Two decades of Islamophobia awareness

November 2017 is Islamophobia Awareness Month (https://mend.org.uk/iam2017/)
November 2017 is also the twentieth anniversary of the 1997 Runnymede Trust report on Islamophobia. Runnymede didn’t invent the word ‘Islamophobia’, but it did help it to become known throughout the world.

Yesterday (Tuesday 14 November) Runnymede published a follow-up report. There is full information at https://www.runnymedetrust.org/projects-and-publications/equality-and-integration/islamophobia.html

Also this month there are public lectures in Leeds and London, organised by a partnership involving the Centre for Ethnicity and Racism Studies, the Counter Islamophobia Kit and ReOrient, the journal of Critical Muslim Studies all based at the University of Leeds, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, the Muslim Youthwork Foundation, and the Insted Consultancy.

The public lectures are supported by a website at (https://www.islamophobia2017.org.uk/) and a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/Islamophobia2017/

Media coverage

Articles so far published in connection with the anniversary include the following:

Islamophobia, 20 years later: how we can hope to defeat it by Robin Richardson, Middle East Eye, 9 November, http://www.middle easteye.net/essays/islamophobia-20-years-later-runymede-trust-report-enlightenment-values-muslim-hope-2054654863

Let’s be clear: Muslims are neither good nor bad, we’re just human by Farah Elahi, The Guardian, 14 November, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/14/muslims-neither-good-nor-bad-human-islamophobia-britain

A challenge for us all: study highlights prevalent Islamophobia in UK by Amandla Thomas Johnson, Middle East Eye, 14 November, http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/challenge-us-all-study-highlights-prevalent-islamophobia-uk-248627149

Why the government needs to look at how anti-Muslim racism passes the dinner table test by Aisha Gani, BuzzFeed News, 14 November, https://www.buzzfeed.com/aishagani/the-government-has-been-urged-to-redefine-islamophobia-as?utm_term=.pbjXkn9Rv#.jeDY90LnP

Society must fight anti-Muslim racism, says major study by Jonathan Walker, Birmingham Mail, 14 November, http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/society-must-fight-anti-muslim-13900420

Britain needs wake-up call as Islamophobia grows, report claims by Seth Jacobson, The National, 14 November, https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/britain-needs-wake-up-call-as-islamophobia-grows-report-claims-1.675634

Also

Recent articles that are relevant though not directly related to the twentieth anniversary of the Runnymede report:

Sayeeda Warsi accuses UK press of hate speech and Islamophobia by Graham Ruddick, The Guardian, 14 November, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/14/sayeeda-warsi-accuses-uk-press-of-hate-speech-and-islamophobia

Islamophobia is driving the ‘War on Terror’ and we must call it out, by CAGE, https://cage.ngo/article/islamophobia-is-driving-the-war-on-terror-and-we-must-call-it-out/

Corbyn attends Islamophobia event, as hosts deny extremism claims by Amandla Thomas Johnson, Middle East Eye, 2 November, http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/corbyn-attends-launch-islamophobia-month-hosts-defend-extremism-allegation-929469548

Born radicals? – Prevent, positivism and ‘race-thinking’ by Katy Sian,Palgrave Publications, 27 October https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0009-0,

Advertisements

Islamophobia – looking back, looking round, looking ahead

LECTURES, ISSUES, RESOURCES, LINKS, BLOG

A new website about Islamophobia has been launched today. Its title is Islamophobia 2017, and its subtitle is Challenges for us all. There are two aims – a) to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Runnymede Trust report published in autumn 1997, and b) to recall major issues that still need to be dealt with. The site’s address is https://www.islamophobia2017.org.uk/.

The site has five sections:

Lectures – brief details about lectures in Leeds (9 November) and London (20 November), chaired respectively by Baroness Saeeda Warsi and Baroness Julia Neuberger.

Issues – links to 60 short articles about Islamophobia that have been published online in the last two years. They are mainly but not entirely from the UK, and are to do with a) concepts and definitions b) the Prevent programme c) media imagery and coverage d) hate crime and e) education and training.

Resources – brief summary of educational materials that have been published online in recent years, including readings, videos, syllabuses, lesson plans, exercises and activities.

Links – the websites of about 25 organisations from which further information, ideas and resources are available.

Blog – articles and posts published by ReOrient: The Journal of Critical Muslim Studies based at the University of Leeds.

