew up in an era when chemistry sets had chemicals in them, and sharing your thermite recipe with your high school chemistry instructor got you extra credit. You’d be amazed at how many of my generation know how to make bombs.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that knowing how to make a bomb doesn’t turn one into a mad bomber. But it does make the Anarchist’s Cookbook into hilarious reading.”

For those unfamilliar with the Anarchist’s Cookbook, I’d concur with Brett its a document that is more likely to cause the user to suffer second degree burns than one which is capable of doing much more than upsetting a few woodpiles (as it did one fine summer in central PA when a bunch of nerds with chemistry sets tried nearly every recipe in the book – except for those that were so obviously stupid that it wasn’t worth wasting the ingredients). Sorry for the off-topic, but thanks for the trip down memory lane.

FWIW, the iodine based ones worked best. The “pseudo-napalm” not so much.

The point about the Anarchist’s Cookbook is that possession thereof can be seen as, and has been cited as, a criminal offence under anti-terrorist legislation. Our current anti-terrorist legislative regime is designed to be used selectively; the Cottage/Jackson case is a particularly clear example of how that selectivity works in practice.

steven – I certainly agree that these powers are aimed more at monitoring the student body than at revising the curriculum. But I don’t think it’s as bad as you suggest, or not yet. Until a former student commits a terrorist offence, I have no way of knowing that that person has been ‘radicalised’ – and if a former student does commit a terrorist offence, I have no way of knowing that he or she was radicalised while I was teaching him or her. So I’m really struggling to see how compliance with the duty to “identify those at risk of radicalisation” can be policed.

The fact that it’s now legally required to provide an ‘excuse’ for possessing information ‘likely to be useful’ to Bad People Plotting Bad Things already seems pretty fucked up, if you ask me…

(ie. writing down something you overheard can be a criminal act, if you don’t have a good excuse)

But that’s my point – if I say “no, I didn’t refer anyone, I didn’t have any students whom I judge to be at risk” what comeback can there be?

(I’ll probably find out the non-rhetorical answer before we’re all much older.)

…When asked what law they were breaking, Officer DiPace replied, “There’s a law against everything. That’s America.”…

Rational metrics aren’t the point. It’s like asking what the rational metics for dekulakization were. The point is that the system needs numbers: to satisfy higher-ups, to defend against the idea that teachers aren’t doing anything when a scandal happens, and to justify a continued funding stream once this program gets a funding stream. Those numbers are going to be made somehow. Probably there are some teachers at each institution who will be happy to turn students in, and the rest of them will shudder and virtuously say that at least it isn’t them who is doing it.

Resigning is at the upper end of the available options, but I assume that at least some people have tenure. How much trouble would you really get in if you declared openly that you weren’t going to cooperate with the turning-in-students part of the program? If you helped to organize campus protests against it?

From the OP : ‘so that students are not exposed to arguments that involve “active opposition to fundamental British values, including … individual liberty and the mutual tolerance of different… beliefs’

I am not sure about in the UK but here in Australia our (right wing) Liberal party —now in government — quite often opposes pro-environmental stances and responsible action on climate change to its version of what liberalism is.

Although in this case universities seem to be unaffected or less affected due to “academic freedom” — this would pose a problem for people wanting the university’s to improve the responsibility of the content of the curriculum and their organisational investments etc as they relate to sustainability and climate change.

Over Summer academics at my university who are supportive of divestment of climate change causing investments (also currently under discussion at Oxford) have been trying to build support for a Charter on Sustainability and Climate encompassing “learning and teaching, campus sustainability and investments”.

It would seem to me that government interference intent on supporting some version of liberalism could be quite detrimental to these efforts.

Free speech isn’t a British value. The fundamental British values are: anti-intellectualism, philistinism, xenophobia and house-price inflation.

Add in a propensity for militant apathy and you’ve described Australia as well.

Perhaps the OP’s position, and the positions of various contributors, could be made clearer.

It seems to me there is a choice of several positions:
1) Students being led, or misled, into extremist positions is not a problem, so nothing should be done about it.
2) It is a problem, but anything that can be attempted to be done about it will only make things worse, so nothing should be done.
3) It is a problem, and something should be done about it, but not the proposed actions. My preferred solution is [insert actions here].
4) It is a problem, and the proposed actions are correct.

