UCT continues its ignominious fall
At what point should one cease striving to the save the University of Cape Town (UCT) from itself, and instead give up on it? Those who do not think that that point was already reached years ago, should give serious consideration to the possibility that, in the light of very recent events, UCT is now beyond redemption.
On 16 October 2024 the new Vice Chancellor (VC), Professor Mosa Moshabela, took the decision to “put on hold” the Vice-Chancellor’s Open Lecture, that was due to have been given by Mr Claudius Senst.
Mr Senst, an alumnus of UCT’s Semester Study Abroad programme and currently the chief executive of BILD, which an earlier communication from the Vice-Chancellor had described as “one of Europe’s most influential and widest read newspapers”, was due to speak on the topic “The Interplay between Media, AI, Democracy and Governance”.
The Vice-Chancellor coyly advised the university community and alumni that the decision to shelve the lecture was made as a result of “a number of emails from stakeholders … expressing their deep concerns regarding this lecture”.
These stakeholders and the substance of their “deep concerns” were not disclosed, but it is reasonable to infer that the stakeholders are in fact opponents of the State of Israel – groups such as UCT4Palestine, and hundreds of signatories to an inflammatory, hyperbolic petition that casually tosses out accusations of “murder”, “fascism”, and “genocide”, without due regard for the meaning of these terms and their accurate usage.
This decision is another blow to freedom of expression at UCT. An invited speaker has (again) been disinvited on account of pressure from people who simply do not understand that the principle of freedom of expression extends not only to those with whom one agrees, but also (and especially) to those with whom one disagrees. (This is precisely why I have defended the campus speech of those whose views, and even those whose actions, I find deeply reprehensible.)
Given the principle of freedom of expression, there is no need, as the Vice-Chancellor has claimed “to pause the event, and allow for further discussions to take place without the time pressure”. Principles, like rules, apply generally and obviate the need to consider every case.
One need only pause to consider those cases that might fall within the highly restricted category of exceptions. However, because there was no reason to think that Mr Senst’s lecture would constitute “propaganda for war”, “incitement of imminent violence”, or “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”, his lecture is clearly not an exceptional case. Once an invitation has been issued, one does not bend to demands for it to be withdrawn.
Any suggestion that the lecture has merely been “put on hold” rather than cancelled is unconvincing (although the new VC could make it convincing by re-inviting Mr Senst to speak in the same forum). The “put on hold” maneuverer is a familiar one. Back in 2016, then VC Max Price, in justifying the decision to withdraw an invitation to Flemming Rose to deliver the Annual TB Davie Memorial Academic Freedom lecture, repeatedly claimed that the decision was that Mr Rose not be invited “at this time”.
The suggestion that Mr Rose might be invited at some future time was unconvincing then. The fact that eight years later he has still not been reinvited, bears out this scepticism. The same is true of the artworks to which censorial agitators objected, and which UCT claimed were “temporarily” relocated. It comes as no surprise that they have never been returned to their original positions.
The disinvitation of Mr Senst does not stand in isolation. It is part of a distinct pattern, in which those hostile to Israel are routinely invited and given a platform, while those not bowing to that narrative are repeatedly silenced or constrained.
This bias has had (at least) two other recent manifestations. The first concerns UCT’s maltreatment of Anton Fagan. While the W.P. Schreiner Chair of Law, he had written a number of articles in response to criticisms of Israel’s war against Hamas. Not long after, he was forced to take early retirement.
The pretext was an exam question he had set, in which he asked students to consider a hypothetical case in which a right-wing, holocaust-denying antisemite, masquerading as a Muslim terrorist, opens fire on a Jewish school in Cape Town. In response to the setting of this question, there was a call for disciplinary action against him. Professor Fagan clearly demonstrated how ill-informed and frenzied the criticisms were. Yet his Dean made it clear that he, the Dean, would not be standing behind Professor Fagan and that Professor Fagan should take early retirement.
Having been forced into early retirement, Anton Fagan was then refused Emeritus Professor status, an unprecedented act of victimization by UCT’s Senate, and one that can be expected to have a further chilling effect on campus.
The most recent manifestation of UCT’s abandonment of academic freedom is UCT Council’s decision (reported on 19 October 2024) to oppose Professor Adam Mendelsohn’s High Court application against UCT for violating his – and others’ – academic freedom, by prohibiting academic contacts with vast swathes of Israeli society.
The Bill of Rights in South Africa’s Constitution makes clear provision for a right to academic freedom. It is – or should be – quite clear that the academic boycott of Israel that UCT has imposed on its academic staff and students, is a violation on the freedom of staff and students to forge academic connections with whomever they wish.
It should also be clear that the boycott is not protected by the highly exceptional constitutional limitations on the right to academic freedom. This is because mere scholarly engagement with Israelis does not constitute “propaganda for war”, “incitement of imminent violence”, or “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”.
Senate, which first approved of the boycott, should have known this, not least because Professor Fagan was among those who told them. Council should have compensated for Senate’s lack of understanding. And once Council erred in violating the right to academic freedom, the new Council should have fixed the error. Instead, it is doubling down on the right-violation, purportedly in the name of “social justice and human rights enshrined in the Constitution”. Thus, it seems that the matter will now go to Court.
UCT has had the chutzpa to “appeal to the university community, the donors and all our stakeholders not to preempt (sic) the outcome [of the case] and take any action that might be premature”. However, UCT has already and repeatedly shown that it does not respect the rights to freedom of expression and academic freedom of those who, in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, have more to say in Israel’s favour. There is nothing premature about that judgement.
All that the outcome of Professor Mendelsohn’s case will show, is whether Professor Mendelsohn will get a fair hearing in the courts, or whether the South African toxicity towards Israel will stand in the way of a constitutional right being upheld. If it is not upheld, then it will not be only UCT that we have reason to give up on. We shall also have (further) reason to give up on South Africa.
