Students Warned Reading 3rd-Year Politics Essay Could Fall Foul of Counter Terrorism Legislation – 学生警告阅读第三年政治论文可能违反反恐立法

News /

12 Nov 2018

News /

Students Warned Reading 3rd-Year Politics Essay Could Fall Foul of Counter Terrorism Legislation

12 Nov 2018

An essay by the respected Professor Norman Geras has been flagged by the University of Reading as ‘sensitive’ under UK’s Counter-Terrorism scheme

body-8709720022_014f955bab_k.jpg

Students Warned Reading 3rd-Year Politics Essay Could Fall Foul of Counter Terrorism Legislation - 学生警告阅读第三年政治论文可能违反反恐立法

A student reads on a laptop, 2013. Courtesy: John Loo/Flickr

Students at the University of Reading have been told to act with caution when reading an essay by a leading left-wing academic in order to avoid investigation as part of the UK government’s Prevent scheme.

The essay, written by the late Professor Norman Geras on the subject of the ethics of a socialist revolution, was set as ‘essential’ reading on a third-year politics module titled ‘Justice and Injustice’. The essay rejects terrorism but argues that in the case of severe social injustice, violence could be justified. The text was flagged by the university as ‘sensitive’ under Prevent guidelines.

The ‘Prevent’ duty is listed under section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (2015), which states that higher education bodies ‘must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.’ The strategy forms one part of the four ‘Ps’ of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy. (Protect, prepare and pursue comprise the three further tactics).

The University of Reading has issued advice to students for the circumstances under which they should read Professor Geras’s essay, entitled ‘Our Morals: The Ethics of Revolution’. The advice includes warnings not to read the text on personal devices, to access it only in a secure setting ‘where the material cannot be accessed by other students’ and to not leave it where it could by read ‘inadvertently or otherwise, by those who are not prepared to view it’.

However, the incident has been met with outcry from academics across the country. Fahid Quarashi, a lecturer in Sociology at Staffordshire University said the incident indicates how anti-terrorism legislation is ‘being applied far beyond its purview.’

Waqas Tufail, a senior lecturer in criminology added to criticism, saying: ‘This text was authored by a mainstream, prominent academic who was well-regarded in his field, who was a professor at Manchester for many years and whose obituary was published in The Guardian. This case raises huge concerns about academic freedom and students’ access to material, and it raises wider questions about the impact of Prevent.’

Ilyas Nagdee, black student’s officer at the National Union of Students said: ‘Prevent fundamentally alters the relationship between students and educators, with those most trusted with our wellbeing and development forced to act as informants. As this case shows, normal topics that are discussed as a matter of course in our educational spaces are being treated as criminal’.

In sector-specific advice issued to higher education institutions in England and Wales in 2015, the UK Government included a statement explaining the rationality behind the Prevent scheme: ‘Relevant Higher Education Bodies […] represent one of our most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies. But young people continue to make up a disproportionately high number of those arrested in this country for terrorist-related offences and of those who are travelling to join terrorist organisations in Syria and Iraq.’

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act has repeatedly come under fire since its expansion by the coalition government in 2011. In 2016, labour politician and Major of Manchester Andy Burnham called the Prevent duty ‘highly discriminatory against one section of the community’. While in 2017 a report based on interviews with 36 Muslim students, academics and professional argued that Prevent instils ‘fear, suspicion and censorship’ on university campuses.

News /

Higher Education
News
Art & Politics
University of Reading
Censorship
Education


新闻/新闻2018年11月12日雷丁大学已将尊敬的诺曼·格拉斯教授的一篇论文标记为“敏感”,根据英国反恐计划body-8709720022_014f955bab_k.jpg Students Warned Reading 3rd-Year Politics Essay Could Fall Foul of Counter Terrorism Legislation - 学生警告阅读第三年政治论文可能违反反恐立法一个学生在笔记本电脑上读书,2013。礼貌:阅读大学的John Loo/Flickr学生被告知,在阅读左翼著名学者的论文时要谨慎行事,以避免作为英国政府预防计划的一部分进行调查。这篇论文由已故的诺曼·格拉斯教授撰写,主题是社会主义革命的伦理学,它被定为“必要的”阅读,是关于第三年政治学模块的“正义与不公正”。这篇文章驳斥恐怖主义,但认为,在严重的社会不公正的情况下,暴力可以是正当的。该文本被大学标记为“敏感”的预防指南。《反恐与安全法》(2015)第26条列出了“预防”义务,该条规定,高等教育机构“在行使其职能时,必须适当考虑防止人们卷入恐怖主义的需要。”他是政府反恐战略的四个“PS”。(保护、准备和追求包括三个进一步的策略)。雷丁大学已经就学生应该阅读Geras教授题为“我们的道德:革命的伦理”的文章的情况向学生提出了建议。该建议包括警告不要在个人设备上阅读文本,仅在“其他学生不能访问该材料”的安全设置中访问该文本,并且不要通过阅读“不经意或不经意的,不准备查看它的人”而将其留在可以访问的位置。然而,这一事件却受到全国各地学者的强烈抗议。斯塔福德郡大学社会学讲师法希德·夸拉希(Fahid Quarashi)说,这起事件表明反恐立法是如何“远远超出其职权范围”得到应用的。犯罪学高级讲师瓦卡斯·图法夫(Waqas Tufail)对此表示批评,他说:“这篇文章是由一个主流的昵称。”这位学者在他的领域备受尊敬,在曼彻斯特当了多年的教授,他的讣告发表在《卫报》上。这个案件引起了人们对学术自由和学生获取资料的极大关注,也引发了更多关于预防措施的影响的问题。ND教育者,那些最受信任的人,我们的福利和发展被迫充当告密者。正如这个案例所显示的,在我们的教育空间里作为课程讨论的正常话题被当作罪犯对待。在2015年发给英格兰和威尔士的高等教育机构的具体部门建议中,英国政府发表了一份声明,解释预防计划背后的合理性:“相关的高等教育机构[…]代表我们向极端主义分子发起挑战的最重要领域之一。”观点和意识形态。但是,在这个国家,由于与恐怖主义有关的犯罪行为而被捕的年轻人和前往叙利亚和伊拉克加入恐怖组织的青年人数仍然高得离谱。2011由联合政府扩大。2016年,工党政治家兼曼彻斯特少校安迪·伯纳姆称预防责任是“对社区中一个部门的高度歧视”。而在2017年,一份基于对36名穆斯林学生、学者和专业人士的采访的报告指出,防止在大学校园中灌输“恐惧、怀疑和审查”。新闻/高等教育新闻·艺术·政治阅读大学审查教育


FRIZE特稿
ARThing编译


Comments are closed.