CAMPUS RADICALISM:

AN INVESTIGATION

Nehal Panchamia
September 2010
Counterpoint is the think tank of the British Council. We carry out research
and promote debate around the most pressing question of our time: how to
live together well in an interdependent world.
This report is available to download and re-use under a by-nc-sa Creative Commons
license ported to UK law.

This means that you are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work, and make
derivative works, in a non-commercial context, as long as you credit Counterpoint and the
author, and share resulting works under an equivalent license.

Counterpoint 2010. Some rights reserved

British Council, 10 Spring Gardens

London Sw1A 2BN, United Kingdom

www.counterpoint-online.org
Acknowledgements

This research relied on a number of people’s time, support and generosity.

I would firstly like to thank the 71 students that responded to the survey, all
of whom provided interesting material for this study, but whose names
should remain anonymous. I would like to extend my thanks to the elected
officers at Imperial College Students’ Union, University of Sheffield
Students’ Union, SOAS Students’ Union, Edinburgh University Students’
Association and University of Bradford Students’ Union, for providing
information about the ways clubs and societies are run at their universities.
I am extremely grateful to Dr Jodi Anderson (City University), Rick Hall
(Ignite! UK), Professor Simon Marginson (University of Melbourne),
Stephen Williams (Warwick University), Professor Mohammed Babury
(Deputy Minister for Higher Education, Afghanistan), Mukhtar Shah
(National Vocational & Technical Education Commission, Pakistan), and
Professor Lynn Davies (University of Birmingham) for taking the time to be
interviewed for this project.

At the British Council, I would like to give a special thank you to my

colleagues Catherine Fieschi and Nick Wadham-Smith who both provided
invaluable advice and support throughout, offering comments on drafts and
helping to refine the argument; Jonny Mundey for webpage design and
development; and, Natalie Lepper for helping to organise the launch.

Nehal Panchamia
September 2010
CAMPUS RADICALISM: AN INVESTIGATION

This piece focuses on one of the centres of contemporary controversy over

‘radicalism’ - the campus. Intense media scrutiny in recent years has left us
with little more than pointless caricature or very partial misrepresentation.
Narratives of the Christmas Day Bomber 1 sit uncomfortably with those of
drunken students too lazy and apathetic to ‘engage’, let alone be ‘radical’
about much. 2 We have come a long way since the mass student movements
of the 1960s and 1970s dominated the headlines.

At Counterpoint, we saw the need to intervene in this stymied debate, by

introducing nuance, and highlighting multiplicity. Students are neither
“radical” or “disengaged”, “politicised” or “apathetic”. Moving away from
two-dimensional narratives, we want to broaden understanding of “campus
radicalism” by investigating student activism in all its forms – be it political,
religious, social, humanitarian or environmental. The key aim is to
illustrate the diversity of the student population today.

The method

To identify some of the key influences on them and their attitudes, we asked
students themselves. Between February and June 2010, we surveyed
members of student clubs and societies engaged in political, social,
religious, environmental or humanitarian activism, asking them about their
attitudes towards participating in societies; motivations for joining or
leading societies; the sorts of activities they were involved in; the successes
and limitations of their campaigns; and, their perspectives on “student
radicalism”.

1
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

In total, we received 71 student member responses across 21

universities around the UK, and representing 41 different societies. The
student surveys were supplemented with face-to-face and email interviews
with Student Union representatives at Edinburgh, Bradford, Imperial,
Sheffield and SOAS 3 , and a range of academics, higher education and youth
experts from primarily the UK, but also from Australia, Pakistan,
Afghanistan and the United States to provide international insights. (Please
refer to the Appendix for the full list of student and expert interviewees).

What is significant is the preponderance of respondents from ‘old’

universities 4 (82% of responses came from students at these institutions),
and campaigning based societies, many of which are affiliated to a charity
or NGO (32 out of 71 students were members of these societies). This bias
reflects the difficulty in engaging a broad spectrum of the student
population. Indeed, many openly questioned our motives, believing that we
were simply an extension of the Foreign Office tasked to monitor student
activity, rather than understand it. Unsurprisingly, this concern was
prominent amongst Islamic Society members – some informed me that
they were uncomfortable with taking part in the research, because of fears
that their views would be misrepresented and ‘what this may imply for
them’. 5 This, above all, reflects the level of hype and controversy around
“campus radicalism”. We take a more measured approach, developing a
sophisticated and nuanced understanding of what the ‘character’ of student
activities looks like today.

The focus of the piece

Given the small sample size, ours is an in-depth qualitative analysis rather
than a quantitative one. We do not provide a definitive account of the
student experience – rather, we try and capture something altogether more
elusive: the temperature of “student radicalism” across the UK; awareness
of citizenship amongst young people; and, the role of the university today.

2
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

Specifically, the piece proposes new ways of understanding the following

issues.

• Which student activities are considered ‘radical’ today?

• How do student perceptions of their involvement in societies
compare to those of academics and those of the wider public?
• Are barriers to participation, student-driven or externally
imposed?
• Should ‘radical’ activity, in whatever form, always be viewed with
suspicion?
• What implications does involvement in societies have for the
student in terms of broadening the higher education experience
and embedding citizenship?

3
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

Campus radicals – a dying breed?

Campuses, today, are depicted either as ‘breeding grounds of radicalism’ or,

alternatively in thrall to ‘deep apathy’. But what exactly does ‘being radical’
mean today? Recognising that ‘radicalism’ has, recently, all too often only
been equated with ‘Islamism’ or ‘terrorism’, Counterpoint aims to throw
light on the multiple definitions, and contestable usages of this term. Thus,
we asked students themselves, what is ‘radical’ today?

