THE ARTICLE NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ - Radicalisation at Universities or Radicalisation by Universities: How a Students Use of a Library Book Became a Major Islamist Plot

1

Radicalisation at universities or radicalisation by
universities?: How a student‟s use of a library book
became a “major Islamist plot”

ROD THORNTON

School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, United
Kingdom
Email: rod.thornton@nottingham.ac.uk

Paper prepared for the Critical Studies on Terrorism on Teaching About Terrorism panel
at the British International Studies Association Conference, University of Manchester,
April 2011

Abstract: In May 2008, on the campus of the University of Nottingham, two men of
ethnic minority background - a student and an administrator - were arrested and held for
six days under the Terrorism Act 2000. Their crime was to have in their possession three
documents – all of which were, in fact, available from their own university‟s library. The
police had made their arrests based on erroneous evidence provided by two men: the
Registrar of the University of Nottingham and an academic within the institution.
Subsequently, despite being made aware of the mistakes it had made, the university not
only refused to apologise to the two arrested men but it also began to resort to defensive
measures that attempted to discredit the names both of the two accused and of innocent
university employees. Untruth piled on untruth until a point was reached where the Home
Office itself farcically came to advertise the case as „a major Islamist plot‟. Many lessons
can be learnt from what happened at the University of Nottingham. This incident is an
indication of the way in which, in the United Kingdom of today, young Muslim men can
become so easily tarred with the brush of being „terrorists‟.1

Keywords: academic freedom, BIS, discrimination, ethnic minority, freedom of speech,
Home Office, Muslim, Nottingham, police, radicalisation, student, terrorism, Terrorism
Act, university, University of Nottingham.

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the
same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth.

George Orwell, 1984.2

1

This article could not have come about without the support of my friends in the School of Politics and
International Relations at the University of Nottingham. I owe them a lot. I also thank Professor David
Miller at the University of Strathclyde for his support and for creating the „Teaching-About-Terrorism‟
forum. Georóid Ó Cuinn, a PhD student from the School of Law at the University of Nottingham, also
deserves a special mention. I also thank Rizwaan Sabir. The energy he is expending in his desire to see his
name cleared is an example to us all.

2

George Orwell, 1984 (London: Penguin 2008), p.37.

2

Life is always simple for the prejudiced. Indeed, the very point about a pre-
judgement is that it is a conclusion reached before the complexity of the
world is allowed to make any difference. The facts are forced to fit a pre-
formed picture.

Giles Fraser, Canon Chancellor of St Paul‟s Cathedral.3

This is not a normal academic article. It does not pretend to be anything other than a
description of events. Nevertheless, I believe (and I apologise for the use of the first
person, but it is unavoidable throughout) that this article is important. The story I relate
here stems from the arrest of two men on suspicion of terrorist-related offences on the
campus of the University of Nottingham in May 2008. Both were released without charge
after six days. The events surrounding their arrest may be simply a story, but it is a
salutary one: salutary for anyone involved in the teaching, researching or studying of
terrorism or its related issues; salutary for anyone involved in the administration of
universities or ministries of state; and salutary too for the police and security services.
In writing this article I may be accused of „bringing my university into disrepute‟. My
contract of employment warns me against this. I am, though, not bringing my university
into disrepute; merely those who run it. There is a difference. As an alumnus myself of
the University of Nottingham, I would heartily say that it is a very good university, all
things considered. I even took a drop in rank and pay to come back to Nottingham as a
lecturer in 2007 – I had been a senior lecturer at King‟s College London.
I must also establish my bone fides in writing this article. I am not a usual suspect in
terms of being a „rabble rouser‟. I am not some shrill „lefty‟ activist. I am a lecturer in
International Security and Terrorism, and I came late to academia having first spent nine
years as an ordinary „squaddie‟ in a British Army infantry regiment. During my service I
spent three years in Northern Ireland in a counter-terrorism role. This included a six-
month period in a police station in West Belfast (Springfield Road) operating in an
intelligence capacity. I was working there alongside members of the Royal Ulster
Constabulary (as it was called then). I slept in the same dormitories as these policemen,
ate in their canteen and was constantly in their company. The only time that I ever
stepped out of this police station during this entire six months (bar five days leave) was to
go out on patrol with these same policemen. Thus I got to know something about counter-
terrorism policing above and beyond what any soldier in Northern Ireland would
naturally learn. Thus, in writing this article, I at least have some grasp of the issues
involved.4

I left the army as a sergeant having once been awarded a Queen‟s Gallantry Medal by
the Queen herself. Again, decorated sergeants from British Army infantry regiments who
have been involved at the coal-face of counter-terrorism do not normally make good
„rebel‟ material at universities. Nevertheless, I appear to be such a rebel.

