Should lecturers spy on their students?

The desired all-seeing eye

Universities UK, the society that represents British university leaders has emphasised that they take their responsibilities regarding public security ‘very seriously’ but Nicola Dandridge, the chief executive, has denied any evidence that campuses are ‘hotbeds of Islamic extremism’.

According to the report, extremism on British university campuses must be tackled with the ‘utmost urgency’ as it is strong enough to endanger our security ‘at home and has international implications that are serious enough to threaten our alliance relationships’. Apparently. In direct contrast to many universities, the report speaks of ‘damning evidence’ of such extremism.

Which leads us to a difficult impasse. Who do we believe? Are we to believe the government report that does not offer the ‘damning evidence’ it claims to hold, or the universities who declare there is no such problem because they, like us, have not seen the evidence?

Unsurprisingly the Prime Minister has emphasised his belief that Britain needs to ‘de-radicalise’ its universities, but while it is true that terrorists or alleged terror suspects may have attended British universities, inquiries often prove that there is little evidence of said suspect becoming radicalised while at university. Indeed, with an average 40% of young Brits attending university each year – and the age group of those people at risk of radicalisation including the age of most students – it is highly likely that universities will be involved somewhere along the line; but just because a young person has attended university, and become radicalised, does not mean that the two events are linked, or the institution could have done anything to prevent said radicalisation.

To be honest, the whole thing feels vaguely surreal. The report goes on to protest that co-operation from some university staff was limited, because they did not want to ‘spy’ on their students. A fair point I would say, after all, aren’t lecturers and other university staff in a position of trust like teachers? If teachers at a secondary school were asked to report on the actions of their students, surely there would be uproar? The report goes on to highlight the importance of ‘university authorities’ responsibilities as part of ensuring UK homeland security’ and expresses regret at the lack of ‘coherence or funding to any Government strategy for engagement with Academia in the context of Homeland Security’. These sentences baffled me. What has Academia to do with Homeland Security? Surely the point of academic studies is to be apart from the working of government? Surely we should be freethinking individuals with our own ideas and the ability to express them without restraints or fear of governmental obligation?

To suggest anything else is a worrying suggestion of a Big Brother state. Even the report acknowledges that ‘some universities and colleges have become sites where extremist views and radicalisation can flourish beyond the sight of academics’ – so what obligation should lecturers have to police the behaviour of their students outside their remits. If extremism is developing outside the academic life of a student, surely there is little any tutor can do to stop it – and the government telling him or her they should act to stop it is both pointless and undesired.

The best thing universities can do to prevent extremism is to continue to attempt to educate young people as much as they can without ‘forcefully’ implemented government intervention.

An intelligent, well-rounded and social individual is less likely to subscribe to narrow-minded, minority views; and we don’t need any government report to tell us that.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.