Radicalism as methods

Perhaps unsurprisingly, being ‘radical’, for many students has severely

negative connotations: ‘it is often off-putting and intimidating for many
students here’, explained the Student Union Officer in Sheffield. 6 The most
popular definition of ‘radicalism’ centred on methods, with societies of all
types deliberately staying away from confrontation and militancy: instead
they employed ‘conventional’ 7 , ‘non-aggressive’ 8 and ‘diplomatic’ 9 means to
engage the student body – cake sales, panel discussions, Facebook and
training sessions have replaced occupations and mass sit-ins. Only 5 out of
71 students had taken part in some form of direct action 10 - for instance, a
member of the LSE Israeli Society took part in a street campaign to stop the
Student Union from twinning with the Islamic University in Gaza, and
Sussex university students occupied a lecture theatre in opposition to
funding cuts. Such obvious displays of activism, however, are rarely seen
today.

Radicalism as attitudes

The perception that ‘radicalism’ is inherently negative also stemmed from

the idea that it implied a dogmatic and uncompromising outlook: for
instance Islamic Society and Lawyers without Borders Society members

4
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

emphasised that they did not want to ‘impose’ 11 their beliefs on others, and
that they ‘allowed people to make decisions themselves’. 12 Alongside this,
was a general belief that one’s society was not ‘radical’ because it was ‘not
exclusive’: ‘The society is open to everyone’ 13 ; ‘we reach out to the
community at large’ 14 ; ‘all opinions are welcome’ 15 ; ‘we take a co-operative
approach’ 16 .

At the same time, however, the idea of ‘inclusivity’ – being friendly and
collegiate - was used by a Buddhist and Christian Society to demonstrate
that they were, indeed, ‘radical’ 17: ‘Yes - I find a room full of people actively
cultivating love for all (themselves, friends, strangers, enemies, animals)
through meditation practice very radical.’ 18 This demonstrates the difficulty
of both categorising movements, and more importantly, making value-
judgements about radicalism.

Radicalism as aims

‘Radicalism’ is not only about methods and attitudes, it can also be about
aims and outcomes – that is, anything that challenges the received wisdom
or status quo, and presents a relentless criticism of values, ideas or
institutions to bring about mass transformation. As such, a handful of
societies self-identified as ‘radical’ - the Sensible Drugs Policy Society in
Manchester campaigns for the legalisaton of all drugs, 19 a Communist
Society in SOAS and the Education Not for Sale Society in Cambridge call
for ‘everything from the removal of tuition fees to the overthrow of
capitalism’. 20

Far-left groups and single-issue pressure groups, however, are not

widespread – as one Student Union Officer states: ‘Sheffield used to be very
hard left but it's a dying culture now.’ 21 The same shift is occurring
elsewhere, most notably at the LSE. Traditionally a hub of left-wing

5
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

socialist activism, it is remarkable that today, it is the Conservative Society

that has the largest student membership on campus. 22

New priorities: consensual activism

Disillusionment with confrontational and organised politics does not,

however, necessarily equal apathy. Rather, student priorities are changing
– they are consciously moving outside the traditional political arena to
address wide-ranging concerns of global justice, equality and fairness.

Societies engaged in human rights or humanitarian campaigning could only

see a tenuous link between their activities and ‘radicalism’. Many stressed
that they could not be ‘radical’ because their work is ‘apolitical’ 23 and
‘impartial’ 24 – thus conceptualising ‘radicalism’ in purely ‘political’ rather
than ‘social’ terms. The emphasis was on how these societies advanced
basic and fundamental human rights: ‘We just aim to equalise the access to
emergency care, something everyone deserves!’ 25 Central to these
perspectives, is the notion of consensus. Being ‘mainstream’,
‘institutionalised’, ‘established’ or ‘socially accepted’ was used by many to
legitimate the claim that they were ‘not radical’. 26 Here the argument
implies that ‘radicalism’ is about going against the norm - a group striving
to eliminate human rights abuses or promote access to basic medical aid is
thus unlikely to be perceived as pushing ideas that challenge public opinion,
and therefore unlikely to be perceived as radical.

Given that these societies do, however, seek some form of ‘social
transformation’, they are therefore perhaps better described as ‘activist’.
Amnesty Society members (affiliated to Amnesty International) campaign
for the ‘release of prisoners of conscience, the abandonment of torture and
capital punishment’; 27 Aegis Society members call for the ‘prevention of
genocide’; 28 and, Stop Aids Society members fight for ‘universal access to
HIV prevention, treatment, care and support’. 29 These groups exist on every

6
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

campus, and of the 14 societies that sought global institutional change, 10

focused on human rights causes. They are described by student union
officers as the most ‘active’, ‘energetic’ and ‘high-profile’. Indeed,
Cambridge Amnesty Society hosted a ‘Shell Hell Day’ during which 200
students descended in the centre of town and successfully pressured the
university to use its investments in Shell to force them to end gas-flaring
and polluting in the Niger Delta; 30 and Newcastle Stop Aids Society
successfully created a patent pool of HIV treatments, which directly
challenged set Pharmaceutical company practices. 31 Their campaigns for
change are bold in their opposition to particular institutions and various
forms of abusive behaviour.

