Submitted by Mrs Jane Wallace on Mon, 19/08/2024 - 11:09
“By pulling together we can stem rising hate against minority faith and belief identities that continues to blight our nation; we can co-create innovative responses to the underlying conditions that sustain inequality; and we can rebuild the trust in our institutions that is needed for us all to flourish. We want to work with the incoming government to realise this vision.”
Those words form the conclusion of an open letter sent by the Faith & Belief Policy Collective earlier this year. The Collective is akin to an informal thinktank, comprised of individuals and organisations, and co-convened by the Faith & Belief Forum and Goldsmiths’ Faith & Civil Society Unit. Addressed to “an incoming government”, the letter was launched at the Faiths Forum for London Interfaith Hustings on 26 June.
Among the letter’s signatories was Dr Iona Hine, Programme Manager of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme, a flagship research-and-engagement centre based in the Faculty of Divinity. We invited Iona to explain the significance of this work, and how it fits into the wider ethos and emphases of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme (CIP).
What are the Collective’s ambitions and why is this relevant for academics?
“As the Collective’s name suggests, the primary purpose is to inform policy. There was some discomfort about the ways the Bloom Review (“Does Government do God?” 2023) categorised and highlighted perceived issues. In that sense the Collective represents actors from religious and value-oriented spaces coming together to speak about what matters.
“One goal is to provide a reference point for policymakers. Within our (i.e., CIP’s) team and the broader Research Forum, we have considerable insight into the role of religion and belief in society. This includes cutting-edge work at the intersection of antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism, as well as innovations in the field of education, and important research on topics including health and sustainability. So we have scope to support and inform that side of the Collective’s work.
“At the same time, many of the actors involved want to be part of setting an agenda—claiming the right to bring insights and ideas directly to the policy-making table.
“The letter highlights some specific areas of concern and mutual interest. For example, on the topic of representation, the Collective has called for efforts to ensure women are equally engaged in policy conversations (noting the preponderance of men in positions of religious leadership), and for meaningful options for youth involvement. The letter also proposed introducing an oath for office holders to prevent public figures inciting hatred and division, and drew attention to the need to work at different levels (schools, workplaces, in partnership with local government, etc.) in order to build trust in institutions.
“There are many kinds of expertise represented within the conversations. This means the Collective can draw on a wide evidence base, as well as a diversity of perspectives.”
How and why did you become involved?
“The Faith & Belief Forum put out a targeted invitation for initial conversations last autumn. At CIP we were already re-examining how Cambridge research influences policy around religion and belief, so it was a welcome opportunity to connect with others who take religion and policy seriously.
“The impact goes in at least two directions: When relevant, I’m able to feed in knowledge from our researchers and partners. Equally, listening to the concerns voiced can generate fresh research questions and suggest new collaborations. That’s without considering the significance of the response to the Collective’s work. (It is still early days.)
“I’ve worked in policy spaces before, mainly at local / regional level, so it is refreshing to bring some of that knowledge about the mechanics of policy and governance into my Cambridge work.”
Is there a risk that such activity is seen as politicking?
“Research in the domain of inter-religious relations lends itself to thinking about identity, belonging, and how core values affect lived experience. It can be healthy to think and talk openly about what faith and religion means for our common life. And the Collective’s conversations are not limited to those who define as religious.
“Politics and belief are intrinsically linked, so it would be naive to think this kind of activity is not in some sense political. But it would also be naive to imagine that society does not benefit from dialogue or from information based on careful research. So it matters to engage thoughtfully.
“The letter was published with the title “Diverse identities, shared values”. Shared values are concretely embedded in the vision of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme—our academic director (Prof Esra Ozyurek) holds the Sultan Qaboos Chair in Abrahamic Faiths and Shared Values. That’s a helpful reminder that CIP seeks to connect academic expertise with societal concerns—and indeed, that’s been the case right from its inception.”
So what’s next for the Collective?
“About ten days ago, a subgroup met to discuss if and how we might respond to the riots and threats occurring subsequent to the murder of three young girls in Southport. The discussions were delicate. None of us wished to trespass on the grief of bereaved families. Yet we were witnessing visceral violence and violent rhetoric against mosques, refugee centres, and the police seeking to protect these institutions.
“Extreme right-wing actors were deliberately fomenting unrest. That others were ready to join in should worry all of us. Blaming Muslims and asylum seekers for societal ills is scapegoating. Would it be wrong to situate such attacks on a continuum with the xenophobic and Islamophobic expressions that seem to have become acceptable within public discourse? I don't think so.
“The statement issued on 5 August has already led to conversations with public sector stakeholders. Several members of the Collective were also invited to a roundtable discussion with Lord Khan, the government minister with responsibility for faith.”
And has there been any specific relevance from a CIP perspective?
“The recent discussions led me to reexamine a 2011 CIP-sponsored project on community policing:
“Observing two different London boroughs, researchers saw a disconnect between what often motivated police to engage with faith groups (a positive commitment to neighbourhood policing) and the perception that policing of (some) religious communities was mainly motivated by a counter-terrorism agenda. Anecdotally, that perception—or perhaps we should call it a misgiving—persists.
“The researchers also noted that the primacy of race within the diversity agenda (and as an issue within policing) meant religion was often categorised as an ethnic matter. That finding speaks to current discussions and work within the CIP team, as we think about the relevance of our research and tools within diversity work.
“Participating in the Collective’s discussions is stimulating and important. As might be expected, it involves plenty of listening and respectful disagreement too.”
Further reading
The full text of the Collective’s Open Letter was published on the Faith & Belief Forum’s website. View the letter Diverse Identities, Shared Values (PDF) at faithbeliefforum.org.
A summary of the Effective Community Policing project (2011) is available on the Cambridge Interfaith Programme website. A paper copy of the report may be available on request. Discover more about the policing research via www.interfaith.cam.ac.uk.
Core findings were published in the journal Policing and Society in 2014. See: McFadyen, A., & Prideaux, M. (2013) The placing of religion in policing and policing studies. Policing and Society, 24(5), 602–619. https://doi-org.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/10.1080/10439463.2013.784310