Dons fear for tutorials
The government faced a fierce battle in the House of Commons to get its terror legislation through
Oxford’s unique tutorial system could leave both students and tutors open to prosecution under the government’s new terrorism legislation, academics have warned. The government’s package of new laws designed to combat the threat of terrorism, which was continuing its passage through Parliament as The Oxford Student went to press, has the potential to criminalise a range of academic activities, from use of the Bodleian library to discussion about terrorism within tutorials.
Professors spoken to by this newspaper are worried that the legislation could have dire consequences for academic freedom. Terry Hoad, an English tutor at St Peter’s, warned that: “The kind of intellectual exchange which is a central feature and benefit of Oxford’s tutorial teaching is particularly likely to lead to situations which put teachers and students are risk of falling foul of the legislation.
“How can you discuss and respond to ideas if you have declared in advance that they are unmentionable?” he added. In particular, academics are worried that Clause 1 of the new law, which outlaws the ‘encouragement’ or ‘glorification’ of terrorism, might affect a tutor who initiates discussion on terrorism or who gives texts and statements to his or her students to read that could be seen to encourage terrorism.
This could apply even if the material was being studied as part of a legitimate Oxford course such as ‘Politics in the Middle East’, or ‘Politics in Sub-Saharan Africa’.
A spokesman for AUT, a national union of university staff that has campaigned for amendments to the new laws, warned that a tutor would be committing an offence if he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that a student was likely to understand the discussion or printed material as a direct or indirect inducement to terrorism.
“In other words the lecturer does not have to think one of their students is a terrorist themselves, only that one of his students may interpret what they are saying as being an encouragement to terrorism. “The potential for this to close down the range of views expressed and controversial opinions explored in the course of academic teaching is frightening,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Oxford University acknowledged that the university were concerned about the implications of the law on Oxford. “The University of Oxford fully supports the work of Universities UK [a higher education action group] and the AUT on this issue,” she said.
David Marquand, a Politics fellow at Mansfield College, agreed that the clause could have important consequences for Oxford tutors in the future: “There is no doubt that the intention behind the clause is contrary to the basic principle of freedom of speech; and also to the basic academic principle of freedom to pursue the truth without fear or favour.
?? The government has insisted that academics’ fears are unjustified because the laws are not designed to interfere with legitimate academic debate. “The key proposal is the intention of the person who acts or by their statements seems to incite others to commit acts of terrorism,” said Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell. “I don’t think within that context that there is anything legitimate academic freedom has to fear.
?? However, Professor Marquand believes that this misses the point: “Once a Bill is passed into law it is by definition part of the law. It is there, for use by future Governments whose inclinations are impossible to foresee. “The real objection, then, is not that this particular Government (or the police forces operating under this particular Government) is likely to use it in a way that infringes academic freedom, but that future Governments may do so.
?? There is also concern that Clause 2 of the new law, which prohibits the dissemination of terrorist publications, could restrict the range of primary and secondary materials available to students and tutors, and leave library staff open to prosecution. As the law stands, an offence would have been committed if any book that is lent out by college or university libraries could be construed as an encouragement to terrorism by the student who borrowed it.
Such texts would also not be able to be handed out by tutors to students, nor reproduced in student essays or academic research papers. Ronald Milne, the Acting Director of Oxford University’s library services, told The Oxford Student: “I’m very concerned, as are librarians, about the implications of his on freedom of access to information.
“As the Bodleian is a legal deposit library we hold material which could be construed to encourage terrorism, from books that outline the way Nelson Mandela and the ANC operated in South Africa to books that analyse the ways in which Al-Quaeda operate today. “This bill could put us in the invidious position of breaking the law when carrying out our job of facilitating access to information.” It is not only those studying sensitive political topics that stand to be affected.
Clause 6, which is concerned with ‘Training for terrorism’ could have an affect in Oxford’s chemistry labs. The law makes it an offence for anybody to: ‘provide instruction or training in… the making, handling or use of a noxious substance’ if he or she suspects that the person receiving the training intends to use it in connection with acts of terrorism.
“We believe the fundamental bond of trust between a lecturer and their students along with the freedom of academic enquiry, would be potentially restricted if all lecturers in certain academic fields of study were in effect forced to spy upon their students,” said the AUT spokesman. “They would have to make a subjective judgment about whether they have any suspicion that any of their students may use their knowledge at some point in the future to commit a terrorist act,” he claimed.
Some tutors insist that the laws will not impact upon their teaching methods in tutorials. “I don’t think it will affect me at all,” said Dan Kelemen, a politics fellow at Lincoln. “While the bill my affect some academics whose research focuses on terrorism, generally I think its likely impact on academic activities has been exaggerated.” “There are no implications for tutorial teaching,” added Dr Nigel Bowles, a politics fellow at St Anne’s.
But Mr Hoad, who is the secretary of the Oxford branch of the AUT, believes that taken together, the measures contained within the new law do pose a real threat to academic freedom at Oxford University. “Along with colleagues at universities around the country, Oxford AUT is very concerned at the effect the proposed legislation may have on the conduct of normal academic business,” he told The Oxford Student.
“It seems self-evident that in seeking to understand events and situations around the world - surely one of the most important tasks of academic teachers and students in various disciplines, and a vital contribution to making the world safer - it is necessary for them to discuss the ideas and opinions of many individuals and groups with whom they may well profoundly disagree, and to share the reading and discussion of texts and documents containing views which they would in no way wish to promote,” he concluded. “The idea that our government should monitor university teaching in any way is both preposterous and unworkable,” added Michael Freeden, a Professorial Politics fellow at Mansfield.
10th Nov 2005