The nature and character of student protest has changed - yet some of their
targets remain the same. The best way of conceiving of this is as an
evolution – in several stages – away from movements rigidly defined by the
traditional party political system and more practical welfare issues, to those
of today which engage with much broader ranging issues of justice and
ethics. On such a continuum, the mass mobilisations of the 60s and 70s -
such as civil rights, gay rights or women’s rights - mark a particular stage of
development, of which the movements of today are the heirs. The major
difference is not in their aims or their capacity for concern, but in their
focus and level of action. This has shifted completely away from even a
notional left/right spectrum, to a more international stage - a process that
had only just begun to emerge then, and has been made possible today by
the evolution of global communications. A diminished interest in domestic
politics means that those who challenge the status quo are no longer
associated with traditional forms of organised partisan politics. But human
rights and humanitarian campaigning societies are not new and neither is
the concern with ethics.

7
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

The local is the global?

While some students are shifting their focus to non-partisan large-scale

issues, many are eschewing global causes altogether. These students
concentrate on local and campus level issues, seeing them as more
manageable and subject to real intervention.

On the ‘campaigning’ front, solidarity with migrant workers, asylum seekers

and refugees appears to be a major theme: for instance SOAS students have
taken up the plight of cleaners on campus, calling for better pay and
working conditions; 32 and a number of Student Action for Refugees (STAR)
groups exist on campuses, whose main aim is to challenge societal
discrimination against refugees and asylum seekers. Bristol STAR, for
instance, is running a campaign to change the universities admissions
policy, so that asylum seekers are charged the lower ‘home’ rather than
‘international’ fee rate. In order to popularise the cause, the Society invited
a whistleblower from the UK Border Agency to speak about her experiences
as an asylum case-owner, which helped to debunk common held myths and
misperceptions about asylum seekers. 33

On the ‘religious’ front, societies that took part in the research primarily
functioned in a welfare-orientated capacity: to offer prayers / meditation
sessions, information about their religion, advice and guidance. In this way,
students are supported in their efforts to navigate their
religious/community obligations in a largely secular environment. 34

The move away from large-scale grand causes, has paved the way for a more
‘local’ politics. As David Chandler argues in his essay, ‘Questioning Global
Political Activism’, this politics claims to be ‘global’ in aspiration, but acting
‘locally’ – supporting local cleaners or asylum seekers – is a highly
individualised way of interacting with such issues that neither requires nor
engenders the kind of solidarity that characterised the mobilisations of the

8
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

past. Rejecting membership of an organised social movement inevitably

means that both the visibility and impact of these activities is limited. 35

Youth culture has shifted. Few of them look ‘radical’: we no longer see the
mass protests, occupations or sit-ins and far-left groups are on the wane; in
its place, we are witnessing the emergence of a civic activism committed to
justice and equality, but nonetheless firmly ‘consensual’ in character.

Culture shift – radicalism today

Yet, there does still appear to be an undercurrent of ‘radical’ thinking, if not

action, amongst young people today. These are students who aspire to a
shift in culture, collective behaviour or mindset, by conceptualising issues
in new ways or opening up controversial areas of discussion. This is a key
element of ‘Citizenship’. Dr. Jodi Anderson, who is leading the
development of a Global Citizenship module at City University, London
explains that Citizenship is about “developing skills of inquiry” and “critical
thinking capacity”. 36 Likewise, Rick Hall, Director of Ignite! a charity that
works with young people to develop their ‘creativity’ emphasises that a key
element of this skill refers to “the preparedness to go beyond the
conventional, to push the boundaries, to go to the edge”. 37 Fresh
approaches towards issues can be seen on a number of campuses.

In Manchester, a group set up the Masculinity Exploration Network

Society (MENS) – they were the first to successfully establish a MENS
society in any UK university, dealing with the topic of gender in a
completely new way. 38 In Edinburgh, the Feminist Society broke the taboo
surrounding sex for groups such as LGBTI and AIDS/HIV sufferers, by
organising a large-scale event that gave these individuals an opportunity to
express their sexuality through sharing and exchanging personal stories. 39
In Bath, the Islamic Society organised a debate: ‘Does God Exist’? 40
demonstrating that religious societies are not afraid to navigate contested

9
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

areas of discussion. Indeed, one student explained that he specifically

joined the Islamic Society at university because he was ‘away from home’,
and wanted the opportunity to ‘question the beliefs he’d grown up with’. 41

In this way, students are actively pushing the boundaries of thought by

opening discussions around controversial and difficult issues. While they
cannot be representative of all British youth they highlight that creativity,
energy, and a commitment to changing the status quo does exist amongst
young people today.

Where you stand depends on where you sit

While these discussions have national relevance, other students question

the accepted norms of their immediate surroundings. Here, context is
important in determining what constitutes the ‘consensus’, and thus what
is, comparatively considered, ‘radical’.

For instance, the Conservative Society at LSE finds itself ‘being radical’ on
campus through its relentless campaign to promote Conservatism. The
President of the Society explains that most students would regard his
society with ‘suspicion and contempt’ because it directly seeks to change the
accepted centre-left ethos of the institution – thus it is by nature ‘radical’. 42
So even though the Conservative Party is the largest party in the UK
parliament, this does not necessarily translate into a political consensus at
the ‘local’ level.

In contrast, the relatively new Green Party Society is not considered

‘radical’ at Sussex University at all. It has widespread support in Brighton,
and the President describes the society as ‘fairly conservative’ when
compared to other more ‘politically active’ societies on campus. 43 A large
and nationally accepted party such as the Conservatives is, thus more
‘radical’ at LSE, than the Greens at Sussex.