The Runnymede Commission on Islamophobia and British Muslims was chaired in 1996-97 by Professor Gordon Conway, at that time vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex. It was not until after the text of their report had been finalised in June 1997 that members considered the report’s title. Discussion went backwards and forwards, and round and round. Eventually someone said in exasperation ‘Look, whatever we call the report we must signal that Islamophobia is a challenge for everyone, it’s a challenge for us all’.

‘Well,’ said someone else, ‘what’s wrong with that?’

Islamophobia: a challenge for us all was published a few weeks later. It was welcomed warmly by a wide range of Muslim organisations and groups in the UK, but was by and large ignored by official bodies. Also it was by and large ignored by antiracist organisations, and by churches and interfaith bodies.

But over the last 20 years Islamophobia has not gone away. On the contrary, it has become more serious both nationally and internationally, and much more complicated. More obviously than 20 years ago it’s seen now as a complex mix of challenges – a perfect storm of troubles, not a single phenomenon. It affects everyone. Everyone, accordingly, has a part to play against it.

Muslim foster row – fears, facts and fantasy

TEN USEFUL ARTICLES

Another awful week has just ended in the shocking history of British Islamophobia. The week began with lies on the front page of The Times. It continued with the same lies, plus a few others, being recycled in most other papers. The true facts were reported by the Guardian, Independent and BBC, but not in high-profile ways. The week ended with a senior journalist on The Times claiming the paper had acted responsibly when in fact it quite clearly had not.

If you want to know what really happened you need not only to attend to the Guardian and BBC but also to various well-informed pieces in the blogosphere. This article lists 10 articles which between them show the flagrant falsehoods and simplifications which most of the press circulated, and discuss the damage that has been done.

Briefly, the coverage was a mixture of factual inaccuracy on the one hand and Islamophobic hatred, fear and fantasy on the other. As is customary with racist reporting, it was combined for good measure with attacks on local government, on social workers and on political correctness. One of its many disgusting and sinister features was its explicit and unashamed use of a new ethno-religious category – ‘white Christian’ – to refer to people who are decent, principled, rational.

THEY (Muslims and social workers) are bad. WE (White Christians, readers of British newspapers) are good. This was the unspoken but underlying assumption, the grand narrative that the episode was deemed to illustrate.

The front-page headline in The Times on 28 August was ‘Christian child forced into Muslim foster care’. The opening standfirst summary was ‘A white Christian child was taken from her family and forced to live with a niqab-wearing foster carer’. The ten articles listed below provide the truth, and begin to discuss what should be done in consequence.

How the press lied about the little girl staying with Muslim foster parents: here are the facts
by Tom Pride, Pride’s Purge, 31 August 2017
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/how-the-press-lied-about-the-little-girl-staying-with-muslim-foster-parents-here-are-the-facts/

Muslim foster row – the facts

by Tim Fenton, Zelo Street, 31 August 2017
https://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/muslim-foster-row-facts.html?m=1

The UK’s Islamophobic press grows more damaging by the day
by Shenaz Bunglawala, The New Arab, 1 September 2017
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/9/1/the-uks-islamophobic-press-grows-more-damaging-every-day

The fostering case shows British case has problems reporting fairly on Muslims
by Miqdaad Versi, New Statesman, 31 August
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/08/fostering-case-shows-british-press-has-problem-reporting-fairly-muslims

So, it was all a lie
by Matthew Smith, Indigo Jo Blogs, 31 August
http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2017/08/31/so-it-was-all-a-lie

Times excuses itself – DISHONESTLY
by Tim Fenton, Zelo Street, 2 September 2017
https://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/times-excuses-itself-dishonestly.html?m=1

Religious and cultural identity in foster care
By Sarah P, Transparency Project, 28 August 2017
http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/religious-and-cultural-identity-in-foster-care/

The Other Side: my Muslim chidren were fostered by a Christian family
by Louise Butt, Amaliah, 30 August 2017
https://www.amaliah.com/post/30454/christian-girl-placed-foster-care-family-muslim

That Muslim foster carers story
by ‘Suddenly Mummy’
http://suddenlymummy.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/that-muslim-foster-carers-story.html

Why did Andrew Norfolk lie?

by Abdul-Azim Ahmed, Medium, 2 September 2017
View story at Medium.com

Memorandum to Oppressors

Handout for a talk entitled Learning towards Justice, summer 1984

Introduction: notes on terminology

A relationship, interaction or social system is oppressive if it involves gains, benefits and advantages for some at the cost of losses, frustrations and harm for others. Oppressors are individuals, groups or classes who have more than their fair share of gains. The oppressed are those who have more than their fair share of losses. The archetypal oppressor lives in the northern hemisphere; is middle-class; is white; is male; has a senior position in a hierarchical institution.

