De Montfort threaten to report workers discussing job cuts under Prevent anti-terrorism duties

De Montfort University (DMU) is once again at war with its staff over job cuts. This time, however, the university has threatened to report its own staff under Prevent anti-terrorism guidance. The institute had got itself in a twist about an online meeting that local MP Shockat Adam and Green councillor Patrick Kitterick were invited to.

In an email seen by the Leicester Gazette, Bridget Donoghue – DMU’s executive director of people services – made the threat to members of teaching staff and the University and College Union (UCU). She stated that she was prepared to send a letter to the Office for Students (OfS). In it, she claimed that Adam and Kitterick represented a threat of radicalising the student body.

Donoghue wrote:

You will know that the university is subject to the Prevent Duty, and under this duty is required to assess the risk of all external speakers who are speaking at events advertised under the university’s name or its students’ union name – whether online or in person.

De Montfort turn to Prevent over discussion of staff cuts and financial mismanagement

The event in question was a planned town hall-style meeting concerning both DMU and the University of Leicester. The regular events frequently include university staff, student groups, and attendees from outside of academia.

As usual, 10 September’s meeting wasn’t sponsored by either institution in any official capacity. Adam and Kitterick were invited as guest speakers. The meeting was slated to deal with the recent massive wave of staff cuts and allegations of financial mismanagement at the two universities.

DMU’s current vice chancellor is Katie Normington. Her disastrous oversight heralded the university’s massive drop through the league tables – it’s now among the ten worst in the country. Meanwhile, DMU has sacked its own staff left and right, whilst also shelling out £5m on external consultants and £12m on a campus in Dubai.

In fact, back in May, DMU lecturers passed a vote of no confidence unanimously against Normington. She had sacked nearly 100 teaching staff and 300 agency staff. Then, in June, Normington failed another no-confidence vote held at one of the town hall meetings. You know, the ones the university is reporting under ‘terrorism’ concerns.

Suppressing free speech

Just one day before 10 September’s town hall, Donoghue sent her email to the organisers. She cited a policy stating that the university should be allowed to judge guest speakers for their potential to radicalise students. Given that the policy requires 28 days for vetting, Donoghue advised that organisers should un-invite the two guest politicians.

One organiser called out this ridiculous abuse of counter-terrorism laws:

this is little more than an attempt to suppress free speech. Our town hall meetings are not official DMU events and are co-organised and attended by individuals from across Leicester and the wider UK academic community. They take place on Zoom, which is not an official DMU platform. Donoghue has no justification in issuing this threat, and she was told as much in response to her request to cancel the invitations to the local MP and city council member prior to the meeting.

Other members of the DMU staff agreed, calling it a “wholly inappropriate” use of the policy. They also pointed out that the regular town hall meetings didn’t take place on university grounds, used a private zoom account, and didn’t fall under DMU’s oversight.

In response, DMU chose to double down. A spokesperson stated:

The government’s Prevent duty guidance requires all universities to risk assess all external speakers at university-affiliated events. This is a statutory obligation, not a consideration of freedom of speech. DMU values freedom of speech as one of the fundamental principles of higher education, and is active in its duties to secure and promote freedom of speech. […]

The event, which took place during work hours, was presented as primarily concerned with and involving DMU staff and students and advertised and shared as such. It was therefore reasonable to request that notice was given in this case. Since it was not, the university is obliged by statutory requirement to report the event – not individual staff – to the Office for Students, as part of its annual Prevent duty return.

Abusing Prevent? This is what it’s for

Undeterred, both Adam and Kitterick attended the town hall meeting as planned. Councillor Kitterick stated that DMU had written to him requesting a report of what he’d said. Like many staff members, he criticised the university for its clear attempt to stop workers discussing the conditions of their employment.

Kitterick commented that:

De Montfort University have appeared to fail to grasp the basic concepts of Prevent and safeguarding, as any reasonable person would struggle to link this meeting with the welfare of vulnerable individuals or the prevention of terrorism. Indeed, attempts to deny access to third-party assistance for a less powerful party, by a more powerful party would be a behaviour that would cause general safeguarding concerns.

De Montfort University appear to be using the powers they have in an extremely aggressive manner. Whilst I have been around long enough to deal with this kind of intimidation, it is worrying if DMU used this kind of over-bearing tactic on a more vulnerable person, and that is a safeguarding concern.

The one thing Kitterick has wrong here is thinking this isn’t precisely what Prevent is for. Using counter-terrorism measures to force your political opponents into silence is practically a tradition in the UK. Prevent, in particular, has received massive and repeated criticism for its use to surveil and control Muslims, and its conflation of social justice causes with far-right thuggery.

Of course, we’re sure that DMU suddenly remembering that it could use Prevent to shut down a Zoom meeting had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Shockat Adam is a Muslim. That would add Islamophobia and racism to De Montfort’s litany of anti-free-speech and anti-worker sentiment. That would be outrageous, no?

Featured image via the Canary