10
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

Every context secretes its own set of beliefs, attitudes and norms, some of
which more or less cohere around a constructed ‘centre’, which then
subjectively creates the ‘periphery’ – or in other words, the ‘radical’. This
reveals the difficulty in making clear-cut categorisations – with varying
definitions and interpretations, a movement may be ‘radical’ nationally, but
not locally, and vice versa.

This lack of uniformity indicates that a marked shift in campus culture has
occurred. Universities used to be spaces in which the great dividing lines in
politics – between the left and right; or between imperialism, nationalism,
and internationalism were played out. Now, no one single cause or issue
unites students across the UK – rather the diversity between campuses
seems to reflect the absence of a steady political compass. Overlapping and
conflicting tensions have created a complex web of allegiances, making it
difficult to generate a strong solidarity on any issue.

What is of added interest is the role, or lack thereof, that universities play in
equipping students to distinguish what new political fault lines may be
emerging. Is this a reflection of global politics, the priorities of students, or
a failure of universities to play a role in shaping the political actors of the
future?

11
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

The university today – nurturing disengagement?

‘Radicalism’ today is more of an undercurrent, than a permeating feature of

student life. Engagement tends to be ‘consensual’ rather than
‘confrontational’ – humanitarian societies are relentlessly ‘activist’ but
command widespread support; others are more ‘local’ in ambition,
campaigning for practical changes at the campus level; and, some diverge,
but only slightly, from the norm to question accepted beliefs and biases.
Yet, very few are committed to a complete overhaul of the material status
quo. Thus it is unsurprising that most students conceded that their
society’s profile on campus is limited: ‘I don’t think that the ‘student body’
perceives it at all, it took me quite a while to even find out about its
existence.’ 44

So why aren’t students more successful in engaging and energising their

peers? Some academics argue that the problem lies with students
themselves – they are ‘academically pushed’ so tend only to worry about
issues that ‘directly affect them’ such as employment, grades and welfare. 45
Alongside this, is a belief that British students have a limited understanding
of their ‘citizenship’ - indeed, one academic even suggested that many
students only take part in these activities to ‘impress employers’, underming
the essential spirit of engagement. A similar perspective emerges from
Australia; Professor Simon Marginson comments on how students have
failed to take up pressing ‘race politics’ issues following the recent upsurge
in targeted violence against South Asians in Melbourne – not because
students are ‘more racist’ he says, but just because they are ‘more
indifferent’. 46

But are barriers to participation, entirely down to students? There is

certainly a degree of disengagement amongst young people – 1 in 5
presidents conceded that the reason they chose to lead their society was

12
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

simply because ‘no-one else would do it’. However, at the same time, asked
what motivated them to either join or lead a society, an overwhelming
number prioritised ‘commitment to cause’: ‘The more I learnt about the
difficulties faced by refugees and asylum seekers in this country, the more I
wanted to help.’ 47 And only 6 out of 51 presidents mentioned building
‘leadership skills’, gaining transferable experience and bulking out their CV.
There is a clear conceptual gap between academic perspectives and ‘on the
ground’ student perspectives.

Yet, it is obvious that students today are certainly less visibly vigorous,
assertive or united than they once were. The answer as to why lies, possibly
not in the character of students, but in the character of the university today.
In one expert’s words: ‘young people are not a barrier…it is often the
structures around them that make it difficult’. 48

The university as fortress

The University as an instiution has fundamentally changed in recent years –

from one that championed ‘unfettered, free thinking’ to one that, in most
cases, tends to blunt the capacity – and the will - of students to successfully
mobilise. Clubs and societies, while ostensibly student led, are highly
regulated organisations. Many university authorities, whether intentionally
or not, have begun to place ‘limits’ on student activity.

This has largely been achieved through the gradual modernisation of

student societies. Every single university student union has a dedicated
member of staff responsible for student activities. Many are genuinely
committed to encouraging an activist and creative spirit amongst their
students, highlighted by the fact that they offer financial and in-kind
support to various student groups. Yet, it is this very support that appears
to inadvertently stifle ‘authentic’ student engagement.

13
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

Competition for funds is fierce at all institutions - societies must first

submit a robust financial proposal to their student union, setting out
anticipated costs, future activity plans and copies of previous financial
accounts. Central to the proposal is the ability to demonstrate that your
society has a beneficial impact on the “student experience”. These proposals
are then evaluated by the student union - cuts and modifications are made,
and decisions as to which societies deserve funding are finalised, with
awards ranging from £50 to approximately £3,500. This means that
student unions leave societies with little flexibility to be spontaneous; and
more importantly, exercise influence over which societies will succeed, and
which ones won’t. Alongside financial support, student unions provide
guidance for organising events, marketing and website development. 49

As always, however, support never comes without strings attached – as a

condition for allocated funding and union affiliation, societies are expected
to conform in a number of ways.

