The Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Radicalization Prevention Act, which in November was approved by an overwhelming majority of U.S. Representatives in the House, presents an important challenge to those fighting for freedom and peace in the world.
I challenge the vague language of the bill and the basic aim of the commission and accompanying School of Excellence (a partnership between the government and colleges/universities “to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism”). The language in which the bill is defined will lead both the actions of the committee and School of Excellence to be inherently prejudiced. Most visibly, this prejudice can be seen in the bill’s statement that “Individuals shall be selected … on the basis of their … expertise in relevant fields including … Islam and other world religions.” This signals a preconceived focus on Islam. In addition, the language of the bill, while attempting to sound specific and objective, is truly subjective. The basic definitions of “homegrown terrorism,” “violent radicalization,” and “ideologically based violence” could easily endanger any activist group, as they target such subjective dangers as “adopting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence.”
Specifically, it is quite difficult to discern for what purpose a given ideology is adopted. I fear that, despite attempts in the bill to promise the contrary, it will result in ambiguous decisions and actions based on preconceived prejudices.
This bill was created to prevent ignorance about terrorism within the United States (to prevent another 9/11), which is a noble and needed goal. However, there is a distinct by-product of our nation’s heightened desire to prevent terrorism — anxiety, suspicion, and paranoia. The government has a responsibility to prevent these symptoms as well. The difference between preventing ignorance and propagating fear is the difference between an announcement in the airport saying “Please report all unattended baggage to security or police personnel,” and saying, “Due to an increased level of security threat, please report all unattended baggage to security or police personnel.” The first gives helpful information and concrete ways to be aware of possibly dangerous situations, while the second prefixes it with vague information that does not provide a tangible helpfulness to the listener. It is quite likely formulated as a fear-inducing message. In relation to this bill, it is important to analyze whether it sets up a commission motivated by fear or a true desire to fix the problems of the world that increase the likelihood of people resorting to violent action and activities.
Wesleyan students should have a particular concern for this bill because it will once again strengthen government involvement in public and private colleges as well as endanger activist and ethnically based groups. I believe that to truly prevent homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization, we need more personal accountability for the way in which we influence and interact with one another. It is a personal responsibility to act in the way you believe the world should act, and this starts with showing basic concern for those around us. The government’s role in this should be not to “root out terrorists” by labeling specific risk groups and heightening suspicions through a vaguely-worded bill.
Please join us this Monday for the Campus Forum on the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act on Monday, March 3, 2008 in Judd 116. The Forum will be moderated by Associate Professor of Anthropology and American Studies J. Kehaulani Kauanui. Guest speakers include Professor of Government John Finn and University Librarian Barbara Jones, awardee of the 2007 Downs Intellectual Freedom Award for her work on behalf of the Committee on Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE).
Leave a Reply