The Prevent Duty: Its Implementation by University Management in the Context of External Speaker Events

This thesis is concerned with how the requirements of the Prevent duty are understood and implemented by university management (UM) when assessing external speaker events. The main concern is how UM balance two seemingly opposite duties – the Prevent duty and the freedom of speech duty. Although previous studies have focused on student and academic staff perspectives on the effects of the Prevent duty on free speech in universities, this thesis sheds new light by using empirical data gathered through interviews, freedom of information (FOI) requests and online policies to create a picture of how the two duties are understood and implemented by UM. The participants were the final decision makers on controversial events. They were responsible for assessing the risk of radicalisation and extremism and then balancing that risk with the duty to uphold freedom of speech for external speaker events. Thus, their views on radicalisation, extremism, freedom of speech and the Prevent duty provide new insight into how relevant pieces of legislation, including the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and the accompanying guidance, are implemented in universities, and the challenges UM face in the process.
The over-arching research question is, ‘how do university management interpret the requirements of the Prevent duty and the freedom of speech duty, and what practical implications does their interpretation have on the implementation of these duties in the context of external speaker events?’