Failing to Counter Extremism in Schools is Islamophobic
Louis Reynolds, Project Coordinator, argues that not preventing or building resilience to violent extremism in schools is Islamophobic.
Zahra Halane (left) and Salma Halane (right), victims of Daesh online grooming who travelled to Daesh-controlled territory.
It’s often argued by the opponents of the Government’s Prevent Strategy that its implementation in schools is Islamophobic. That it has an alienating effect on students that outweighs its benefits, that teachers are being asked to racially or culturally profile students, or that it restricts freedom of speech, particularly that of Muslim students – the basis of an ongoing legal challenge by British Muslim activist Salman Butt.
These arguments are sometimes (though not always) motivated by a genuine concern for the wellbeing of young Muslims in the UK. But there are a number of obvious counter-arguments.
Individual anecdotes regarding cases of Prevent failure are frequently used to support this position. Yet often, these cases have subsequently been shown to be exaggerated or false, with anecdotes repeatedly misrepresented by anti-Prevent campaigners. A valuable example of this process was illustrated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruling on a dispute between Prevent Watch and The Sunday Telegraph earlier this year, on the accuracy of the Telegraph’s reportage concerning the falsity of one such anti-Prevent anecdote. Prevent Watch’s complaint was dismissed, and IPSO’s explanation of why is illuminating.
Prevent does not focus on British Muslims but on extremism in general, including the growing far-right threat (against which it can be a valuable tool). The Home Office has stated that around a quarter of cases supported by the Channel programme relate to the far-right. The criticism of Prevent in schools neglects almost entirely its prominent educational aspect while focusing purely on Channel. If Prevent gets teachers to ‘spy’ on Muslim pupils (it does not) then it’s only ‘spying’ in the sense that looking for the signs of child abuse in a student would be spying. Indeed, earlier this year the Chief Executive of the NSPCC described radicalisation as ‘one of this century’s most pressing child protection issues’, and highlighted the similarities between paedophile and extremist grooming online. If Prevent isn’t perfect, then it can and should be improved – but the alternative of inaction within schools is morally indefensible.
These defensive arguments are evidence-based, but they can’t match the rhetorical power of the accusation that Prevent is Islamophobic. This accusatory argument is a strong one not just because of the messenger (a range of civil society or rights organisations) or the target (the Home Office, a classic bogeyman) but because of the emotional resonance that an accusation of Islamophobia has.
What is required is an argument for countering extremism through education that directly confronts the charge of Islamophobia and matches its emotive power. I’d suggest this:
Not preventing or building resilience to violent extremism in schools is Islamophobic.
An important starting point of this argument is to highlight that Prevent is not about Muslims – in its logic, substance or outcomes. Yet the main victims of violent extremism in the UK and overseas are undeniably Muslims, and failures to address extremism have a disproportionate effect on Muslim communities. When young people go out to fight and die in Iraq and Syria – and over 850 have – it is overwhelmingly Muslims that are dying, not just the children of Muslim families in the UK, but Muslims from the conflict zones they fight in. When young Muslims fall into extremist groups in a domestic setting, it’s their futures that are destroyed; their careers, their relationships, their communities.
Young Muslims are, when it comes to violent extremism, not a threat group but a victim group, and those who are manipulated, groomed and exploited by recruiters are predominantly Muslim. In no other area would a social problem harming so prominently a religious or ethnic minority be discounted as not worth addressing in schools.
We need to give young people the skills and knowledge which they need to build resilience to extremism, through counter-narratives, educational programmes and open discussion. These preventative efforts can inform them about extremism, prepare them to reject extremist arguments and present positive social alternatives for the disenfranchised. While it can be improved, Prevent, remains the single most important vehicle for this effort.
We need to highlight how prevention is embedded firmly in our values as a liberal democratic society, whether that is the prevention of drugs and alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, gang violence, or indeed violent extremism. We must confidently assert the reality of the argument against CVE in schools: that it is Islamophobic, and that if CVE wasn’t part of the education system, it’s our Muslim young people and their families who would suffer the most.
The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organisation.