Campaigning on Campus: Student Islamic Societies and Counterterrorism

Choudhury, Tufyal

doi:10.4324/9780429196508-3

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mandated by the Counter Terrorism and Security Act (CTSA) 2015, the Prevent Duty (known informally as 'Prevent') imposes a legal requirement on universities, along with several other educational and public bodies in England, Scotland and Wales to show 'due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism' (HM Government, 2021). This means that the CTSA steps beyond voluntary cooperation and partnership and imposes a legal duty on universities requiring them, in carrying out their functions, to identify and report students who might be seen as 'vulnerable' to radicalisation (Choudhury, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listening to Muslim Students’ Voices on the Prevent Duty in British Universities: A Qualitative Study

Zempi

Tripli

2022

Education, Citizenship and Social

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Prevent Duty requires universities in the United Kingdom to identify and report students who might be seen as ‘vulnerable’ to radicalisation. Since its introduction in 2015, the duty has been subject to increasing empirical research in the education sector. However, there has been limited research that specifically explores Muslim students’ perceptions of Prevent in British universities. This paper directly addresses this gap in research by drawing upon the qualitative experiences of 25 university students who self-identified as ‘British Muslims’. Individual, semi-structured interviews were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis. The findings demonstrate the securitisation of higher education and ‘policing’ of Muslim students. The paper draws on Pantazis and Pemberton’s use of the ‘new suspect community’ thesis in order to examine participants’ views and experiences. When analysing the data, three particular themes are especially prominent: as a tool of ‘surveillance’, Prevent hampers freedom of speech, threatens student activism and forces Muslim students to hide their Muslim identity to avoid being labelled as ‘radical’ or ‘vulnerable’ to terrorism. It will be concluded that the ‘surveillance’ function of Prevent is problematic on the grounds that it renders universities ‘modern-day panopticons’.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%