Fairly clearly, the OP and most others disagree with (4), for various reasons. It is not clear which of (1-3) they do agree with.

Clarification, please.

Stephen: “Perhaps the OP’s position, and the positions of various contributors, could be made clearer.”

If you’re a political science professor and you can’t teach your students that democracy and British values are better than the alternatives, then maybe there’s something wrong with democracy and British values. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the teachers are terrified of being punished for speaking their minds within this wonderful system of British values.

“If you’re a political science professor and you can’t teach your students that democracy and British values are better than the alternatives, then maybe there’s something wrong with democracy and British values.”

Or something wrong with you.

There does seem to be a contradiction, between “British values” and “values that wouldn’t lead to radicalization,” depending on how you define “British values.” Which is why I said that views like “England for the English, England has always been a Christian (Anglican) country” are those that surely are the ones that ought to be stamped out. It does seem obvious that the views least likely to lead to radicalization are those that say “we welcome people of all races and creeds,” and that stressing these values as compatible with those mentioned in the OP, even more so.

Rich: “can’t teach your students that democracy and British values are better than the alternatives” has two possible meanings. One, you are not allowed so to teach. Two, you are not successful in so teaching. I thought, in the context of a discussion about preventing extremism, you might mean the first: which would be way off the point. If you mean the second, your conclusion that there must be something wrong with the values taught is equally off the point. A student may fail to learn something for a range of reasons quite unrelated to what is being taught.

As for “the police-enforced system that says that individual students had better profess British values or else”: where do you get that from? It isn’t in the proposal, as far as I can see.

On metrics (I only skimmed the Warner pieces, but I think she discussed them): Anyone can impose stupid metrics. The stupid part is usually when they’re made into quotas. Not everyone can impose smart metrics, I suppose. You need a Ph.D. to say something like “science has found that our data follows such-and-such distribution, so (rather than stupidly imposing quotas) we’ll expect the data to follow the distribution in question.” But luckily academia has its own Ph.D.’s who can do their own research and expect to be taken seriously in turn.

“Rich: “can’t teach your students that democracy and British values are better than the alternatives” has two possible meanings.”

Three. You missed, “can’t bring yourself to teach”. Which I suspect is the source of most of the angst concerning this directive.

Stephen: “Please let me know what I am missing.”

No. No amount of linking, quoting and so on can make someone see what they are determined not to see.

As for whether matters of university policy and practice are largely influenced and in this case determined by political processes — in this case, the “Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015” — perhaps you might to take a political science course?

There seems to be an assumption in the government statements that “British values” isn’t a contested concept. In the US, with rare exceptions, this wouldn’t work. A system like the one in the old Soviet-bloc, where even engineers were expected to undergo ideological indoctrination through the university level, at least lets everyone know where they stand–which isn’t always the case in the West, because where you stand depends (necessarily) on who else is standing there with you. I’ve always wondered how UK theater companies produce 1776, as it seems they do, with all its throwing around of the word “republican” and so on (though I suppose no one admires George III).

It’s really quite fascinating. Also interesting in conjunction with the thread on “privilege.” To the extent this is directed at Muslims, white Christian-heritage students of impeccable Englishness will feel less oppressed (with all that implies) than others will.

Rich @164 – I’m sure the union is looking at all this. I’m not sure what ‘tenure’ is; when I got my first job as a computer programmer it was understood that I couldn’t be fired without just cause (unless my position itself was made redundant), and that’s been the case in most of the jobs I’ve had since. The difference in academia at the moment is that there seem to be an awful lot of things that could potentially constitute ‘just cause’, a lot of them speech-based. And the triviality of the ‘offending’ behaviour – more precisely, things which could be treated as offending behaviour – makes a real difference. Go on strike and you’re in breach of contract – we’ve all heard that, and by and large once you’ve heard it a couple of times it doesn’t scare you any more. But to be told that if you could be disciplined if you say the wrong thing on a blog or in email – that’s what you call a chilling effect.