3

Giles Fraser, „Islamophobia is the moral blind spot of today‟s Britain‟, The Guardian, 22 January 2011,

p.34.

4

I have also suffered the results of terrorism. I lost six friends to a bomb in 1998. I am no defender of

terrorists.

3

I feel I have a duty to „whistleblow‟ against the University of Nottingham. Senior
personnel within this university engaged in activity that can be classed as unfair,
discriminatory and, sometimes, outright illegal. The university‟s own „Whistleblowing
Code‟ confirms my right to raise concerns when, quote, „a criminal offence has been
committed.‟ This has happened at Nottingham and I must therefore bring it to light. I also
have a duty under this Code to report when „a person has failed to comply with their legal
obligations‟. This has happened at Nottingham and I must therefore bring it to light. I
also have a duty under this Code to report when „a miscarriage of justice has occurred‟.

This has occurred at Nottingham and I must therefore bring it to light.
Moreover, the UNESCO guidelines for universities across the world state that „higher
education teaching personnel should have the right and opportunity…to criticise the
functioning of higher education institutions, including their own‟.5

I am here making use
of this right. Additionally, in the United Kingdom universities are publicly funded bodies
and the British public has a right to know, under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998,
how their institutions are conducting themselves. And, of course, my employer

encourages free expression: „The University of Nottingham‟, it claims, „is an open and
free arena for debate and dissent…everyone at Nottingham is able to enjoy freedom of
speech and expression within the law‟. I am here taking advantage of this right.
Everything I am saying here is „within the law‟.6

Given all of the above, I feel I have a moral and, indeed, a legal obligation to bring
into the public domain the activity I relate here.
This desire to bring to public attention what has happened, and is happening, at the
University of Nottingham is not done in a purely negative context. Above all, what I
reveal in this article is designed to clear the names of two innocent men. One of these was
a student I had a responsibility for: Rizwaan Sabir (a British student of Pakistani
descent). Thus in writing this article I am - in the only way I seem to have open to me -
continuing to fulfil the duty of care that I am legally obliged to provide to this student.
Back in 2008 Sabir was a master‟s student in my department – the School of Politics
and International Relations at the University of Nottingham. I was, in my role at that time
as the Postgraduate Tutor, responsible for the well-being of all of the postgraduates in the
School. If any of them faced problems or difficulties then it was my job to try and help
them as best I could.

So to affirm after all this preamble, I am presenting this article from a position, I feel,
of some authority and in order to defend my student. My first duty has to be to this
student, Rizwaan Sabir, and not to the University of Nottingham.
It might reasonably be asked as to why I am going public with this article. Why am I
not raising the issues I relate here with responsible bodies? Well, I have tried very hard
up to now to keep all the details of this entire imbroglio in-house. I have stopped stories
running in the media, and I have given senior management at the University of
Nottingham every chance to carry out their own investigations and to take the necessary
actions. Despite the evidence that I have presented to management - evidence which I
believe to have been prima facie in terms of proving serious malpractice - no action has
been taken against anyone internally (apart from myself for raising these issues!). I have

5

This UNESCO document guides the behaviour of the world‟s universities, The Status of Higher
Education Teaching Personnel, 1997, Section B, „Self-governance and collegiality‟.

6

University of Nottingham portal statement 23 May 2008.

4

also gone to outside bodies, which I presumed would have some oversight capacity in
regard to UK universities. But none of the bodies I approached would investigate this
matter: I wrote to the government minister then responsible for universities; I went to the
English universities‟ funding body, the Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE), and entreaties were made to the Parliamentary Ombudsman - who supposedly
oversees the activities of the state‟s „public institutions‟. They all said, however, that it
was not their job to investigate the behaviour of universities. There is, in fact, no
oversight of universities in this country (unless they engage in financial impropriety);
they are, it would seem, allowed to be completely autonomous and accountable to no-
one. In other words, they are laws unto themselves.
This article is long. It needs to be of such length so that enough evidence is presented
and enough facts established in order that it can make its case clearly and unequivocally.
Evidence presented from a variety of sources and angles must be allowed to coalesce,
accrete and harden. And such evidence must be seen in a certain context and against a
certain background. Both context and background take time to describe and develop.
Some issues that I raise here might, on their own, be seen as excusable behaviour or as a
misinterpretation of the facts. However, if viewed with a certain context in mind and
against the background supplied by other evidence then such issues come to be seen in a
different light – their true light. I wish to leave absolutely no „wiggle-room‟ whatsoever
for anyone who is guilty of malfeasance. And, of course, by presenting so much evidence
then the possibility of any litigation can be completely removed. This article is, perforce,
also forensic in character, and it therefore does not read well. Additionally, it is
repetitive; but it has to be in order that points are continually reinforced and linked to
other evidence.