Direct action is a definite no go area – in an exquisitely oxymoronic way the

former NUS President Wes Streeting explains: “protesters need to find new
ways to campaign vocally without causing disruption”. 50 A tall order:
seriously affect meaningful change without causing disruption? Surely, the
very point of a protest is to express dissent loudly and vigorously? The
spectacle of angry students is, however, clearly a worrying one for
authorities. One Cambridge student explained that a room booking for a
public meeting was cancelled unilaterally by a head porter, who feared that
they would attempt to occupy the room. 51 Thus activities are being blocked
even before they have been allowed to start - leaving students with little real
agency. To guarantee strict obedience, there is the fear of shut-down: the
student union at Sheffield has a full-time staff member tasked to review all
societies to ensure that none are ‘high-risk’; 52 the student union at SOAS
has clear guidelines in place for the conduct of public meetings, ‘backed up

14
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

by a solid disciplinary policy’; 53 and, the student union at Imperial

threatens to immediately freeze society bank accounts. 54

Thus, it is no wonder that we rarely see young people engage today –

hamstrung by the fear of authority and shut-down, students stick to
‘convention’ and the ‘rules’. Yet, even in this respect, students are
obstructed – an overwhelming number reported difficulties with university
bureaucracy, be it booking a meeting room or advertising an event. One
society noted how all posters required approval from marketing, which
caused delays; 55 another explained that they were unable to put up posters
with a political stance; 56 a couple of students mentioned how it was difficult
to ‘book rooms’, taking weeks to receive confirmations; 57 others reported
how they were unable to advertise their event at the university because it
was being held in a non-university venue; 58 and, another was prevented
from holding a cake sale in the Union, because it would threaten sales of the
on-site Costa café. 59

Interestingly, students didn’t even necessarily recognise this as a

fundamental problem – rather, when asked if they had faced any difficulties
from university authorities, the majority stated that they hadn’t, and then
went on to note these ‘minor’ exceptions. Students, clearly have become
accustomed to having limits placed on their activities, and appear more
lethargic in countering such infringements. It is worth asking whether the
threat of punishment is more severe, or whether the cost of exclusion or
suspension is perceived as higher than it was. Regardless, it is clear that
universities appear heavy-handed in their disciplinary threats – and
students strangely ready to tolerate them.

This is in marked contrast to other European countries – in France, for

instance, campuses in 2009 still looked very much like their 1960s
counterparts. An ‘unlimited’ strike movement against government planned
university reforms and cuts swept across the nation. The core of the

15
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

movement centred on the ‘rights’ of students and academics. 60 This notion

of having inherent ‘rights’, does not seem to feature on UK campuses
anymore, thereby prompting questions about both the way the university
operates and the nature of the curriculum. Far from empowering students,
it is worth asking whether the shift from a free to a fee-paying education has
ironically served to diminish students’ conception of their power – they
have become consumers rather than active makers of the university. In
return for their money, UK universities cater more fully but for a much
narrower set of student needs – one centred on the quality of in-class
learning, rather than the whole student experience and education. The
commercialisation of the UK Higher Education system has thus severely
crushed the student spirit that continues to characterise many other
European universities.

Some would argue that neither the Greek, nor the French, nor perhaps the
Italian activist universities, are serving their students particularly well. And
it is clearly the case that UK universities are often perceived as better run
and their degrees more conducive to professional success than some of their
European counterparts. However, it is worth asking whether in the effort to
‘modernise’ the university experience, the UK system has not simply
‘sanitised’ it hopelessly.

The university as arbiter

These systemic factors appear to drive academics to inadvertently prescribe

both the focus of and space for ‘free’ enquiry.

There has been a marked shift towards pragmatism and controversy, of any
type, is deliberately muted down in the interests of ‘social cohesion’. In this
way, universities essentially dictate the boundaries of activity today: as one
student union officer explained – they encourage innovation, but at the

16
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

same time, may also have to ‘tweak’ proposals to ‘bring it in line with the
rules’. 61

So, Amnesty Society members at different campuses informed us that their

funding had been reduced due to the ‘political’ nature of their work – yet
campaigning for the abandonment of torture necessitates hard-hitting and
possibly aggressive political campaigns. This obligation to be ‘soft’ in
approach is accompanied by a blanket requirement by all university student
unions for clubs and societies to be ‘inclusive’ in membership as a condition
for set-up, affiliation and funding. In other words, societies have to be open
to everyone regardless of sex, faith, race, or political beliefs – particularly
problematic for those religious or gender-based societies. As one academic
argues, membership of societies is ‘rooted in a feeling of belonging to
different groups’, and therefore, we must ensure that they ‘talk to each
other’. 62 This concern about possible strife is a valid one; however, is
‘inclusivity’ necessarily an absolute good?

Shielding students from the realities of open conflict and disagreement is

potentially dangerous. By requiring societies to be ‘inclusive’, student
presidents must cater equally for all perspectives – and that essentially
means shying away from promoting a unifying belief or principle in fear
that one particular viewpoint or lifestyle is privileged over another. This
creates a climate of non-debate and conformism, aptly summed up by one
student, ‘we try not to upset anyone’. 63 Making it difficult to raise awkward
and thought-provoking areas of discussion is extremely problematic,
especially in a university setting, as it is not only beneficial but of
paramount importance to challenge, dispute and even undermine certain
views or beliefs.

