SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL EDITORS' FORUM PRESS STATEMENT RE: CONCERN OVER UNIVERSITY CURBING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Sanef expresses concern at the growing cult among institutions to try to curb freedom of expression by instituting disciplinary action against employees for criticising conditions at those institutions.
Sanef has learned that the University of KwaZulu/Natal (UKZN) has instituted disciplinary proceedings against two of its professors, Nithaya Chetty (Physics) and John van den Berg (Mathematics), following statements they made which were reported in the media and in an e-mail posting and which were highly critical of the conduct of Vice Chancellor Professor Malegapuru Makgoba.
The two professors were interviewed in several newspapers, including the Mail and Guardian, earlier this year about their unhappiness with the way in which Makgoba allegedly blocked Senate's consideration of a Faculty of Science and Agriculture document on the state of academic freedom in the University.
The professors are now being charged with having failed to exercise due care in communicating with the media and for having released confidential senate information, as well as dishonesty and/or gross negligence.
Sanef contrasts these charges with the recommendations of a recently released report on institutional autonomy and academic freedom in South Africa, written by a Task Team established by the Council on Higher Education (CHE), where the proposition is made that if academic freedom is to be realised, higher education institutions must "protect the freedom of expression of academics...from undue sanction by their own institution". It adds that "Senates, as institutional bodies, are bound to uphold the right of individual academics to freedom of expression and freedom of scientific research".
Sanef has also taken note of a ruling by the Constitutional Court that employees have the right to criticise their employers - in this instance the employers were the SA National Defence Force (SANDF), which normally tries to ensure secrecy about its conduct.
Sanef has no intention of interfering in the issue which is the subject of the disciplinary hearings, but is deeply concerned about the effects of such disciplinary proceedings on media freedom and of access to, and the dissemination of, information about conduct in public institutions which is in the public interest.
Sanef has noted with concern there have been other cases where employees have been punished for speaking to the media about matters related to their employment conditions - material which is normally openly aired at trade union or professional institution meetings - and on the effect the punishments have on the flow of information.
One result is that employees stop voicing their complaints - leading to an unacceptable drying up of sources of information and thus public interest issues being kept secret. Another outcome is that such people supply information on the strict condition that their identities are protected by the media which leads to an undesirable increase in stories based on information from confidential sources.
Sanef underlines that academic freedom is an essential support for the maximum exercise of Constitutional freedom of expression by the media and people generally. Universities must diligently carry out a principled commitment to academic freedom - and thus the disclosure of public interest information.
Sanef has noted the punishment meted out to a student at a Western Cape educational institution for supplying information to a newspaper about improper conduct by students on campus, disciplinary action against "whistle- blowers" and, indeed, the dismissal of a journalist for disclosing conduct in a newsroom.
Statement issued by the South African National Editors Forum November 12 2008