I name names here. Some might find this unethical. But those who work for a UK
university work for a publicly funded institution and, as such, they must accept the
consequences of so doing. I also use names here because I want to be very clear to whom
I am referring, and thus to absolve of any blame those at the University of Nottingham
who have behaved honourably. And, since nothing I say here is untrue - it can all be
checked against documentary evidence - I am not defaming anyone.
As I say, the concerns I have been raising within the university have led to
disciplinary action against myself. My concerns have related both to the arrests of the two
men – Sabir and Hicham Yezza (an Algerian national) - and to threats I perceive being
made to the principles both of freedom of speech and of academic freedom in the UK.
Both have come under some pressure at the University of Nottingham during the general
post-arrests fall-out. So far I have attended seven disciplinary hearings of various types
(and refused to attend another). I first received an Official Oral Warning, which was later
extended to an Official Written Warning. This will be on my record for two years, and I
cannot be promoted during this period; i.e. back to my original 2007 rank of senior
lecturer. Facing dismissal if I became subject to any more disciplinary action, I kept a
lower profile. This, though, did not prevent me from being subject to yet further charges.
A case of harassment, for instance, was recently taken out against me by my Head of
School (a case presented for him by my own union, the UCU). At the very same time, his
superior, the Dean of the School of Social Sciences and a professor colleague in my own
School of Politics also made formal complaints against me.7

These charges, though, were

7

Professor Paul Heywood, Professor Sarah O‟Hara and Professor Philip Cowley.

5

basically rehashes of accusations that I was already „serving time‟ for, and they resulted
not in my dismissal, but rather in the judgment by the Vice-Chancellor that I merely
needed, quote, „additional mentoring‟.8

After this, I made one final attempt in February of
2011 to get this Vice-Chancellor to investigate some of the issues I was raising. I was,
however, told by him that I was making „unwarranted allegations‟, and there began yet
more „investigations‟ into my behaviour.9

My Head of School and the Dean then found
even more charges to lay against me. These were, again, mostly ones I had faced before.
There were, though, some interesting new ones. I am now charged, for instance, with not
providing correct copies of my course reading lists to my School‟s Office Manager.
These were „incorrect‟ in that on one occasion I did „not add [my] office hours to the
front page‟; I had also infringed School policy by having „more than 12 essays on the
module guide‟, and I was accused of not submitting my reading lists „on the correct
template‟.10

All of these disciplinary „charges‟ were, of course, acts of genuine oversight
on my part. I may finally be dismissed, though, if they are, indeed, confirmed to be
breaches of discipline.

I relate all this above detail about my disciplinary history in order to provide a flavour
of just what sort of a place the University of Nottingham is; how far it will go in trying to
silence its recalcitrant employees, and the type of behaviour its senior management can
indulge in when left to their own „autonomy‟.
My issues, however, are as nothing compared to the blight put on the lives of the two
men arrested. Their alleged misdemeanours will be on their records for considerably
longer than two years. Despite the fact that they were released without charge, they have
clearly been „tarred‟. Two government departments - the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills (BIS - which oversees UK universities) and the Home Office - have
both produced documentation that clearly indicates that they look upon these two as
being involved, at the very least, in „extremist‟, if not actual „terrorist‟, activity. Indeed,
and quite incredibly, Sabir and Yezza are erroneously listed in a document disseminated
by the Home Office as being part of a „major Islamist plot‟ in the UK.11

Sabir has also
been subject to questioning (and sometimes searches) by police when he has crossed into
Europe. When he returned from a holiday in Spain in July 2010 his phone and Blackberry
were confiscated by police Special Branch at East Midlands airport. Additionally, on a
freezing cold night in February 2010, Sabir was sitting having a cigarette in his car
outside his house (his family would not allow him to smoke inside) when he was

„stopped‟ by a passing police patrol (it was one a.m.!). Sabir‟s car was then searched.

This search was later, in July 2010, admitted by Nottinghamshire Constabulary to have
been „unlawful‟. He has also been randomly stopped by the police several times while
driving his car around Nottingham. On one occasion, in the centre of Nottingham, his car
was pulled over and searched at a police checkpoint by machine-gun toting officers! And
Sabir, of course, cannot even think about visiting the United States. Yezza was not my

8

Letter of Vice-Chancellor Professor David Greenaway to author, 1 November 2010. All the emails, letters
and notes that follow in this article have been released under Freedom of Information legislation.

9

Letter to author from Vice-Chancellor Professional David Greenaway, 11 February 2011.

10

Contained in letter of complaint made by Professor Paul Heywood, Head of School of Politics, to
Registrar, 4 February 2011.