This attempt to set the boundaries of permissible debate is accompanied by

an increasing tendency on the part of universities to organise the space in
which these debates should take place. All academics spoke about the need

17
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

to broaden the UK Higher Education system and ‘motivate students on a

wide scale’. Yet, very few related this to the value of clubs and societies;
advocating instead discussion around controversial, sensitive and difficult
issues in the ‘safe’ and ‘semi-controlled’ atmosphere of the classroom.
Emphasis was placed on having a teacher / lecturer who has the
appropriate level of skills and experience to both encourage discussion but
crucially, ‘mediate conflict’. This tendency is possibly a reflection of the
closing conceptual gap between the function of a ‘school’ and the function of
the ‘university’. While the former has always been a place of imparting a set
curriculum; the latter is supposed to be a place in which young people can
be driven by their own curiosity and sometimes, satisfy it by themselves.
Today, however, the UK Higher Education system is more specialised and
compartmentalised – academics are expected to adapt to these structural
changes by offering students bite-sized modules in citizenship and
engagement, rather than to allow it to happen in the margins of the formal
educational experience. In this way, the university is being transformed
from a place which nurtures independent thought, into a place where the
institution directs that thought, with the result being that an ‘artificial’
space of debate is created in which only certain, vetted ideas are allowed to
circulate.

Students as agents

If activities are genuinely student-led, student-conceived, and spontaneous,

the benefits can arguably be far greater.

Firstly, this would widen access and participation. While arts, humanities
and social science students will address topical issues in the classroom, an
engineering student for instance, will rarely get the same opportunity.
Indeed, the student union officer at Imperial emphasises the importance of
clubs and societies at a university that specialises in only Science,
Engineering & Medicine - students need an ‘outlet’ for their extra-curricular

18
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

passions. 64 Within our sample, approximately 1 in 3 students ‘active’ in a

campus society were those who studied the physical sciences and maths -
students themselves are finding ways to broaden their highly specialist
university experience.

Secondly, it brings together students from different academic backgrounds,

and encourages inter-disciplinary debates – something that would be
difficult to achieve within a classroom. Students themselves are committed
to ‘branching-out’ - joining a society to make ‘new friends’ was the second
most popular reason cited by students. This possibly reflects the fact that
students today get very little opportunity to interact with anyone outside
their specialist department or faculty, let alone combine their creative
energies.

And finally, top-down ‘citizenship’, something that is controlled and

demanded of students, can never achieve the benefits of genuine ‘bottom-
up’ engagement. Curiosity is essential - this can only really be grown
organically, from within students themselves. This could take the form of
risk-taking, learning through trial and error, tolerating confusion, and
importantly not necessarily knowing what the outcome or output might
be. 65 Through ‘self-discovery’, young people will develop the capabilities to
deal with complex, difficult and contested areas of enquiry.

19
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

Conclusion

There is a real crisis within the UK Higher Education system that

inadvertently stalls meaningful and genuine engagement amongst students
today. While we bemoan the complacency of some, we continue to
admonish those that do breach accepted codes of conduct. The university
has simply become a commercial provider of education, rather than a space
for ‘free thinking’. Alongside this, the infantilisation of the university, and
an ever-encroaching mass of regulation, leaves young people with little
agency to do anything with a deep and lasting impact. A number of
academics I spoke to called for a ‘shift’ in the system - one that moves away
from an emphasis on grades and employment, to one that is bold enough to
deal with risky and controversial issues, and committed on the whole to a
‘broader, more engaging’ education of its young people. Yet, unlike in many
European countries, few academic leaders have turned up to drive this shift
forward. Why? Because, as always, innovation is never easy.

20
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

Appendix: List of Interviewees and Survey Respondents

Semi-Structured Interviews

Dr Jodi Anderson, Director of Internationalisation, City University, 19 March 2010

Rick Hall, Director of Programmes, Ignite! UK, 19 March 2010
Professor Simon Marginson, University of Melbourne, Australia, 24 March 2010
Stephen Williams, Assistant Director, International Office, University of Warwick, 25 March 2010
Professor Mohammed Babury, Deputy Minister for Higher Education, Afghanistan, 25 March 2010
Mukhtar Shah, Director, National Vocational & Technical Education Commission, Pakistan, 25
March 2010
Professor Lynn Davies, University of Birmingham, 28 April 2010

Email Interviews

Jenny Wilson, Deputy President, Imperial University Student Union, 19 May 2010
Claire Monk, Activities Officer, University of Sheffield Student Union, 20 May 2010
Ben Sellers, President, SOAS Student Union, 26 May 2010
Camilla Pierry, Vice President, University of Edinburgh Student Union, 7 June 2010
Josh Esin, Sports and S0cieties Officer, University of Bradford Student Union, 8 June 2010

Student Survey Respondents

Members of the following student societies took part in the research.

Campaigning - Environmental/Humanitarian
Aegis Society, University of Oxford
Amnesty Society, University of Cambridge
Amnesty Society, University of Keele
Amnesty Society, University of Sussex
Architecture Sans Frontiers, University of Bath
British Red Cross, University of Bournemouth
Carbon Management Society, University of Edinburgh
Conservation Volunteers Society, University of Birmingham
Conservation Volunteers Society, University of Sheffield
Environment & Social Justice Society, University of Nottingham
Environmental Consulting Society, University of Cambridge
Ethical Affairs Society, University of Cambridge
Friends of MSF Society, Imperial University
Friends of MSF Society, University of Edinburgh
Human Rights Society, University of Essex
Humanitarian Centre, University of Cambridge

21
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

Lawyers without Borders, University of Cambridge

Medsin Society, Imperial University
Oxfam Society, University of Birmingham
RSPCA Society, University of Cambridge
Stop Aids Society, University of Leeds
Stop Aids Society, University of Newcastle
Stop Aids Society, University of Sheffield
Stop Aids Society, University of Southampton
Student Action for Refugees, University of Bristol
UNICEF Society, University of Sheffield
Universal Access to Essential Medicines (UAEM), University of Bristol
Universal Access to Essential Medicines (UAEM), University of Edinburgh