Whether you are an oppressor or not depends on your location in an oppressive structure, not on your intention or wish. The question is what are you doing to transform the structure, not whether you wish to be an oppressor.
_________________________________________________________________

1 Seek confrontation and opposition

Over and over you get things wrong. You are deformed and blinkered by your location and experience. You cannot trust yourself, not your eyesight, not your judgement. Seek out people who have very different location and experience—that is, the oppressed—and heed their critiques, criticism and challenges.

2 Flattery and chance

Day in and day out, people flatter you. For you control goods and goodies which they desire. The consequence of this flattery is that you suppose with pride that you are in your present position through your own merit and achievement. But no, you are where you are through chance, not choice. You live in a society in which people with certain attributes (gender, race, class, nation) get rewarded and flattered.

3 Don’t divide and rule

There is a diversity of interests, concerns and priorities amongst the oppressed, and many are prevented—for example by the mass media and by the educational system—from knowing the dimension and contours of their oppression. You must not take, let alone seek, advantage from this diversity and lack of awareness.

4 Selfishness and self-interest

All human beings defend their self-interest, yes of course, and all in this do things which are morally wrong. But only oppressors have the power to define which wrong actions are crimes. Also oppressors have the power to define the signs, symbols and conventions of courtesy and considerateness. In consequence of this dual power, oppressors typically think they are morally superior to the oppressed. They are not. Never forget this.

5 Positive action

Regardless of any formal equal opportunities policies which may be around, you should be engaging continually in positive discrimination. Do everything you can to distribute power, influence, resources and goods to or towards the oppressed. You will often have to do this covertly rather than openly: so be it.

6 Acknowledgements

Everyone peppers their discourse and conversation with bibliographical footnotes—references to people from whom they have learnt, and/or people who are big names. Make sure that you yourself, in your footnotes and references, give credit only to the oppressed. This means—amongst other things—that you should indeed reckon to have your mind nurtured only or mainly by the oppressed.

7 The climate of oppressor opinion

Transformation of the system will come, if it comes at all, from the oppressed. You yourself have only a small part to play. But one thing you can do, and should do, is criticise, cajole, badger, pester, speak out, in the forums, informal as well as formal, of the oppressor. But watch out: don’t let them dress you in the cap and bells of a court jester, or the stiff righteous collar of a prig.

8 Double-agents

As long as you stay where you are it is possible that you will work, whether you wish to or intend to or not, against the interests of the oppressed. For example, and in particular, you are part of the velvet glove round the oppressor’s iron fist; you may be containing resistance, buying time for the oppressor, that’s all. One consequence of this is that you have no right or reason to expect gratitude, sympathy or trust from the oppressed.

9 Lifestyle

Look at your possessions, your personal time, your personal space and mobility: you are very comfortable, and very corrupt. You cannot completely change your lifestyle as long as you stay in your location. But you can keep it modest and frugal; you can share it; you can treat it lightly; and you can—and you must—risk it.

10 Words and platforms

The essential educational task is to equip the oppressed with words—the ABC, the first two Rs, Shakespeare and all that. Part of the essential political task is to provide them with platforms—a hearing in the places and spaces where a rule is to listen (words + platforms = communicative competence). Often you yourself should be silent, or at least your memoranda should be unmemorable. But sometimes you may speak, you may use both words and platforms. Choose them, choose them with care.
_____________________________________________________________
Robin Richardson, St James’s Piccadilly, 20 June 1984, published in Daring to be a Teacher: essays, stories and memoranda, Trentham Books 1990, pp 205-07.

The Department for Education — inept or nasty?

Is the Department of Education inept or is it nasty? Is it thoughtless and inconsiderate or is it, worse, callous and cruel? Has it taken its eye off the ball or is it, much more seriously, contemptuous of its legal and ethical duties to have due regard for the consequences of its actions and policies? Is it guilty not only of errors of judgement but also of deceit and bad faith?

