In a statement in Politicsweb, Elijah Moholola, manager of the University of Cape Town's (UCT) media office, in high dudgeon, says the debate with Elisa Galgut and William Daniels about UCT's censorship of artwork is closed.
Judging from my and others' experience attempting to politely debate in private and public with UCT executives about matters the fall movement initiated proved to be futile. In my case, they either didn't respond or said they would, but I never heard from them again. UCT executive Russell Ally, with whom I correspondence and said he'd answer all my questions, too was "not open to listen to views that differed from his own".
Is Moholola/UCT taking offense at the word "bullshit" or that Galgut and Daniels are allegedly "not open to listen to views that differ from their own", or both? "Bullshit" is one of the minor expletives, still socially acceptable, perhaps not in formal correspondence but certainly so in an article published in a serious magazine, journal or paper read by mature adults. Recently well-known Wits academic David Everatt used "fuck" in The Conversation. The world did not end.
Is Moholola/UCT really that immature and insecure that they are offended by a word? Would he/they have preferred alternatives - manure, crap, faeces, turd, droppings ...?
Moholola et al are the people that prevented a invited guest Flemming Rose from giving a lecture. And they turned the other cheek to criminal and juvenile fallists, whom they defended and excused time after time after each outrageous action, when then vice-chancellor Max Price was verbally and physically assaulted and insulted; when fallists interrupted council and convocation business; threatened staff and students and prevented them from going about their business; when they burnt and destroyed university and public property; when they contributed to UCT's loss of reputation and so on. But Moholola is perturbed by the word 'bullshit'?
And despite all the things the fallists did - a group that shifted from week to week and had no standing and whose grade point average is probably below UCT's requirements but who were admitted and kept in UCT's system through God knows what slight of hand - UCT continued 'negotiating' and debating with them about the university's policy and future.
But UCT refuses to debate with intellectuals, alumni and academics like Galgut, Daniels, David Benatar, Tim Crowe (and me before I said UCT can go to pot)!
Elijah, once again you, your colleagues and university confirm how petty, immature and facile you are and that UCT is pointless and lost its way. It's pointless trying to discuss anything with you. It's not Galgut et al who are 'not open to listen to views that differ from their own', but you. I learned this two or three years ago. I had a very small hope a new vice-chancellor might change things and bring some maturity and common sense but I see that was never realistic.
UCT and Moholola said they shall not and "cannot engage with individuals", i.e., South Africans who are concerned about the state of UCT. That's their right. Therefore, I expect they shall not send another piece to Politicsweb for publication. And good luck to them in their silly little echo chamber.
Comments
Post a Comment