The Exchange

As is becoming increasingly more frequent for me, I have (true, perhaps somewhat cynically) found the comments made to a lot of the articles discussing the “Detroit bomber” more insightful than the articles themselves and somewhat more frightening than some of the news they report. I have been asking myself: which is most representative of my society?

Where some would introduce a disclaimer, I imply this by convention and I declare outright that I studied at UCL during the last year of the relevant 2005-2008 period, and can also be said to have been an active student as VP of the UCL Student Human Rights Programme – though arguably perhaps not activist for some and not activist enough for others. All of this initiates the passionate rebuke I want to write, coming to the rescue of UCL… but that is merely what it is. The implications of this entire affair are much wider and deeper than UCL and my feelings towards it.

So who is to blame? And for what exactly? As ever, it’s hard to explain irrationality to one who argues irrationally and without logic. (Remember those who asked what we would do with the uncharged, unconvicted Guantanamo detainees if we released them.) But, once we clear away all of the unhelpful, rather rude, unsubstantiated and plainly silly points made on this matter, we’re left with the questions, could UCL have prevented this and, if so, should it have done?

It seems that the amalgam of the arguments are that, given the reality in which we exist, universities need to distinguish illegal extremism from extremism, and police the latter as well; they need to employ serious mechanisms to detect this extremism; and they need to look at the current recipe for terrorism and eradicate all ingredients. Why? Well the argument is that our universities are currently too susceptible and even too conducive to extremism and extremist exploitation.

The reason why this issue is wider and deeper than this current episode is that the weak point in our universities is implied to be their culture and educational ethos of diversity, free thought, free speech, free association and free communication that reflect the very values of our democracy. Are we to have different ‘laws’ on and off campus?

The solutions offered (vetting applicants, racially and religiously discriminatory admissions, association and communication policies, audio-visual surveillance, chaperones…) are futile in preventing terrorism, because, even if they were to be successful, extremism will simply be inconvenienced, ushered off campus. But, alas, at least we will have one less place to look for a scapegoat! Great.

And if our solutions are to follow the extremist off campus, to wherever conversations can be held, then we no doubt have ourselves a regime flowering nicely into one reminiscent of Germany early last century, Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea as it still is. And this is the point: are we to decry fascism off campus but not on?

Without the rigorous intellectual analysis of controversial issues by universities we risk stultifying our current philosophy, handicapping our democracy and substituting dogma.

What would our new definition of extremism be anyhow? It is even often hard to distinguish the law’s standard of incitement of hatred and violence from an analysis of such. So should we outlaw any debate relating to hatred or violence, for example a criminal law or philosophy debate about the difficult question of whether murder is ever moral or justified?

Just as another product of our universities, Tony Blair, recently conceded he wanted to invade, and felt justified in invading, Iraq regardless of WMDs but arguably wouldn’t because the law made this impossible, perhaps some debaters may believe that honour killings and the assassination of sinners are as justified as self-defence, but then also only theoretically. I may disagree with their theory but so what, who am I? Reasoned rebuttal is more helpful to society than my intuition.

Indeed, inciting hatred against entire nations of people and calling for violence from our armed forces by “the powers that be” is on the right side of the line. It’s not extremism because although innocent people die, the people to whom we have given a prestigious title and our vote are the infallible and incontrovertible authorities on the common good, right?

Whatever definition you favour, no matter how much ‘extremism’ and preaching to which one is exposed, before any actual criminal act occurs, the choice still has to take place in that individual’s head and if they require more information they will seek it out. Surely a university is a good place for this debate (within the law) because more perspectives can be offered rather than just one extremist dogma, making what for some may be an inevitable choice a more informed one.

The evidence does not necessarily even suggest that any controversial university talks have led to terrorism, only that, of the thousands of students at a university, a few of those who have had a hand in attempting to organise such talks have become terrorists. Soon we’ll be blaming video games, films and music… again.

But what is it about terrorism that compels us all to treat it differently to crime?
Take murder, we aren’t asking universities to vet and monitor students more susceptible to provocation, perhaps with a proclivity to overreact violently. We think terrorism should be prevented, we merely hope that murder can.

Maybe it is the patriotism we suddenly feel; the Britishness of our identities is insulted by the hatred of the foreign-thinking extremists. So we react with similar irrational hatred. We don’t wish to clothe, shelter or feed the homeless, but suddenly we care if they are blown up by foreigners!

In the end is UCL really to blame in this matter? Well yes if it educates according to the current values of our democracy. But as for the more sensible issue of evidence of some solid form of “incitement of hatred or violence” putting UCL on notice to act, we’ll have to wait and see. True, wait and see also for evidence of the mechanisms put in place by universities to be sufficiently receptive of this – and in addition, wait and see for evidence that universities should have read the circumstances as requiring any changes in approach. Though not also wait, I hope, for the kind of fascist dogma some advocate as a necessary evil to assuage their basic fear of crime.

Richard Walker