First, I should begin by introducing myself properly: my name is David Renton, and I work for the lecturers' union NATFHE. We're a union with around 67,000 members, two-thirds in Further, one-third working in Higher Education. My post is Equality Support Official – the support means that I am number two in a unit with three officers. My colleague Kate Heasman is the head of the Equality Unit. She reports to our head of universities, Roger Kline, who in turn reports to our general secretary Paul Mackney.

NATFHE's equality priorities are set by motions of our annual conference: for example, the first NATFHE conference motion to condemn anti-Semitism was passed in 1978: and there have been similar motions since, roughly once every three to four years. We also have policy opposing anti-Muslim racism (a term we generally prefer to Islamophobia). Conference passed a motion condemning anti-Muslim racism for the first time this summer.

As well as conference policy, we also have more detailed equality policies drawn up by our Equality Committee, which is composed of members of our elected National Executive Committee. The Equality Committee has just over a dozen members. When the committee draws up any particular document, it then has to go to our full NEC, in order to be ratified.

So, for example, in 2003, the Equality Committee drew up detailed advice and guidance to branches in a document entitled 'NATFHE and its Jewish members'. That was followed this autumn by a document 'NATFHE and its Muslim members'. (Personally, I think both documents should have been titled 'her' not 'its' members – the title should have been NATFHE and her Jewish members - but I wasn't in post when the document was written).

At events like this, there are likely to be NATFHE members and members of our sister union, the AUT. So it is worth putting some of this activity into context: I believe we are the only union to have published in the past five years detailed guidance setting out the rights of our Jewish members: looking for example at the new Employment Regulations on Religion and Belief, and thinking through what these mean in terms of entitlements to holiday leave, working arrangements and leave on week days, setting out how an individual who believes they have actually faced discrimination in the workplace might take it up – which should be through their union.

With our policy for our Muslim Members, we were the third union to publish such guidance, following on from the NUT and the NASUWT.

What is NATFHE's distinctive approach? First, we are a union, we believe that any securing of rights must have a workplace dimension. Let me give you an example, I was recently sent a dissertation by an Egyptian academic setting out what she thought should be the priorities for the women's movement in her country. Her politics were set by the big global questions – America, her cultural influence for ill and for good.

We circulated the document around colleagues, and found it interesting, but while we could share some of her particular 'feminism', we could hardly share all of it. We wrote back and said: what about equal pay? Domestic violence? The stereotyping of genders and what that means for working careers?

We think that same approach should be taken into fighting against anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim racism: we start with workplace conditions: the fact for example that around 10% of FE students are Muslim, and significantly less than 1% of lecturers are Muslim – what message can that send to people who might otherwise think of working in the sector? – unless we challenge the dynamics of stereotyping and occupational segregation that exclude black and Muslim lecturers, then actually we have done nothing for our members.

There is an idea that NATFHE spends its life planning international events. In fact, although we give modest support to campaigns around Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Venezeula and Colombia: we employ 100 staff of whom not one is a full-time international officer. This year I have attended six Zimbabwe solidarity events, and two Colombia solidarity events, and if this is a Palestine solidarity event, it's the first I've attended all year!

A second point and a different emphasis: we do believe that the present discussion of must be set in the context of 9/11: by which we mean the enormous pressure that has been put on society to search for culprits, the pressure that then puts on people who are different from the majority because we have a different experience of race, religion or migration, the intervention of the government, whether in Iraq, or at home, which has tended to leave all of us wondering how long our civil liberties will remain intact.

We argue that 9/11 has led to an enormous increase in anti-Muslim, but also anti-Sikh, anti-black and anti-Jewish racism. In a context of much fear and anxiety, we have common enemies. For example, last week, I read a report in the Guardian about a new government investigation into terrorist activities on campus. You may remember, it was the front page story eight days ago – last Friday. Through friends, I was able to track down a copy of the document. It gives you a strong indication of what some people – still only a minority thankfully – of civil servants and ministers – would like to see happen now. I have brought a copy here, which I will circulate.

This Glees report is a study of university involvement in three organizations which it terms terrorist – Al-Muhajiroun, Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK. The report has little to say about these groups – their size, their activity, what earns them the title 'terrorists'. Instead, it makes clear that any fundamental reorganizing of the British university system would have to start by clearing out a generation of lecturers who it describes as shielding them, a generation it describes at one point as 'the ageing of the young radical dons of the 1960s' and at another point as the few remaining advocates of 'free speech' on campus.

The way to change universities it argues is to give free reign to the security services: "The Security Services have spent too much time looking over their shoulder at the Government, at politicians and at powerful institutions such as the universities". The report's other recommendations include:

1 "full time police officers on campus"

2 A culture shift away from free speech

3 More security cameras on campus

4 "proper screening to exclude dangerous students"

5 "Interview all students to test them for their commitment to higher education."

6 "Abolish Clearing."

7 "Establish direct links between university registrars and immigration officers at ports of entry."

8 "Deny university places to any applicant, home or overseas, who cannot provide proof of identity."

9 "Maintain a friendly community police presence on campuses. Communities with populations measured in the tens of thousands need a regular police presence."

10 In future, government policy should be changed to prevent increased numbers of black students at university: "Ensure that the ethnic composition of any single university reflects, broadly, the ethnic mix of the UK as a whole."

The report portrays all Muslim students are potentially an enemy within. Those of us with long historical memories will know how quickly a climate of fear and suspicion can turn against other groups as well.

So to conclude: NATFHE holds that any project of fighting anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish racism has to take some account of the racism that people experience at work. Within our universities and colleges, there are gathering clouds of illiberalism, which this conference terms 'the fear of the other'.

We want to build a united workplace response to those threats.