These questions are about individual ministers and, at all pay-grades, civil servants. Also they are about systems, routines, procedures, habits, ways of doing things, and not doing things. And they are about the collective mindsets which underlie the DfE’s organisational culture – they are not only about racist actions, for example, but about institutional racism as well. And they of course apply not only to the DfE itself but also to agencies set up by and accountable to the DfE, for example the National College for Teaching and Leadership (ACTL), and to external consultants and advisers whom the DfE and its agencies from time to time engage, for example lawyers and legal teams for specific cases.

In the present context these questions arise from consideration of how, over the last three years, the DfE has handled and mishandled the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham. The latest twist in this tangled and tortuous saga occurred on 30 May 2017, and was summarised with headlines such as Trojan Horse case against five Birmingham teachers thrown out by tribunal (Daily Telegraph) and Five teachers accused in Trojan horse affair free to return to classroom (Guardian).

A panel looking into allegations against some headteachers and other senior teachers had transferred its attention to the behaviour of the DfE itself, and had referred to repeated failures on the part of government lawyers to share crucial evidence that could have been of substantial assistance to the headteachers’ case, and that could have radically undermined the DfE’s own case. (Also, incidentally, the transcripts might well have confirmed what many observers suspected, which is that an earlier inquiry, the so-called Clarke inquiry, has been amateurish and improper in the way it was and was not conducted.) This was not merely a technicality of slight importance but, on the contrary, an abuse of justice whose seriousness was such that the panel had had no option but to end the hearings.

‘It is fundamental to the proper administration of justice,’ the panel pointed out, that an investigation such as the one it had been conducting ‘must be able to rely on the regulatory authority [namely, in this instance, the NCTL, set up by the DfE] acting in a way which ensures the integrity of the process.’ It continued: ‘There has been an abuse of the process which is of such seriousness that it offends the panel’s sense of justice and propriety.’

The panel also considered there had been a ‘lack of candour and openness’ by the DfE and ‘a lack of cooperation in assisting the panel to get to the bottom of what happened’. Serious errors had been far-reaching, it said, and had extended over the entire life of the case.

‘Such failures arise out of decisions which were consciously made,’ the panel declared, but also it considered that the DfE’s deliberate decision to withhold essential evidence represented ‘an extraordinarily serious error of judgment as opposed to bad faith’. The DfE had been inept, the panel in effect concluded, but not nasty.

However, is the distinction between being inept and being nasty really so very clearcut? Is it helpful, in instances such as this, to distinguish between errors of judgement on the one hand and bad faith on the other? Neglect and negligence can be criminal, not just bad manners or administrative oversights, and can cause real and lasting harm to certain individuals, and to the contexts in which individuals interact and have their being.

‘Without scheming to do wrong, or to make others unhappy,’ said Jane Austen two hundred years ago, ‘there may be error, and there may be misery. Thoughtlessness, want of attention to others’ feelings, and want of resolution, will do the business.’

It is almost certainly the case in the present instance (though not argued or even suggested by the Trojan Horse tribunal) that the DfE’s errors were in part or even largely due to hostility towards Islam and Muslims, and to callous indifference towards the misery for Muslims it was itself causing.

Did institutional racism and Islamophobia underlie not only the DfE’s careless conduct at the disciplinary tribunal but also how it perceived and reacted to the Trojan Horse forgery in the first place? Did racism and Islamophobia underlie the amateurish reports which the DfE in due course sponsored? Did they deeply affect the flawed Prevent and British Values projects which it then promoted, and zealously promotes still? Does the DfE realise, really realise, that the rule of law applies to itself as well as to everyone else?

Well, those are questions for thorough investigation at another time and in another place. In the meanwhile profound sympathy is due to the individuals, schools, families and communities in Birmingham that have been harmed over the last three years by the actions and non-actions of the DfE, and much corrective and restorative work needs to be done.

