Few Clues to Student’s Evolution into Terror Suspect
Since the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, people have been trying to understand what would lead alleged terrorist Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab to radicalization. Abdulmutallab is a 23-year-old Nigerian whose family is among the richest in Katsina State, the Guardian reports. He studied mechanical engineering at University College London, and before that he was a student at a British-style boarding school in Togo. A devout Muslim, Abdulmutallab joined and became president of the Islamic Society at University College London. Even though Britain’s covert domestic security agency “said it carefully monitors Muslim campus groups,” The New York Times writes, a British security official said Abdulmutallab had “ ‘never shown up on the radar screen’ as a threat.” This is exactly what worries Brunel University Professor Anthony Glees, who wrote what NPR describes as “an influential paper about the radicalization of Muslim students at a handful of British institutions”—University College London not being one of them. According to Glees, “ ‘What is worrying in the case of University College London is the absence of evidence about [Abdulmutallab’s support of extremist views] previously.’ ” But the question remains: as a recent NPR piece puts it, “When, where and how did an intelligent, prosperous young Nigerian with an engineering degree from a world-class university make the transition from devout Muslim to suspect in a failed suicide bombing?”
- What factors might lead someone to become radicalized?
- What can we learn about prevention of terrorism from looking at a case like this?
- Do you think universities should screen incoming students to determine if they are potential radicals? How would you determine if someone was indeed a radical? NPR reports that some British universities have been accused of “failing to adequately monitor potential radicals in their midst.” However, as University College London (UCL) Provost Malcolm Grant said, “universities of UCL’s stature must do nothing that could compromise academic freedoms and freedom of expression, and they cannot and should not screen incoming students that way. . . . ‘We admit our students wholly on merit; we make no reference to their political, racial or religious background or belief. That’s fundamental to what we do.’ ” Why doesn’t UCL want to monitor incoming students in this way? What is the proper balance between profiling and safety? Is ideological profiling ever okay?
- Even though NPR states that Abdulmutallab, “to the [Islamic Society at UCL’s] knowledge never expressed any extremist views,” the New York Times writes that “the society has served in recent years as a forum for agitated debate about the ‘oppression’ of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims by the United States and other Western countries.” Additionally, “the society’s guest speakers have included radical imams, former Guantánamo Bay prisoners and a cast of mostly left-wing, anti-American British politicians and human rights advocates.” How should schools balance academic freedom and the need to prevent terrorism? Should a potential speaker’s political views influence a university’s decision as to who they are willing to pay to speak on their campus? Should universities allow clubs to sponsor these speakers at their discretion? Would giving such speakers a venue suggest that the university legitimizes or approves of the event? Should universities allow such debate to take place on their campuses in general? Why or why not?