(Oh, and please stop talking to me as if I was a child who needed a lesson in citizenship. But, but – if they go on strike they could lose their jobs! “That’s right, son – it’s a big risk they’re taking. But sometimes you need to take a risk in order to do the right thing!” OK, message received.)

bianca @169-70:

I think what we need to bear in mind is that all of this derives from a government policy, drawn up by committee, in haste, responding to political imperatives and addressing genuinely difficult issues. It’s not a recipe for clear thinking. The policy’s been revised several times since, but all that really means is that they can’t claim to be working in haste – all the other problems remain.

The whole thing is made up of guesses and rules of thumb. What’s radicalisation? We don’t know, but presumably it’s the kind of process people go through before they become radical enough to be recruited by a terrorist group. How does radicalisation work? We don’t know, but presumably it’s got something to do with acquiring radical ideas. What are radical ideas? We don’t know, but presumably they’re ideas that are at odds with the kind of ideas we approve of. What are the kind of ideas we approve of? Oh, you know, democracy, free speech, the rule of law, all those things.

If you mentally translate ‘radicalised’ as ‘ready to join Al Qaida and/or ISIS’, and ‘British values’ as ‘the kind of thing that people don’t believe in when they’ve been radicalised’, it all becomes a lot more straightforward. Not that it makes sense or seems useful, but it is more straightforward.

As for teaching Leninism – or Islamism, for that matter – without ‘exposing’ the students to arguments in favour, that would be fine until the first student asked the question Why? – specifically, ‘why does anyone believe in this entirely evil and reprehensible ideology?’. That’s, ah, a complicated question; our research hasn’t really got to the bottom of it yet, but we believe that what scientists call Mind Control Rays may play a large part…

Phil@182: when considering the effects of a law, I prefer to concentrate on the wording of the law as it was actually enacted. Sorry about that.

“I suspect that having teachers inform on students who are trusting and foolish enough to confide in them or to defend terrorism in class is not likely to catch any people who go on to become actual terrorists”

I suspect you’re right. But, how about having students inform on teachers who defend terrorism in class? That might actually be more to the point, the students being the ones being radical’ized’, you want to catch the people who are doing the radical’izing’.

Looking at it a bit more closely it is being presented as a safeguarding issue not a law enforcement one. Schools and FE colleges already have to have named safeguarding officers who will share information on children and vulnerable adults with other organisations. It might not really change things much and just be a case of something must be done and this is something, so risk assessments, action plans, policies and procedures, are made, staff are given training and everyone can show what they are doing to stop people being radicalised. Even the bit about delivery in FE is just saying that staff have to be trained so they can ‘develop the curriculum . . . and exemplify British values’, I guess they would only have to if they identify a need to.

When it becomes clearer what the impact will be then there could be push back from unions and even the institutions themselves e.g. if universities think it will put off overseas students. The worry is that it is being introduced through counter-terrorism and security legislation not safeguarding legislation, and the act contains a duty to have regard to the guidance from the Secretary of State. So the guidance could be changed, and therefore also the effect of the law, without the change being voted or debated on.

As well as seeing how ‘radicalisation’, ‘extremism’ and ‘British values’ are interpreted it will be interesting to see what the relevant curriculum areas are. Especially in regard to Bianca’s point about white privilege, i.e. will ESOL be seen as a relevant when other English languages qualifications aren’t?

Rich – I think the point you’re missing is that not wanting to get sacked is a perfectly valid reason for not protesting. If people are cowed into submission that’s wrong, but what’s wrong is the fact that they’re under that threat. Protesting anyhow is brave and honourable, but I don’t think that deciding to keep your head down – if you’ve assessed the risks correctly – is actually blameworthy. But I’m basically agreeing with you on this thread, so never mind. I probably come off as having a bit of an attitude myself.

That said, and FWIW, I really don’t think that “academics in general have more workplace protections on political speech and protest than most people” – not in Britain, anyway. Put it this way: I haven’t included details of a recent high-profile disciplinary case known to me, because it was (as far as I could tell) entirely speech-based, and this suggests to me that speech can be costly in our line of work – perhaps very costly. And this is my point about the disciplinary power of uncertainty, particularly when an individual’s acting (or speaking) alone. Signing a petition in favour of Dr Smith, alongside several hundred others: no problem. Joining an official strike to protest against Dr Smith’s treatment: fine. Poking my solitary head up on social media, weeks or months after the event, and suggesting I might not be OK with what happened to Dr Smith: that could be taken down and used in evidence against me, and why take the risk?