Robin Richardson, 1 June 2017, slightly updated 2 June

Notes

There is further information about the panel’s statement in news items by John Dickens in Schools Week, and Richard Adams in the Guardian, both on 30 May:

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/trojan-horse-nctl-drops-disciplinary-case-against-5-teachers/

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/30/trojan-horse-tribunal-five-birmingham-teachers-islam

The panel’s statement itself is published in full at <a https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Panel-decision-and-reasons-on-behalf-of-the-Secretary-of-State-for-Education-in-respect-of-applications-for-the-proceedings-to-be-discontinued.pdf

There is an interesting legal opinion of the panel’s statement at >https://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/cryptic-trojan-who-takes-responsibility-if-disclosure-is-the-achilles-heel/

There is substantial discussion of the Trojan Horse affair and related issues in British Values and British Identity: muddles, mixtures and ways ahead by Robin Richardson, London Review of Education, autumn 2015. It can be read at http://www.insted.co.uk/london-review-education.pdf

Islamophobia 2017 – challenges for us all

AN ANNIVERSARY PROJECT

2017 is the twentieth anniversary of the landmark 1997 Runnymede Trust Report Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All. A project is being planned to mark the anniversary. The aims of the project are:

  • to renew awareness of the causes, nature, facets and dangers of Islamophobia
  • to help develop and strengthen counter-narratives relating to citizenship, secularism, pluralism and justice
  • to provide resources, lesson plans, activities and course outlines for schools, colleges, universities and communities, and for training and awareness-raising events of various kinds.

THREE PRINCIPAL STRANDS

The project has three strands:

  • LOOKING BACK, LOOKING AHEAD: public lectures and events in Leeds and London to mark the twentieth anniversary of the 1997 report – 19 October 2017 in London and 12 November 2017 in Leeds.
  • BLOGPOSTS: critique, reaction and responses hosted by ReOrient: The Journal of Critical Muslim Studies.
  • RESOURCING EDUCATORS: an archive of lesson plans, exercises, training programmes and course outlines. September/November 2017.

If you would like to contribute to the blog or the resources archive, or both, please send an indication of your interest to admin@islamophobia2017.org.uk. Also, please send  suggestions and requests, if you wish, about the specific topics and issues you hope this project will address.

PLANNING

The project is being organised jointly by the Centre for Ethnicity and Racism Studies at the University of Leeds, the Insted Consultancy, the Muslim Youthwork Foundation and ReOrient: The Journal of Critical Muslim Studies.

The current members of the planning group for the project are Sameena Choudry (Equitable Education consultancy), Gill Cressey (Coventry University), MG Khan (Ruskin College, Oxford), Robin Richardson (formerly at the Runnymede Trust), S.Sayyid (University of Leeds) and AbdoolKarim Vakil (King’s College London).

INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION

The project focuses on the situation in the UK, as did the report published 20 years ago. But it also takes account of scholarship, issues, activism and creative developments in other countries as well.

BACKGROUND

The 1997 Runnymede report can be accessed via the following link: http://www.runnymedetrust.org/companies/17/74/Islamophobia-A-Challenge-for-Us-All.html.

A follow-up report published by Trentham Books in 2004 can be found at http://www.insted.co.uk/islambook.pdf

Many key theoretical issues are discussed in Thinking through Islamophobia: global perspectives, edited by S. Sayyid and AbdoolKarim Vakil, Hurst Publishers 2011.

FURTHER INFORMATION

The project has a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/Islamophobia2017

A website is being built at http://islamophobia2017.org.uk/

POSTER

A poster about the project can be downloaded from http://www.islamophobia2017.org.uk/pdf/islamophobia2017-finalweb.pdf

 

A low dishonest year

trump-and-farage

On Monday 14 November 2016 Alan Bennett jotted a brief note in his diary. There is ‘a nauseating picture,’ he wrote, ‘on the front of the Guardian of Trump and Farage together’. He added: ‘with “nauseating” in this case not just a word. It does genuinely make one feel sick.’

All over the world many millions of other people felt sick too, and felt not only disgusted and nauseous but also fearful and despairing.

in the famous words of W H Auden in 1939, people felt lost in ‘a low dishonest decade’, where ‘waves of anger and fear/ circulate over the bright/ and darkened lands of the earth,/ obsessing our private lives.’

Auden referred to the ‘unmentionable odour of death’ offending and obsessing the lives of millions. A similar odour is around at the end of 2016, this low dishonest year.