Party Political
Communist Society, SOAS
Conservative Society, LSE
Democratic Unionist Party Society, Queen’s University Belfast
Education not for Sale, University of Cambridge
Green Party Society, University of Sussex
Israel Society, LSE
Labour Party Society, University of Cambridge
Left Tea Party Society, University of Cambridge
Liberal Democrats Society, University of Leeds
Liberal Democrats Society, University of Sussex
Student Nationalist Association, University of Edinburgh

Religious
Buddhist Society, Imperial University
Buddhist Society, University of Sheffield
Buddhist Society, University of Sussex
Christian Union Society, University of Bournemouth
Christian Union Society, University of Cardiff
Islamic Society, University of Bath
Islamic Society, University of Cambridge
Jewish Society, University of Cambridge
Krishna Consciousness Society, University of Birmingham

Social Movements
Feminist Society, University of Edinburgh
Howard League for Penal Reform, University of Cambridge
International Society, Queen’s University Belfast
LGBT Society, University of Cambridge
Masculinity Exploration Network Society, University of Manchester

22
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

Student for Sensible Drugs Policy, University of Manchester

Women’s Society, University of Birmingham
Women’s Society, University of Nottingham

23
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

Notes

1 For example: Glees, Anthony and Pope, Chris, When Students Turn to Terror: Terrorist and
Extremist Activity on British Campuses, The Social Affairs Unit, 2005; Thorne, John, and Stuart,
Hannah, “Islam on Campus: A Survey of UK Student Opinions”, The Centre for Social Cohesion,
2008; Edwards, Ruth, “British Universities: Seats of Learning – and Loathing”, The Telegraph, 2
January 2010; Leiken, Robert, “London Breeding Islamic Terrorists”, CNN, 6 January 2010; BBC
News, “University Heads Tackle Extremism”, 6 January 2010; Malik, Shiv, “An uncomfortable lesson
in jihad”, Prospect Magazine, 23 February 2010

2 For example: Findmypast.co.uk, “Today’s youth ‘work shy and lazy’ study finds”, 26 February 2010;
The Independent, “The lost generation: Out of work, out of luck – graduates finding it tough”, 11 July
2010

3 The President or Elected Officer responsible for student sports and activities

4 This refers to the ‘ancient’ universities, including Oxford and Cambridge; and universities
established between the 19th and mid-20th century. ‘New’ universities refer to the former
polytechnics that turned into universities post-1992.

5 President, Islamic Society, University not disclosed

6 Email Interview with the Activities Officer, University of Sheffield Student Union, 20 May 2010

7 Student Survey, President of the Aegis Society, University of Oxford

8 Student Survey, President of the Amnesty Society, University of Sussex.

9 Student Survey, President of the LBGT Society, University of Cambridge

10 The Cambridge Amnesty Society hosted a ‘Shell Hell Day’ which involved 200 students descending
in the centre of town; the Sheffield Stop Aids society organised a parliamentary lobby day in London;
Edinburgh Feminist Society organised a Reclaim the Night March; the LSE Israeli Society organised
a street campaign to protest against the decision of the student union to twin with the Islamic
University in Gaza; and, the SOAS Communist Society regularly participates in demonstrations.

11 Student Survey, President of the Islamic Society, University of Bath

12 Student Survey, Member of the Lawyers without Borders Society, University of Cambridge

13 Student Survey, President of the Krishna Consciousness Society, University of Birmingham

14 Student Survey, Member of the Islamic Society, University of Cambridge

15 Student Survey, President of the Human Rights Society, University of Essex

16 Student Survey, Member of the Universal Access to Essential Medicines Society, University of
Bristol

24
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

17 Student Survey, President of the Christian Society, University of Bournemouth; Student Survey,
President of the Buddhist Society, University of Sheffield

18 Student Survey, President of the Buddhist Society, University of Sheffield

19 Student Survey, President of the Sensible Drugs Policy Society, University of Manchester

20 Student Survey, Member of the Education not for Sale Society, University of Cambridge; Student
Survey, President of the Communist Society, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)

21 Email Interview with the Activities Officer, University of Sheffield Student Union, 20 May 2010

22 Interview with the President of the Conservative Society, London School of Economics & Political
Science, 18 March 2010

23 Student Survey, President of the Humanitarian Centre, University of Cambridge

24 Student Survey, President of the British Red Cross Society, University of Bournemouth

25 Student Survey, President of the Friends of MSF Society, Imperial University

26 Student Surveys: President of Conservation Volunteers, University of Birmingham; President of

the British Red Cross Society, University of Bournemouth; President of the Ethical Affairs Society,
University of Cambridge; President of the Friends of MSF Society, University of Edinburgh; Member
of the Medsin Society, Imperial University; President of the Lawyers without Borders Society,
University of Cambridge; President of the Amnesty Society, University of Cambridge; President of the
Universal Access to Essential Medicines, University of Edinburgh; President of the Friends of MSF
Society, Imperial University; President of the Aegis Society, University of Oxford; President of the
Stop Aids Society, University of Sheffield; President of the Stop Aids Society, University of
Southampton

