Arts Council England exhibition celebrating Windrush migrants, Leicester rail station, 2026.
On 19 May, the Cambridge Interfaith Programme hosted a special Inter‑Religious Research (IRR) seminar offering a critical reading of the UK government policy paper Protecting What Matters (PWM). Below is a short summary of the discussion—with the option to download a fuller report at the bottom of this page.
Chaired by Dr Iona Hine, the event brought together Cambridge researchers for a focused and wide-ranging discussion of how the paper frames cohesion, conflict, and the place of faith in public life. Contributors examined the policy’s underlying assumptions about national identity, resilience, and social division, asking how these frameworks shape both public discourse and lived experience. The seminar highlighted the importance of scrutinising how government narratives about cohesion intersect with questions of race, religion, and belonging.
Precedents and questions arising
Peach Hoyle (Faculty of Divinity) provided a summary for those who had not read the document in full—if chapter two is the policy carrot, “filled with incentives”, the stick soon follows, with much of chapter three geared toward managing migrants. Setting the policy in context of previous government efforts, Peach drew on Talal Asad’s coverage of the Rushdie affair, inviting everyone to consider Asad’s question: why talk about British values in this moment? Why do we need this document now?
Peach also highlighted the document’s choice to talk in terms of faith communities and so highlight this dimension of minoritization. “What”, Peach asked, “does it mean to talk about cohesion without addressing economic factors?”
A damaging absence
Dr Özge Onay (Department of Sociology) drew attention to a strongly-felt absence. PWM appeared the same day as a non-statutory definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”. While that definition was incorporated into the policy paper, there was no mention of its history and the more commonly used term “Islamophobia” was entirely absent. Onay highlighted how this silence reflects a wider failure:
“Anything structural, anything ambient, anything that doesn’t arrive with identifiable perpetrator and a demonstrable intent, falls outside the reach of the document. . . . [It] can see the damage, but not the dam”.
Forbidding dissent
Professor Esra Özyürek (Faculty of Divinity), who convenes the seminar series, focused her remarks on the document’s discourse, presenting three interconnected points.
The first is a naive presentation of national cohesion as something that has been ruptured and for which new arrivals are blamed, creating moral asymmetry. The second a kind of linguistic slipperiness in which cohesion slips into security and management—with the result that any dissent is threatening. Finally, she highlighted how the parallel presentation of antisemitism and Islamophobia (“anti-Muslim hostility”) set these two phenomena in competition rather than recognising the common dynamics that underpin both.
Competing projects
Dr Tobias Müller (CRASSH) approached the paper through the lens of political and social theory, encouraging participants to consider it with reference to three standard “state projects”: security, identity and diversity.
The security project sees (some) religion as potential extremism, a threat. The identity project enforces a kind of belonging, often with an appeal to something pre-existing with which newcomers must comply (even if others don’t)—speaking English is a prominent example. With it is a summons to pride and patriotism. The diversity project wishes to celebrate difference, but this is often superficial and quickly put down in pursuit of other aims.
Discussion and further reading
As the discussion opened out, respondents drew insights from anthropology and law, while professionals from outside the University made comparisons with the USA and other eras of British government. Topics included the stigmatisation of migrants, the failure to discuss significant drivers of inequality such as housing, and what we can learn by attending to historical and global contexts.
We are pleased to publish a 28-page report based on the seminar discussion. This covers much of what was said, blending summary, paraphrase and verbatim reporting—supported by key references. The report highlights key themes, arguments, and questions raised. It should be a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers working at the intersection of religion, society, and public policy.