In order not to forget the worries and weariness with which 2016 ends, but also in order to help nurture hope and determination to keep on keeping on ( to show ‘an affirming flame’, in Auden’s phrase), here at the end of 2016 are links to a handful of reflections and proposals:

British Values, Brexit and Trump a meditation for today, December 2016

Making our states fair again post-election reflections, November 2016

Grief, anger and re-engagement post-referendum thoughts and action, July 2016

And to help remember some of the background context here are some further pieces:

A multi-storied nation religion and belief in modern Britain, July 2016

Islamophobia, still a challenge for us all ‘what Muslims really think’, May 2016

Learning to live together British values and Prevent, February 2016

British identity and British values muddles, mixtures and ways ahead, autumn 2015

References

Alan Bennett’s diary for 2016 is published in the London Review of Books, 5 January 2017, at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n01/alan-bennett/diary

 

 

 

 

Brexit, Trump and All That

‘We’re out!’, they crowed, we’re out and proud,

self-styled ‘real people’, triumphant and loud.

Thus began a meditation at a conference last week on development education. The meditation continued:

They’d got their country back, their turf and their ways,

the ones known by their forebears in good old days,

when foreigners everywhere, whatever their race,

were neither here nor uppity, knowing their place.

The meditation can be read in full at http://www.insted.co.uk/meditation.pdf

 

 

 

New in 2016

The blog of the Insted consultancy, previously named Insted Consultancy News, has a new name – The Prose and the Passion. The phrase is derived from a famous plea by E. M Forster (1879—1970) in his novel Howards End (1910). ‘Only connect the prose and the passion,’ he said, ‘and both will be exalted.’

Five papers were added to the Insted website in early 2016, and can be accessed at http://www.insted.co.uk/, or else by clicking on the links below.

Learning to live together in 2016: British values and preventing extremism, introductory remarks at a conference for headteachers, January 2016, http://www.insted.co.uk/learning-to-live-together.pdf

Challenging extremism through education: reflections, responses and resources, details of about 70 recent items in newspapers and the blogosphere, including several which propose constructive ways ahead in the education system, http://www.insted.co.uk/challenging-extremism-through-education.pdf

British identity and British values: muddles, mixtures and ways ahead, an article first published in the London Review of Education,  September 2015, http://www.insted.co.uk/london-review-education.pdf

The promotion of British values: a model school policy statement, reflecting ways of integrating fundamental British values into a school’s overall policy framework, http://www.insted.co.uk/values.pdf

School governors and British values: a statement of concern,  notes on the apparent failure of the Department for Education to have due regard for natural justice and the rule of law in its dealings with Trojan Horse schools in Birmingham, summer and autumn 2015, http://www.insted.co.uk/school-governors.pdf

The Prose and the Passion blog is managed by Robin Richardson. An interview with him about his career and work over the years, conducted in 2012 on behalf of the International Association for Intercultural Education, can be read at http://www.insted.co.uk/interview-with-robin-richardson.pdf.

The Great British Values Disaster

The time is late January 2015. The place is a university campus somewhere in England. ‘Kill Islam,’ says a piece of graffiti scrawled in big red letters on one of the university’s buildings, ‘before it kills you’. A student at the university writes: ‘Every time you come back onto campus, you’re reminded of it. When you’re trying to focus, it’s that nagging thought in the back of your head that keeps coming back.’

He continues: ‘And there’s the constant question that you ask yourself: do I belong here? … On campus, where I’m supposed to feel safe, there are people who actively call for the killing of people like me. I came to university to get an education, not to be the object of vitriolic hate.’

There is increasing anxiety and insecurity amongst many British Muslims at present, an increasing feeling of not belonging here, not belonging even in the places where they should feel most safe, the country’s universities, colleges, schools and nurseries. Such feelings have been exacerbated by the actions of government, and by government inspection regimes such as Ofsted. In this connection the recent requirement for all schools to actively promote what the government calls fundamental British values (FBV) is playing a particularly insidious and damaging role. The requirement leads to widespread miseducation about the nature of British history, society and culture, and to zealously insensitive and counter-productive inspections by Ofsted.

The difficulties and dangers inherent in FBV are outlined in an article by Bill Bolloten and Robin Richardson, published yesterday on the website of the Institute of Race Relations (IRR). It can be read at http://www.irr.org.uk/news/the-great-british-values-disaster-education-security-and-vitriolic-hate/

Also at the IRR website there’s a timely article by Arun Kundnani about the profound dangers for the education system which are inherent in the new counter-terrorism and security legislation. The article can be read at http://www.irr.org.uk/news/counter-terrorism-policy-and-re-analysing-extremism/. Kundnani shows that things are likely to get worse for the student cited above, and for everyone, before they get better.