There have been renewed attempts by the government to get universities to spy and report on ‘suspicious’ students. But is the NUS ‘no platform’ policy the right way forward? By Dave Isaacson

A year and a half ago I wrote an article for the first edition of Communist Student entitled ‘Defend Muslims!’ It was a response to the calls from Bill Rammell, Labour MP and Higher Education minister, for lecturers to spy on “Asian-looking” or Muslim students and inform special branch of anyone who might be involved in Islamic extremism. This issue has once again been in the limelight with Mr Rammell issuing further appeals for universities to intervene.¹

The new briefing issued has stepped back slightly from some of the rhetoric which found them being accused of Islamophobia last time round. But the central message is the same: universities should spy on their students and curtail the already pinched freedoms.

In what could come straight from George Orwell’s novel 1984, the government calls for “free and open debate” – when it actually means exactly the opposite. It wants universities to “establish clear policies on external speakers – ensuring they did not promote or advocate violent extremism”. According to the government, universities should have a “clearly published code of practice on freedom of speech” and we should be “listening to and supporting mainstream voices”.²

But “a code of practice on freedom of speech” is a contradiction in terms. It is the exact opposite of “free and open debate”.

Communists, and all clear thinking students for that matter, will take no lessons from the government on combating “extremism”. These spineless toadies will roll out the red carpet for the most unsavoury butchers in the world so long as it is in their imperialist interests. And let us not forget that “mainstream voices” such as Nelson Mandela are fêted today, but were branded terrorists and extremists when it suited our rulers.

Also, who is going to decide what constitutes an “extremist”? Some might argue that Marxists fall into that category: after all, we fight for the overthrow of the existing class structures. And it is highly unlikely that the ruling class will give up their power voluntarily!

NUS President Gemma Tumelty has shamefully welcomed this ratcheting up of state interference into the lives of students. She tells us that: “We are pleased that the Government is consulting the sector on this complex issue. We particularly welcome the document’s focus on engagement with learners, and we hope that FE institutions will heed this advice”.³ Of course it will come of no surprise to most student activists that the NUS leadership is sucking up to those who it really should be in battle with. As the careerists they almost invariably are, it is in the interests of student union bureaucrats to stay on good terms with those with whom they will be hobnobbing for years to come.

Fortunately, once again, our lecturers and their University and College Union have stated their opposition to spying on students. UCU general secretary Sally Hunt stated that: “Staff are not trained to, and should not be expected to, police their students. No student should ever think they are being spied on and no staff member should ever be pressurised into treating any group of students differently from another.” She went on to add that UCU “will challenge any institution that tries to force staff to spy on their students”⁴.

We must defend the rights of students to express themselves freely and without fear of sanction from their educational institution or the state. Communist Students will argue for united campaigns with Islamic societies on campuses in order to counter any surveillance or harassment of “Asian-looking” students, or in defence of any of our civil liberties and democratic rights – including organising ethnically (and sexually) integrated physical defence squads when necessary.

However, communists are not neutral when it comes to how students use these rights. We are after all Marxists, not liberals. Also, any alliances we make with religious groups will only be temporary and of a tactical rather than strategic nature. We recognise all too well the reactionary role that political Islam has played historically and continues to do so today; ditto fundamentalist Christianity and countless other religious trends. We will not shy away from exposing reactionary groups such as these for what they are, even when we fight together over common aims.

As Marxists we are atheists; we seek to overcome religious superstition and win people to a materialist outlook. We are also secularists and advocate the complete separation of state and church (or mosque, temple or whatever) in order to achieve the full equality of believers and non-believers. Without freedom of religious expression it is self-evident that equality is fake – and therefore so too is secularism. It is only by taking an approach of holding fast to our principles while remaining tactically flexible which will allow us to advance towards communism.