I intended not to reply to UCT’s response to my resignation letter as Chair of the UCT Fund, but on reflection feel compelled to continue the polemic. This is in part because readers may not have seen my Statement and thus not realized that it was being mischaracterized, but mostly because, by rushing into a shoot-the-messenger mindset, UCT is wasting an opportunity for important self-reflection and course-correction.

The main thrust of the UCT response is that it was “reckless and irresponsible” of me to claim without providing evidence that alumni have complained to me that UCT is “hopelessly biased against Israel and even anti-Semitic,” because UCT is not anti-Semitic. The simple fact is that I have been contending with those sorts of claims for 20 years and, as I noted in my Statement, I have until now been defending UCT against them. The request for evidence of my having received such complaints is just silly (and in fact I have forwarded some of those to UCT). I know that UCT values diversity and inclusiveness and does not want to be, or be seen as, anti-Semitic. That is why Council must revisit its inappropriate statement.

The most recent engagement UCT Fund board members had with UCT leadership was prompted by concerns brought to our attention by alumni that speakers from anti-Semitic genocidal terrorist organizations were addressing UCT student groups and that flags of those organizations were being brandished on UCT campus. Those discussions satisfied us that Jewish students were not unsafe on campus and that UCT was not supporting such terrorist organizations. While we had hoped that UCT might disallow symbols calling for the genocide of Jews on campus, we accepted that in the current environment it was best to lay low and not rush in where angels fear to tread. This is why the Council statement a short while later came as such a shock.

The UCT response then suggests that it is only my own bias that leads me to question the impartiality of the Council statement. I admit I do have a strong bias: I am completely biased in favor of the truth. The Council statement dispenses with the truth when it comes to Israel. It asserts claims as facts – most significantly that Israel is deliberately killing civilians – that I firmly believe are outrageous lies but that are at best tendentious allegations. I urge anyone who has not done so to read my Statement in full, and also the article in this publication by UCT Law Professor Anton Fagan (thank you Anton for being a courageous ally for truth and against anti-Semitism).

I will also admit that I have a strong bias against terrorism, mass murder, mass rape (or even single rape or murder), torture, beheadings, genital mutilation, immolation, kidnapping, perfidy and use of human beings as shields. So it is not in fact ironic or even surprising that I am offended by a Council statement that claims to be even-handed as between Hamas and the State of Israel. Moreover, as I explain in my Statement, the Council statement reflects a palpable preference for Hamas over Israel, which is as shocking as it is disgusting.

I have never accused UCT of being anti-Semitic, but the Council statement, by using blood-libel symbols associated with classic antisemitism (like the reference to Israel waging a “war on children”), by applying double standards and requiring of Israel behavior not demanded of any other nation, and by insinuating (through references to “settler colonialism” and “apartheid”) that the Jewish people do not have a right to self-determination in their historic homeland, gets very close to the line, if it doesn’t stumble over it.

I agree that the academic environment must encourage critical thinking and diverse views. But this does not mean that there is no such thing as truth. To quote the late great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”   I repeat what I said last time: UCT has to do better.

Trevor Norwitz