“Prevent duty”: empirical reflections on the challenges of addressing far-right extremism within secondary schools and colleges in the UK

ABSTRACT

Forming part of its wider counter-terrorism apparatus, the United Kingdom’s “Prevent duty” imposes a legal requirement on various sectors to show “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. Since its introduction in 2015, the duty has been subject to increasing empirical research, with a particular focus upon the education sector. There has been, however, a distinct lack of scholarly works that specifically explore the issue of far-right extremism within this context, reflected in the often-reluctant policy development in this area. This article directly addresses this gap in research by drawing upon the qualitative experiences of 39 respondents with responsibility for the implementation of the duty within various schools and colleges across Sussex. Thus, through an empirical exploration of the challenges and complexities attached to its enactment, this article is one of the first to offer insights into educators’ negotiations of the duty in relation to far-right extremism. Within the data, three themes were particularly dominant: the normalisation and mainstreaming of far-right narratives; the associated challenges with the implementation of Prevent duty on the ground within classrooms; and considerations around the effective enactment of the duty. The findings demonstrate that addressing far-right extremism within schools and colleges is predictably problematic and closely reflects developments in wider society. It is also argued here that although addressing far-right extremism needs urgent attention, there should be a concerted effort to avoid the same oversights experienced with previous attempts at Prevent-related counter-terrorism.

KEYWORDS:

• Prevent duty
• far-right extremism
• terrorism
• CVE
• education
• radicalisation
• schools
• colleges
• further education

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend a special thanks to the people who participated in the study. The dedication shown by the overwhelming majority of the respondents was extremely heartening.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Channel, usually co-ordinated at the local level, “is a programme which focuses on providing support at an early stage to people who are identified as being vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. The programme uses a multi-agency approach to protect vulnerable people by: (a) identifying individuals at risk; (b) assessing the nature and extent of that risk; and (c) developing the most appropriate support plan for the individuals concerned.” (HM Government 2015, 5).

2. This issue is, however, gaining some momentum across the European Union (see Krasenberg, Lenos, and Sterkenburg 2019, for example).

3. For a discussion on “internalisation”, see Kelman (1958).

4. Tommy Robinson is the pseudonym for Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. He is one of the EDL’s founders.

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by the British Academy and Leverhulme Trust.

Notes on contributors

Suraj Lakhani

Suraj Lakhani is a Lecturer at the University of Sussex. His research interests include counter-terrorism policy, online extremism, and radicalisation.

Natalie James

Natalie James is an Assistant Professor at the University of Nottingham. She is also a Fellow and Head of the Counter-Extremism Research Unit and the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.