27 March 2019

Dear UCT Council,

The South African Union of Jewish Students (SAUJS) is the representative body of Jewish students at the University of Cape Town.

We write to convey our concern and disappointment following the Senate’s decision to support the Academic Freedom Committee’s (AFC) proposed boycott of Israeli academic institutions. This motion is termed a “limiting measure”, but is carefully designed to target every single Israeli academic institution, as well as students and academics at those institutions. Even if only a few Israeli universities were to be affected by the boycott, it would, however, remain unacceptable. We believe that implementing this measure at UCT would be severely discriminatory towards Jewish students on campus. It would also have a detrimental impact on UCT and its reputation as an institute of excellence, its commitment towards academic freedom, and its international standing.

SAUJS is a Jewish organisation representing Jews on campus, and our members have an intrinsic spiritual, religious and historical connection to Israel. It follows that we are key stakeholders on any issue relating to Israel and will be most affected by any measure to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Notwithstanding this, we have been repeatedly excluded and denied the opportunity to engage, participate and make representations on this boycott issue since it began two years ago.

We have been forced to question whether Jewish students have the same right to freedom of expression and participation that are guaranteed to other students and bodies at UCT. Unlike other stakeholders in this matter, we have repeatedly been denied our right of reply, of offering our point of view, of participating and being represented in various discussions, of protest at meetings, and of accessing the minutes and documents at various bodies including the AFC and the Senate.

In the Senate meeting on 15 March 2019, to take one example, in which the AFC’s proposal was discussed, SAUJS was excluded and barred from the opportunity to provide arguments against the proposal to the Senate. It is impossible for academics and interested parties to make an unbiased and informed decision on this highly complex matter when only one biased set of arguments for the measure are presented in a Senate agenda pack, and opposing arguments are excluded and not allowed by the Registrar.

Procedural fairness has been in question throughout this entire process. The AFC could not possibly have presided over the matter and come up with their proposal without bias, given that some members have made no attempt to hide such anti-Israel bias or their affiliations with anti-Israel organisations, and, not to mention, have made no attempt to hide such anti-Israel bias. Such fact is made clearer when a committee that is supposed to be premised on academic freedom even considers an academic boycott.

If the AFC were truly concerned with academic freedom issues, and decided to engage with international issues, then why was this body intensely and obsessively focused with Israel for multiple meetings, giving it inordinate airtime over every other local or international issue at the University. This smacks of double-standards, narrow political agendas and discrimination.