Having spoken at length with various members of
the community in Birmingham, there are undeniable
concerns among certain – yes, including Muslim – students and parents
pertaining to a narrow interpretation of Islam being enforced within
some schools. There are also allegations of
mismanagement, nepotism and of the misuse of funds. The detail of these
issues is likely to emerge in upcoming reports.
But what the problem is not, is an
issue of radicalisation. Rather, attempts to link the problems to
radicalisation reflect an expansion of the counter-terrorism agenda to the
policing of socially conservative views among some Muslims and the effects of this policy are likely to be disastrous.
The entire affair has been worrying on many
levels, not least in the language used to report the story. Several outlets
have referred to a “Muslim plot” – would that be all Muslims plotting to
take over our schools? The uncritically regurgitated term “Trojan horse”, a term widely employed by the far-right,
while the Times ran a headline “Gove told to launch dawn raids on
schools”, with the implicit suggestion that the schools were being raided for
terrorism-related activities. The man at the centre of it all, Michael Gove,
opted for dehumanising imagery in his call to “drain the swamp“
in reference to the Muslim community – a swamp which, if one accepts the
analogy, would be harbouring the crocodiles. None of this can or should be
understood outside of the rise in support for
the xenophobic UKIP or a rise in racism.
There is a broader climate in which both the media and politicians operate and
feigning ignorance of it doesn’t mitigate the reception of this terminology.
The narrative, despite denials to the contrary,
has been that schools have been infiltrated by extremists who are at risk of radicalising
Muslim children. The remedy? “Prevent” teaching, as recommended by Ofsted,
in order to inoculate them. As if by virtue of being Muslim, children should be
assessed as potential terrorists who require early intervention to stop them
jumping on the conveyor belt of violence. There
couldn’t be any more damning indictment of this government’s engagement with
communities than its choice to identify individuals on the basis of a reified conception of their identity, rather than as
multifaceted citizens. These children are Muslim, but
that doesn’t mean they’re potential radicals, despite what the
demonising front cover of the Spectator
might suggest. They’re also brummies, British and Asian and African,
they’re football fans and aspiring entrepreneurs. The lens which brands them a
potential “risk” is itself a grave threat to social cohesion.
Underlying this stigmatising view of Muslim
identity is the assumption that the source of radicalisation is a given
interpretation of Islam which has widespread enough traction within our
society, that it could be openly taught within several schools, with the
complicity of parents, students and officials. It’s
also an insight into a flawed counter-terrorism strategy, the so-called
conveyor belt theory, which assumes that socially conservative views can
represent the first step on a broader path to terrorism. In fact, studies suggest that a strong religious identity is
an important bulwark
against the risk of radicalisation. The profile of the 7/7 bombers, politically
radicalised by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but otherwise not particularly
devout, alleged to have been smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol –
suggests a far more complex understanding of radicalisation is required. A
perfect illustration of this confusion is the classic scene in the cult film Four
Lions when the police raid the house of the devout, big-bearded brother of
the true terrorist, Riz Ahmed’s character,
rather than his and his Lion King-watching, clean-shaven, “modern”
family. In so doing, they like Gove and his allies, confuse illiberal,
conservative religious views with extremism, itself usually a very modern
reinterpretation of Islam.
Meanwhile, the neo-conservative voices within the
Tory party continue to push an unsubstantiated view of radicalisation. In July
2010, a leaked government memo concluded that it was wrong “to regard
radicalisation in this country as a linear ‘conveyor belt’ moving from
grievance, through radicalisation, to violence…”. Although foreign
policy isn’t the only catalyst for terrorism, in her evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, the
former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller said that
the invasion of Iraq had radicalised a new generation of young British Muslims,
highlighting the centrality of conflicts abroad in the motivations of
extremists. Ultimately the journey to terrorism is a complex one which
cannot be easily situated on a neat continuum. Despite this, Gove has been
pressing ahead for a crackdown on nonviolent, as well as violent, “extremists”,
a strategy which in its current form involves casting the net so wide as to try
and encompass entire communities, alienating and stigmatising whole sections of
society in the process.
I have no interest in defending some
of the practices reported in these schools. I think music and drama
should remain on the curriculum. I think trips abroad cannot implicitly exclude
any students. And I think vetting speakers who address children is essential. But I will not accept that the over-reach of a number of
zealous governors, who advocate a socially conservative view of Islam in their
schools, represents a threat requiring a national existential soul search and a
crackdown on all Muslims.
What this affair does indicate is the
failure of the application of neo-liberal “laissez-faire” principles to
education. On the subject of academies, Gove spoke
of giving schools more freedom, specifically by ensuring they could opt out of
the type of supervision previously guaranteed by local authority control.
Academies and free schools give communities the power to define their own
curriculum and ethos and yet when we consider that ethos to be at odds with our
educational ideals, we denounce those who are merely making use of provisions
made available through this policy. This is where a brouhaha over the
shortening of days during Ramadan for example, or of the cancelling of tombola and raffles
in schools with an overwhelmingly Muslim student body, is less evidence of a nefarious plot than of anti-Muslim prejudice.
Academies and free schools have been given the sort of autonomy which allows
them to do exactly this.
And this is also why there is an issue of double standards. Politicians have been
at pains to claim this is not a Muslim issue. The truth is, there are many
indications that even before any reports had been compiled, the DoE were treating any problems found within these
schools through the lens of counter-terrorism, rather than an internal
educational concern. The decision to appoint the head of the inquiry
into 7/7, Peter Clarke, to investigate and give repeated warnings
of an “extremist plot”, even when Birmingham council had themselves dismissed
the anonymous letter as a fabrication, set the tone. What should have been
evaluated as the likely pitfalls of an ill thought through educational scheme,
has been painted as a stealth takeover by radicals. The
message this sends to Muslims is loud and clear – your participation in the
public sphere will be afforded intense scrutiny and any suggestion that your
moral values might be influencing your work risks you being branded an
extremist. One Muslim governor of an “outstanding” rated school in east
London told me: “I always thought engaging with public institutions was a good
thing. After all this, I worry that saying I’m a governor and a Muslim will
evoke suspicion about my ‘agenda’.”
As someone educated in the French educational
system, I cannot wrap my head around the idea of allowing different communities
to define their own notion of education. Education is a critical tool of
socialisation: it imbues us as citizens with a sense of our national identity
and priorities, and it cements a shared narrative of common purpose. It is
precisely this socialising experience which fosters a sense of collective
values and ideals, however disputed their ultimate definition may be.
Government failures in providing a streamlined educational framework which
would ensure all children receive an education to standards we as a society
deem beneficial, are what is truly to blame here. A
truly liberal society accepts the right to voice illiberal views. It
might however, not wish to create the conditions for them to devise their own
curriculums and run publicly-funded schools.
But the real tragedy here is the damage done to
community relations, to trust and to the willingness of Muslims to engage in a
system which seemingly paints the participation of the devout as a part of a
stealth takeover. After years of telling Muslims to engage in public
institutions, the damage caused by the government’s hawkish mischaracterisation
of this issue will reverberate in years to come.
沒有留言:
張貼留言