11

Ted Bromund and Morgan Roach, „Backgrounder: Islamist terrorism plots in Great Britain: Uncovering
the global network‟, The Heritage Foundation, 26 October 2009. p.13. Made available on the Home Office
website.

6

student and so I will not discuss his case. His later tribulations came about because, after
his release on the terrorism charges, he was re-arrested for immigration-related offences -
his visa having run out.

Both men - and every shred of evidence points to this being the case - were, and are,
completely innocent of any link whatsoever to „terrorist‟ activity of any kind. They are
not „extremists‟; they have not been „radicalised‟ in any way, and they did not „access‟ or
„possess‟ jihadist or extremist literature. They did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
They were simply caught up in an extraordinary set of circumstances that might be
described as laughable if the consequences had not been quite so severe. And, at the heart
of their tribulations, there does seem to be something really rather dark; something I
would never have believed existed in a modern British university and, indeed, within
modern British society.

I have taken inordinate care to get my facts right here. The events described are
sourced to either my own experiences (with corroborating written evidence) or to
material – emails, notes, reports, etc – that have (so far) been made public under Freedom
of Information (FoI) and Data Protection Act (DPA) legislation. Much, though, has been
hidden by the University of Nottingham, by the BIS and by the Home Office. Both
Rizwaan Sabir and myself have been arguing that the university does not have the right to
continue to keep certain material secret – including our own personal data and reports
written specifically about us. It is clear, despite the fact that the University of Nottingham
boasts it „is committed to high standards of openness and accountability and conducts its
affairs with due regard to probity‟ that this is not the case.12

For instance, when the body
AcademicFOI.Com asked all universities in the country for information on „Workplace
Bullying and Harassment‟ cases the University of Nottingham was the only Russell
Group university - and one of only nine universities out of a total of 145 - not to return
any data. The university cited „privacy concerns‟ as its reason.13

The University of

Nottingham is a university actually characterised by secrecy, rather than by openness.
What is described in the following pages is a story that unequivocally points to the
unfair and discriminatory treatment of two young Muslim men. It is a story of how the
innocent possession of a document that was freely available as a library book can lead to
the supposition (if not actual belief) that the two were part of this „major Islamist plot‟.
This is the story of mistakes, of oversights, of extraordinarily malevolent behaviour and
of displays of stupidity quite biblical in scope and scale. And such behaviour was evident
across the whole rank spectrum: from the very bottom rungs of university management
all the way up to government ministers. This story also brings to light what appears to be
outright illegal behaviour by senior management in the University of Nottingham. This
university did not provide the duty of care to Rizwaan Sabir and to Hicham Yezza that it
was obliged to do according to both English Common Law and, of course, the University
of Nottingham‟s own statutes. And individuals within the senior management of this
university went on, moreover, to break the law in other areas as well.
Given the behaviour of a number of staff within the University of Nottingham, it
would in fact be no surprise if the university itself had been acting as a „radicalising‟
agent. The radicalisation of young Muslim men in this country is a process which a host

12

University of Nottingham, „Whistleblowing Code‟.

13

„Workplace Bullying and Harassment‟ survey, AcademicFOI.Com at

http://www.academicfoi.com/bullyingharassmentindex.htm accessed 12 January 2011.

7

of government agencies in this country are supposedly trying to thwart. And since
radicalisation is most often generated by a feeling – however misplaced – of unfair
treatment then the (clearly) unfair treatment meted out to Sabir and Yezza by the
University of Nottingham can be seen as being, in and of itself, a radicalising act. It
would be no surprise, therefore, if not only the two men directly affected, but also their
friends and other Muslim students within and beyond the University of Nottingham,
came to be „radicalised‟ by the sense of grievance generated by this institution‟s
behaviour. Universities in the United Kingdom are supposed to be acting against agents
of radicalisation on their campuses - they are not themselves supposed to be the
radicalising agents.

This article, as I say, is also concerned with bringing to light the ways in which
today‟s British universities - subject, as they seem to be, to little or no oversight - can
insidiously introduce control mechanisms that both challenge the principle of academic
freedom and which, furthermore, seek to hide acts of malfeasance. The University of
Nottingham seems to have been completely unabashed in the way it has gone about
defending its corporate image and in maintaining „discipline‟ among its staff.
This article additionally provides for a remarkable case study of „groupthink‟. Bad
enough in itself, but what occurred at Nottingham can properly be described as a
particularly malign variant of this phenomenon. It seems that in the United Kingdom of
today, when important and influential actors across a range of institutions - university,
security agencies and government departments - are presented with a set of facts in
relation to young Muslim men then those facts have to be shoehorned – however
bizarrely and however unfairly – into conforming to a certain orthodoxy.