The inquiry into the conduct of former University of Cape Town vice-chancellor Mamokgethi Phakeng has confirmed allegations of mismanagement, unethical conduct and victimising staff. The report's publication has released claims and counter-claims from critics and supporters.
But lost in all the Sturm und Drang is the fact her conduct was a consequence of decisions and actions then VC Max Price, the executive and council made almost eight years ago.
But first, down the memory lane. In 2009 as a recent, mature UCT Master's degree graduate, I made enquiries at my former academic unit, the African Centre for Cities, about enrolling for a PhD. The distinguished (late) Prof. Vanessa Watson asked if I knew the difference between a Master's and PhD. The insulting implication was I was not worthy or qualified as a potential candidate. The director of ACC Edgar Pieterse ignored my enquiry and request to join their regular seminars but a third professor was encouraging.
I was not a chancer, though. I was at or among the top of my class and completed the degree while holding a full-time job. So Watson's spite was egregious and Pieterse's snub puzzling. PhD candidates are not required to enroll with near-completed theses. (A fellow mostly full-time student who had passed only moderately well had been invited to the seminars and enrolment for PhD.)
The two petty professors did me a favour, though. I never enrolled for the PhD because I then thought that after three to five years of slog, what would my research matter to the wider world. What practical applications do most academic research have anyway? And unlike them, as a working person I already had a real job, modestly contributing to society (at the time I worked for an NGO working in skills development for disadvantaged youth), which I suspected they didn't.
I mention this because academia, including UCT which likes to think it's different, is filled with pettiness, spite and jealousy. But these are the people who hold the future of young people in their hands and are gatekeepers to a successful career.
There's a saying that academic disputes are vicious because so little is at stake. That's what strikes me about the former VC Mamokgethi Phakeng brouhaha, that it's nothing more than a vicious academic fight by, really, immature people out of touch with the real world. As much as Phakeng and former council chair Babalwa Ngonyama further damaged UCT's reputation, it was already damaged when they were appointed.
Most people, including UCT community and especially the inquiry panel who investigated Phakeng, choose to forget her appointment was a direct consequence of then VC Max Price's, the executive's, certain staffs' and council's capitulation and collusion with the black extremist and nihilist Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall movements. The fire these movements started spread across campuses countrywide, resulting in violence and damage to university, public and private property costing almost a billion rand for which no one was prosecuted.
It was in this environment Phakeng was appointed - a continuation and ongoing appeasement of the extreme left and undemocratic culture that had taken root which included banning art. What the university needed in a new vice-chancellor was strong leadership and to bring a return of some normality and rebuilding of the community's, including alumni and benefactors', confidence after Price's disastrous tenure.
Instead, almost immediately Phakeng caused controversy. Ironically among her victims were senior staff who with Price courted left/black extremist agendas. But to Phakeng they were not extreme enough! To the cynics, and I'm one, it could not have happened to nicer people.
It's moot now whether or not she was qualified to be vice-chancellor. As far as council was concerned she had the right credentials: black and a black woman who, one assumes, during the selection process espoused the prevailing political views. Is anyone surprised she's supported by the EFF?
In two articles in Daily Maverick this week former UCT council chairman Sipho Pityana is disingenuous now defending her and thereby himself and his council for her selection. They take no responsibility. But look at their history.
During the chaos of university riots, they did nothing to mitigate it. They granted amnesty to students guilty of serous misconduct. So it's no surprise council - under him and Ngonyama - overlooked problems with Phakeng. That it was allowed to reach the level it did speaks to the absolute failure of leadership and management that started under Price.
It's only in exceptional cases the media publish, especially op-eds, anonymously. These reasons include threats to person. Anonymous' piece this week in DM criticising Phakeng's appointment by the UCT council does not meet the criteria though. DM describes him/her as a "senior leader at the University of Cape Town with first-hand knowledge of the processes that led to the establishment of the panel and the subsequent response to the findings by the council and UCT" who requested anonymity for "fear of reprisals". Who from, though? Pityana and Phakeng are no longer there. Anyway, if he/she was as close to proceedings as claimed, insiders including Pityana and Phakeng would know who it is - assertions, the small pool of people involved and style of writing are giveaways.
No, the anonymity is nothing more than what it appears to be: cowardice and denial of responsibility like that which led to Phakeng's and Ngonyama's excesses, and before that, Rhodes/Fees Must Fall's. Without the guarantee of a signature, it's nothing more than carping from the sidelines and more immaturity from UCT's academics and management. If this is their template for the future, nothing positive will happen there.
For such a large body of people in UCT's community, past and present, at the time there were surprisingly few critics of the Price administration's handling of RMF and FMF. I was one of them. In 2016 critics predicted Price's appeasement of left extremist politics would lead to a continuation of leadership problems and eventual declining standards. Seven years later the former is true, although it's too soon to say with the latter but people like UCT philosophy professor David Benatar indicate it's not promising. For various reasons including unethical leadership, distinguished professor Jonathan Jansen also predicts a grim future for South African universities.
The fire that gutted UCT Library in 2021 is an apposite if unfortunate metaphor for what has happened at the university since 2016. Irreplaceable resources were lost, some for ever and others can be replaced. But the ongoing fallout - Phakeng - of 2016's tectonic shift shows UCT has lost its place as the finest South African university despite what fickle rankings might say (which anyway the left argue are irrelevant and an inaccurate indicator of excellence), and that it has lost its way. The unhelpful, childish squabbling and aversion of responsibility - the South African affliction - revealed by both Pityana and Anonymous indicates it will not find its way back soon.
In 2016 I dissociated myself from UCT. Nothing's changed that makes me reconsider.
Comments
Post a Comment