The British government's new counter terrorism strategy, Contest 2,
saw the government patting itself on the back for the 'key
achievement' of promoting the UK as 'a centre of excellence for Islamic studies
outside the Muslim world'. A Degree of Influence, the new Centre for
Social Cohesion report, shows that if the British government is relying on
Islamic studies to prevent radicalisation of young British Muslims, then we're
in trouble. The report looks at the funding of strategically important
subjects, including Islamic studies, and uncovers disturbing facts about the
state of UK academia.
The way in which UK universities are run is being altered.
Following a £16 million donation, Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia established
two Islamic studies centres at Cambridge and Edinburgh. These institutions have
members of their management committees hand-picked by Alwaleed, and regulations
at the centres can only be altered subject to his approval. Edinburgh has
already made clear that the intention of the Islamic studies centres is to 'build
bridges' in order to combat 'ignorance and phobia' about Islam. But where
exactly is academic balance meant to fit in here? What happens to the
problematic aspects of Islam that are routinely invoked by Islamic terrorists
in order to justify their actions? Will they even be allowed to be
discussed? Or will they be ignored because of the lack of bridges they
might build? Most importantly, how can the next generation of British leaders
hope to be properly educated if universities have decided that their remit now
extends to changing the way that one religion - Islam - is perceived?
As A Degree of Influence reveals, censorship is already
occurring. An Oxford academic is shown discouraging the discussion of
sources of terrorist fundraising at a conference at the university in order to
'show respect for other Muslims' beliefs' and declaring that speakers
ought to 'bear in mind what is appropriate to say in the venue where you might
be going beyond what would be comfortable for everyone to hear'. Censorship is
not just restricted to academic discussion. A photograph taken by a Saudi
artist at an exhibition on Saudi art was taken down at the School of Oriental
and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, after the principal funder
decided that it - a picture of a bridge, oddly enough - was offensive to Islam.
This photograph has been seen widely in the artist's homeland, yet clearly what
is OK in Saudi is too much for SOAS.
Universities are not only keen on avoiding offending their undemocratic,
unelected funders - they actually go as far as glorifying their 'achievements'.
Following a donation to Oxford's Middle East Centre from an arm of the Saudi
government, the university organised a lecture series 'paying tribute' to the
founder of Saudi Arabia, in which every other year a member of the Saudi
government comes to Oxford to extol the virtues of their system. A similar
situation has arisen at SOAS. Following a donation from the Iranian government,
the university organised an event - in conjunction with an Iranian regime front
group based in the UK - in which a member of the Iranian government was invited
to address students on the ways in which Ayatollah Khomeini had 'modernised'
Islamic thought.
It is not just the Middle East that has latched on to the opportunities
available by giving generously to UK higher education. The Chinese government
has obtained an inordinate amount of control over how China is perceived in the
UK via its Confucius Institutes - cultural and language centres attached to ten
UK universities. These have been described by the Chinese government as part of
their 'foreign propaganda strategy' in promoting the image of an 'intellectual
and harmonious' China and UK universities are falling over themselves trying to
acquire such Institutes. All this despite the fact that members of the Chinese
government sit on the advisory boards at the centres, and the fact that each
university must 'accept operational guidance' from Beijing in order to meet the
'relevant teaching standard'. The 'relevant teaching standard' involves a
largely biased curriculum with an entirely skewed interpretation of the Tibetan
issue, in particular. This is a totalitarian
foreign-government propaganda masquerading as academia.
The regimes most keen to fund the UK higher education system are,
strangely, those most keen to shut down academic debate in their own countries.
China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and their like have shown little stomach for open and
critical debate in their own nations and so it is hard to believe that they are
suddenly open to the virtues of academic freedom abroad. Do UK University heads
actually believe that the Iranian government, which imprisons and tortures its
own students, simply wants to extend the hand of cultural understanding to
their British peers?