Phil: “I think the point you’re missing is that not wanting to get sacked is a perfectly valid reason for not protesting. If people are cowed into submission that’s wrong, but what’s wrong is the fact that they’re under that threat. Protesting anyhow is brave and honourable, but I don’t think that deciding to keep your head down – if you’ve assessed the risks correctly – is actually blameworthy.”

Well… I’ve never experienced a society in which protesting was entirely risk-free. Generally there is at least the veiled threat of arrest, even for the most seemingly nonobjectionable protest. (For instance, in the Occupy group I was in, we were threatened with arrest for having tents up without a permit.) So I’m used to thinking of all protesting as protesting despite risk. I agree that the risk of losing one’s job (and being effectively blacklisted within academia, probably) is a greater risk than most protesting entails.

But you and Stephen have very diverging risk estimates, seemingly, and it can’t be both at once. There is either a “healthy” risk regime in which nonviolent protest by academics is nearly risk-free or an “unhealthy” one in which protest leaders get fired. The second regime calls into question the exact values of British tolerance, democracy, liberty and rule of law that are supposedly being defended. The only real test of which regime it is is for someone to protest and see what happens.

So this is a particularly apt subject for protest. I don’t expect everyone to be willing to take this risk, but someone should be willing to. I certainly don’t recommend a solitary poke at the authorities on social media: someone should get a petition together, have hundreds of people sign it, etc. Corey Robin has done that kind of thing here more than once.

Parenthetically, in the U.S. the situation with academics vs other employment is very different. U.S. employment is generally “at will”: people can fire you for any reason, while it is very difficult to fire a tenured academic.

“I’m saying that my sense of the disciplinary environment at my institution inhibits the things I’m willing to say on threads like this one”

I’m not expecting anyone to say anything on threads like this one. I can, but I’m self-employed.

But I’ll restate the obvious yet again, for anyone else still reading this — instituting a trained squad of police informers at every place of further or higher education is not the act of a healthy democracy. Arguments that you need to do it because you need to do something are not arguments that would succeed in a healthy democracy. The people making these arguments are damaging British tolerance and liberty more than the terrorists could; the people democratically bringing this informer squad into being are demonstrating the failure of democracy as implemented in the UK. And of course students will turn to “extremism” of various kinds (hopefully not terrorism): the society that is educating them is demonstrating the failure of its values.

Cross-posted with Rich’s last; mine not a comment on his.

Rich, in the US, in elementary schools, from time to time we have teachers referring kids to services for pictures and creative writing that meets criteria that have been identified as indicating being “troubled” or possibly becoming a school shooter. I admit I don’t know whether the UK system will be more like that, or more like something like vulnerability to cult recruitment, or more like McCarthyism.

Phil,

I think I understood that you don’t feel more able to protest. Your explanation (about “informed opinion”) is interesting because I’m not sure it could be made in the US, where academia is–and pretty much has always been, for easily more than a hundred years–mostly too separate from the rest of society for academics’ opinions to be seen, by them or by the public, as representing the public. (I suppose in the wake of the Cold War it’s possible some academics persuaded themselves it must be otherwise and therefore is otherwise, however.) So an academic opinion is in itself a protest. It protests against the status quo in the name of an ideal, or on the basis of scientific discoveries about consequences of social conditions. It is, however, not in itself an engaged protest (except when it concerns academics’ conditions of work).

But still less is academic “protest in itself” a defense of the right wing or the status quo or the ruling class or the administration or some (non-existent in the US even if otherwise elsewhere) popular consensus. Rather, it’s a defense of a liberal ideal: science should take precedence over politics, and reason over power, pluralism and openness over dogma, humanism over prejudice, and so on. (Religious extremism, on the contrary, being often an attack on the legitimacy of the liberal ideal, in favor of the way it was done in some other time or place, by people who were better than us.)

There’s not much else to say. I think there’s a fair amount of fantasizing about how it all simply must work out for the best, even if no one does anything about it or about anything, some of it drawn from Marx, some not; some of it sheerly negative, as if the bad stuff will go away and the good stuff come back if we just attack absolutely everything with everything we have. Some of it probably disingenuous, even.