Higher educational institutions should challenge extremism

Higher educational institutions should challenge extremist views and ideologies. Such act should have due regards to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. The question is--- how is such challenge possible? Section 26(1) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 imposes a duty upon us to prevent student from being drawn into terrorism, which is known as prevent duty. This essay focuses on the issues surrounding prevent duty of a teacher in higher educational institutions.
According to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), an educational institution is defined as an entity that provides instructional services to individuals or education related services to individuals and other educational institutions. Control of the instructional services lies with teachers, who are involved in curriculum delivery on a daily basis. Research suggests that when we deliver curriculum we also try to impose our own values. This subjective value can be identified as 'I' in education. It is very difficult to detach 'I' completely from teaching. But what should be the primary role of 'I'? In a teaching and learning environment we make our position clear in relation to a particular aspect of curriculum and also we might challenge any idea if there is a legitimate ground to do so. However in higher education, whatever our subjective judgement is, on the one hand, we commit to freedom of speech and, on the other hand, we commit to the rationality. Now question is---how shall we position our 'I' within the context of freedom of speech and rationality? In order to develop an answer for it, first I would like to address some issues surrounding the concept of freedom of speech and rationality.
John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, political economist and civil servant is one of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism. Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control. However Mill raised some important issues surrounding liberty. In his book On Liberty Mill seeks to differentiate the freedom of thought and freedom of expression by using the harm principle. Mill maintains that freedom of thought and freedom of expression are distinct, because while thought is self- regarding, expression of one's thoughts clearly has consequences for other people. He argues freedom of expression "being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself and resting in great part on the same reasons." This means that these two notions of freedom are practically inseparable. Mill also maintains that the freedom of thought and expression contribute to "the permanent interests of man as a progressive being." For Mill, to discover and know what is true and the manner in which we believe what is true are both important. Mill argues that a truth should produce by collision with error. While freedom of speech is important in higher educational institution, one should consider Mill's harm principle and principle of revelation of truth after collision with error, which can only occur in a challenging environment.
Rationality, as cited in Oxford dictionary, is the quality of being able to think sensibly or logically. Rationality implies "the conformity of one's belief with one's reason to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action." The study of rationality and rationality in action are central to western intellectual culture. John Rogers Searle, an American philosopher, in his book Rationality in Action describes the Classical Model of rationality and put forward an alternative theory of the role of rationality in thought and action. I would like to present here Searle's argument about intentionality and rationality which I find pertinent in defining the state of mind of a person engage in a violent act. While defining intentionality Searle states that "..it is the power of minds to be about, to represent or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs in the world." The nature of intentionality is an important issue as it relates to social reality. Searle believes that it is the collective intentionality which is not simply reducible to individual intentionality, can create a social reality. If such reality is a kind of act of violence, then I would argue that it is the collective intentionality that might trigger such act. Searle argues that only irrational actions are directly caused by beliefs and desires. Searle, while interpreting the concept of rationality, argues that reason does not cause one to do anything, because sufficient reason generates intention but does not force one to do thing. So, there is a gap between the motivating desire and the actual decision making.  According to Searle, all rational activities presuppose free will. Rationality is possible only where one has a choice among various rational as well as irrational options. Therefore I would argue that in addition to freedom of speech higher educational institution should provide freedom of space where rational and irrational views can be tested and challenged without any fear.
Considering Searle's position of intentionality and rationality in action and Mill's concept of liberty, I am of the opinion that a higher educational institution should act within the ambit of the principle of freedom of speech and rationality. In order to comply with such principle one powerful act is that we should challenge extremist views and ideologies using word instead of weapon. We as a teacher should position our 'I' to facilitate such challenge. Current statistics suggests that comparatively young people are committing terror related offences. Statistics also suggest that some student may arrive at higher educational institution already committed to terrorism, some may become radicalised whilst attending a higher education institution and others may be radicalised whilst they are at an institution but because of activities mainly taking place off campus. Compliance with the Prevent duty requires that policy and procedure should be in place in order to deal with any extremist view head on and also to prevent developing such view. Obviously this has to be proportionate and risk based. What these practically mean?  Say, an education institution wants to bring external speakers and also to manage an event on campus. A risk assessment should be carried out prior to such event. This will take into account whether or not to host a particular speaker, consider carefully whether the views being expressed, or likely to be expressed, constitute extremist views that risk drawing people into terrorism or are shared by terrorist groups. In these circumstances the event should not be allowed to proceed except where educational institution are entirely convinced that such risk can be fully mitigated without cancellation of the event. This includes ensuring that, where any event is being allowed to proceed, speakers with extremist views are challenged with opposing views as part of that same event, rather than in a separate forum. Where there is a doubt that the risk cannot be fully mitigated they should exercise caution and not allow the event to proceed.
Above all, freedom of speech and academic freedom are of paramount importance for higher educational institution but protection of student, staff welfare and welfare of the society as a whole are also important. On the one hand educational institutions should not provide a platform for encouragement of terrorism and inviting or supporting terrorist organisation and on the other hand government action should not create any hindrance to critical thinking and academic freedom. If any view is extremist in nature, then environment should be such that an opposing view should be presented in the same event without any fear. So, providing a platform for freedom of speech and freedom of space, higher educational institution can play a vital role for flourishing rational thinking and non violence.r
Dr Kanan Purkayastha teaches Chemistry and Environmental Sciences in the United Kingdom.
He is a Fellow of the Institution of
Environmental Sciences in the UK