Combating Extremism: with education?

Although commonsensical, the claims that higher education attainment increases the ability of individuals to be tolerant, think critically, empathize and, therefore, be more peaceful, are supported by limited empirical evidence. Despite the absence of empirical support for the propositions above, world leaders, most notably Barack Obama, repeatedly reference these benefits as being lawlike. Unfortunately for those policymakers seeking to reference the benefits of expanded educational opportunities as a means to combat terrorism, promising research increasingly shows that, in some instances, expansive education policies often exacerbate incidences of conflict.

As Samuel Huntington stated, “Alienated university graduates prepare revolutions; alienated technical or secondary school graduates prepare coups; alienated primary school leavers engage in more frequent but less significant forms of political unrest.” The rise of the internet, social media, and the ability of individuals, even primary school leavers, to self-radicalize may prove to be the biggest check on Huntington’s original statement. Many policy scholars and practitioners hypothesize that conflict in the twenty-first century will continue to be primarily between states and nonstate actors. This is both promising and troublesome for citizens of the world. Promising because in the last century, the world witnessed two horrific world wars involving state-to-state war and because the world united can defeat the idea of terrorism. Disturbing because the practical realities of terrorism are unavoidable, even for a world united against it.

There are historical incidences of both state and nonstate actors having excellent educational attainment levels and bad records when it comes to keeping track of the humanity of others. For instance, Nazi Germany was among the most educated countries in the world during The Holocaust. Moreover, most of the 9/11 hijackers had graduated college, some even obtained doctoral degrees. Even more, the conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis was exacerbated and prolonged, in large part, because of the role of education. Contemporary research by Matthew Lange and Andrew Dawson found that resource allocation, by the state, in support of educational attainment must be disbursed evenly throughout society to avoid forms of discrimination in both intent and consequence. Moreover, following periods of expanded educational access, highly fractionalized societies with limited economic opportunities are likely to engage in forms of conflict as a means eliminate competition over scarce resources and professional opportunities. Research, by myself, examining the role of religion in primary education found the presence of religion in education to have a pacifying effect on conflict, even in places where ethnoreligious tensions persist. However, the same research found different determinant outcomes for the presence of religious education versus religious instruction. Religious instruction, the type you’d find in seminaries, where the focus is on instructing individuals to better serve God and the faith, often leads to more incidences of conflict.

There are a plethora of things to be considered in formulating education policy to combat extremism, not the least of which are: curriculum, teacher credentials, resource mobilization, and economic outlook. Global attempts to fight extremism and the resulting terrorism are complicated and need no new variables or things to consider, but, for far too long, the role of education in shaping futures has been, in part, misunderstood. There is no cure-all for extremism, not even education.