27 Student Survey, Member of the Amnesty Society, University of Cambridge

28 Student Survey, Member of the Aegis Society, University of Oxford

29 Student Survey, President of the Stop Aids Society, University of Sheffield

30 Student Survey, President of the Amnesty Society, University of Cambridge

31 Student Survey, President of the Stop Aids Society, University of Newcastle

32 Email Interview with the President, SOAS Student Union, 26 May 2010

33 Student Survey, President of the Student Action for Refugees (STAR) Society, University of Bristol

34 Student Surveys: President of the Krishna Consciousness Society, University of Birmingham;

President of the Buddhist Society, University of Sheffield; Member of the Buddhist Society,
University of Sussex; President of the Christian Society, University of Bournemouth; Members of the
Islamic Society, University of Cambridge; President of the Jewish Society, University of Cambridge

35 Chandler, David, ‘Questioning Global Political Activism’, in Pugh, Jonathan (ed.,), What is Radical
Politics Today? London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009

25
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

36 Semi-structured interview with Dr Jodi Anderson, Director of Internationalisation, City University,

19 March 2010

37 Semi-structured interview with Rick Hall, Director of Programmes, Ignite! UK, 19 March 2010

38 Student Survey, President of the Masculinity Exploration Network Society (MENS), University of
Manchester

39 Student Survey, President of the Feminist Society, University of Edinburgh

40 Student Survey, President of the Islamic Society, University of Bath

41 Student Survey, Member of the Islamic Society, University of Cambridge

42 Student Survey, President of the Conservative Society, London School of Economics and Political
Science

43 Student Survey, President of the Green Party Society, University of Sussex

44 Student Survey, Member of the Left Tea Party, University of Cambridge

45 Semi-structured interview with Dr Jodi Anderson, Director of Internationalisation, City University,

19 March 2010; semi-structured interview with Stephen Williams, Assistant Director, International
Office, University of Warwick, 25 March 2010; semi-structured interview with Professor Lynn
Davies, University of Birmingham, 28 April 2010; email interview with the Deputy President (clubs
and societies), Imperial University Student Union, 19 May 2010.

46 Semi-structured interview with Professor Simon Marginson, Professor of Higher Education,

University of Melbourne, Australia, 24 March 2010

47 Student Survey, President of the Student Action for Refugees (STAR) Society, University of Bristol

48 Semi-structured interview with Rick Hall, Director of Programmes, Ignite! UK, 19 March 2010

49 Email Interviews: Vice President (Societies and Activities), University of Edinburgh Student
Union, 7 June 2010; Deputy President (Clubs and Societies), Imperial University Student Union, 19
May 2010; Activities Officer, University of Sheffield Student Union, 20 May 2010; President, SOAS
Student Union, 26 May 2010; Sports and S0cieties Office, University of Bradford Student Union, 8
June 2010

50 Cited in: Foley, James, ‘Occupy and resist: the return of student radicalism?’ Glasgow University
Guardian, 10 February 2009

51 Student Survey, President of the Education Not for Sale Society, University of Cambridge

52 Email interview with the Activities Officer, University of Sheffield Student Union, 20 May 2010

53 Email interview with the President, SOAS Student Union, 26 May 2010

54 Email Interview with the Deputy President (Clubs and Societies), Imperial University Student
Union, 19 May 2010

55 Student Survey, President of the Women’s Society, University of Birmingham

26
 Campus Radicalism: An Investigation

56 Student Survey, Member of the Amnesty Society, University of Keele

57 Student Survey, Member of Medsin Society, Imperial University; Student Survey, President of the
Liberal Democrats Society, University of Sussex

58 Student Survey, President of the Stop Aids Society, University of Leeds,; Student Survey, Member
of the Stop Aids Society, University of Sheffield

59 Student Survey, President of the British Red Cross Society, University of Bournemouth

60 Fouche, Gwladys, “French university strikes intensify”, The Guardian, 5 February 2009.

61 Email Interview with the Deputy President (Clubs and Societies), Imperial University Student
Union, 19 May 2010

62 Semi-structured interview with Dr. Jodi Anderson

63 Student Survey, Member of the Amnesty Society, University of Keele

64 Email Interview with the Deputy President (Clubs and Societies), Imperial University Student
Union, 19 May 2010

65 This is the key focus of Ignite! UK’s programme on developing creativity amongst young people.

27
References

Chandler, David, ‘Questioning Global Political Activism’, in Pugh, Jonathan (ed.,), What is Radical
Politics Today? London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009

Edwards, Ruth, “British Universities: Seats of Learning – and Loathing”, The Telegraph, 2 January
2010

Findmypast.co.uk, “Today’s youth ‘work shy and lazy’ study finds”, 26 February 2010

Glees, Anthony and Pope, Chris, When Students Turn to Terror: Terrorist and Extremist Activity on
British Campuses, The Social Affairs Unit, 2005

Foley, James, ‘Occupy and resist: the return of student radicalism?’ Glasgow University Guardian,
10 February 2009

Fouche, Gwladys, “French university strikes intensify”, The Guardian, 5 February 2009

Grant, Malcolm, “Freedom of Thought is all we Foment”, Times Higher Education, 31 December
2009

Leiken, Robert, “London Breeding Islamic Terrorists”, CNN, 6 January 2010

Malik, Shiv, “An uncomfortable lesson in jihad”, Prospect Magazine, 23 February 2010

O’Neill, Brendan, “Free Speech on Campus? Yes. A Free Ride? No”, Spiked Online, 26 January 2010

The Independent, “The lost generation: Out of work, out of luck – graduates finding it tough”, 11 July
2010

Thorne, John, and Stuart, Hannah, “Islam on Campus: A Survey of UK Student Opinions”, The
Centre for Social Cohesion, 2008

28