UCT is broke

The University of Cape Town (UCT) is broken, financially, organisationally and its ethos. This article explains why.

When I saw the title of the op-ed "Universities under siege: UCT and the assault on its autonomy and academic freedom" by Nazeema Mohamed in Daily Maverick, I thought it was going to be about how UCT's academic freedom is being threatened from within, and threats to university freedom in general. She is a member of UCT's council.

Instead, it was tirade against the Trump administration, Israel and UCT's donors who object to its resolution suspending academic ties with Israel. Although it's specifically about the US and other donors cancelling and threatening to cancel funding, Mohamed's wrath is directed against everyone who disagrees with UCT's council and executive policies and decisions. 

I'd never heard of Mohamed until now. But then I don't know who most council members are. I suppose I should; I'm an alumnus who has the right to vote. Or more accurately, I'm a former alumnus since I cut ties with UCT at the time of the Fallist coup and the executive's, Max Price in particular, capitulation. 

 I did not do so hastily or petulantly. Ironically, it was after Price's tone-deaf appeal to alumni and donors for pledges toward a R1 billion fund. At the time South Africans followed what was happening on campus with astonishment and alarm: intimidation, threats, violence, arson, destruction of property, curtailment of academic freedom and censorship. Appeals from the wide university community and citizenry, including my personal one to Price, for peace and order were ignored.

These actions were perpetrated by a relatively small, nebulous mob, among them reportedly slacking students and agent provocateurs. But they had help from some staff, actively or passively, the latter writing letters to the media justifying what was happening. 

Throughout all this and even when a semblance of normality descended on campus, UCT's executive colluded with the mob, helping them avoid accountability and justice. For their part, government and NPA were as bad for forgiving conspirators. No one went to jail for the hundreds of millions of rand damages to campuses countrywide.

So I cancelled my membership of the convocation in protest. A member of Price's executive emailed me promising to explain the "transformational challenges". I replied asking if it included violence and the actions by the university and others as described above. I never heard from him again or anyone else there.

At the time I'd hoped things would improve, although on the path they were on it seemed unlikely. Predictably, with the environment Price helped create, it worsened with the appointment of Mamokgethi Phakeng as vice-chacellor, the nadir of all things - with them, self-made problems - that could go wrong. In a case of karma, the exco member who emailed me was a casualty of Phakeng's purge of staff who opposed her or she never got on with.

Now the situation appears to be getting even worse. The fallout from UCT council's resolution on Israel has placed it in a funding and institutional crisis, again all its own doing. Vice-chancellor Mosa Moshabela warned about the "immense" risk to future funding from the US and Jewish donors and to UCT's financial sustainability and international standing. 

But Council doubled down on its decision, rather than moderate it as he requested. It speaks of their hubris, obstinacy and recklessness with other people's lives and the country's academic credibility. 

Worryingly, it's been suggested their intransigence is perhaps motivated by chairman Norman Arendse facing misconduct allegations relating to the resolution vote. If so, it has nothing to do with Mohamed's claims of "speak[ing] "truth to power", "safeguard[ing] democratic rights", "defending democracy and dismantling injustices" and "protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy", but protecting itself from allegations of abuse of power, personal misconduct and acting beyond its mission and competence, the usual SA governmental swamp. Given UCT's and Council's recent ten-year history, it's likely this is the case.

Mohamed's high-strung indignation and self-righteousness, which together with her leftist rhetoric (was she elected to respond because she's Muslim?) makes for poor argument, places all the blame for UCT's predicament on someone else. The fig-leaf they hide behind is "academic freedom", "knowledge and scientific truth", "academic enquiry", "free and open exchange of ideas", "opposing human rights abuses" etc. On its own this would be noble and righteous. But coming from them, it's hypocritical double-speak; their actions speak louder than words.  

Since Rhodes Must Fall a decade ago, the university has been actively denying academic freedom and enquiry and freedom of speech on one pretext or the other. This is well-known. And with two cases relating to Israel, they forced a law professor's resignation and vindictively denied him emeritus status, and suspended another following his lawsuit about the very thing Mohamed is aggrieved about: the loss and potential loss of funding connected with the resolution to cut academic ties with Israel.  

Mohamed's tone - combative, unapologetic, uncompromising - leaves a sour taste in my mouth. She preaches to the converted about justice and freedoms when her institution is hardly a good example of it. Neither are credible messengers.

Zealots want to tear down society's structures and recreate it in their own images. There are enough examples around the world, South Africa included. Despite warnings of what shall happen if UCT continues on this path, and it has already begun, Council is resolute. On principle they would see the university break than admit fault, failure or retreat. Except it's not they who would bear personal responsibility, innocent people would. Neither Price nor Phakeng did for the damage they caused. They retired with good pensions. 

Mohamed and the left including media who're outraged over donor funding cuts choose to forget the donor-beneficiary relationship is one way, entirely on the donor's terms. But the entitlement they display is stupefying. They truly believe they can insult the donor - like former ambassador Ebrahim Rasool did to his American hosts - and choose the terms of receipt and the gift would, and must, continue. It's hard for a rational person to understand.

I believe Israel has a case to answer at the ICJ. But the manner the council went about the resolution was designed to draw attention to itself - usually university politics doesn't interest outsiders, but not here. It's all about virtue signalling, huge egos and posturing, the louder the better which fails to hide how out of their depth they are. Unfortunately, now we won't know if there was a better way.

Thomas Johnson 

Former UCT alumnus 

Postscript: Daily Maverick invited responses to Mohamed's article as letters to the editor, as they do to other articles. I submitted the above, as I have on other occasions to other matters. It was not published, as previous letters weren't. Only they known why they invite letters from readers when they do not publish them, particularly right of reply. I believe it's pretense, though.

Of late DM, part of the mainstream media and leftwing, has become even more strident than they usually are in their coverage of social and political issues. They would condone what Mohamed wrote.