What is happening at our Universities? Why do some of these institutions, who are supposed to be at the forefront of debate and academic freedom, seem so eager to stifle dissent?
First it was reported that the University of Cape Town (UCT) has instituted disciplinary action against Paul Ngobeni, its Deputy Registrar, allegedly because of an article he wrote in June this year in Business Day about Judge President John Hlophe’s dispute with the judges of the Constitutional Court over allegations that he sought to influence two of them to find in favour of Zuma.
Then, last week it was reported 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.
If these allegations are true they represent a worrying trend among institutions of higher learning to stifle criticism and debate. Moves to stop academics and other employees of universities from criticising their institutions or taking part in broader political debates in society send out a signal that the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to academic freedom, is not appropriately respected by institutions of higher learning.
I have had quite heated arguments with Mr. Ngobeni (who once called me a racist!) and I believe that his views on John Hlophe and the Constitutional Court are misguided and even dangerous, but if UCT really is instituting disciplinary action against him because of something he wrote in his personal capacity relating to an issue of extreme public importance, I would be the first to argue that the university has completely overstepped the mark.
Ngobeni might well have been an unwise choice as Deputy Registrar, given the serious professional misconduct which led to him being disbarred as a lawyer in three states in the USA, but it would be constitutionally untenable for a University to try and discipline one of its employees for taking part in a debate of public interest which is unrelated to his job.
Freedom of expression is not absolute, of course, and an employee who engages in racist, sexists or homophobic attacks or who shows a callous disregard for proven facts and for the basic dignity of others may well be disciplined by an institution for breach of a code of ethics adopted by that university. But an institution can surely not discipline an employee because he made statements which they thought were controversial or with which they disagreed – even when these views were viewed as incendiary and stupid.
Such a move would have a chilling effect on other employees, who would think twice before engaging in public debates if they knew their own views did not accord with that of the University management. But Universities are supposed to be hotbeds of arguments and contestation and I would have thought employees at universities must be afforded some extra leeway in debating the issues of the day and even criticising their own institutions.
Earlier this year the Constitutional Court in SANDF Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Others made it clear that even soldiers had a right to take part in protest action in their private capacity as long as such protest did not affect the good order and military discipline. Universities do not require the same kind of discipline for its staff and for the institution to operate maximally, so employees of higher institutions should be given far more leeway to debate and criticise.
That is also why the actions of the University of KwaZulu-Natal seems worrying to me. Is the Vice Chancellor there so thin-skinned that he has to resort to disciplinary action merely because some Professors criticised his actions? For argument’s sake, if my institution engaged in unconstitutional discrimination against women or people living with HIV, I would be the first to criticise it and would not expect to be disciplined for uttering such criticism. If I am disciplined I sure as hell will take my case all the way to the Constitutional Court.
The best way to deal with criticism is to deal with it; that is, to rebut the criticism if it is wrong or to acknowledge the problem and to correct the mistakes if mistakes were made. This is how public institutions, funded by taxpayers, in a democracy ought to operate. Such institutions are required to adhere to values of openness and transparency as set out in our Constitution and cannot be run like secretive little fiefdoms merely because its leadership does not like to be criticised.
One would hope that in both these cases reports in the media had not given an accurate portrayal of what was going on because if these reports are correct it would reflect very badly indeed on our institutions of higher learning.
I think this is a pervasive problem among South African institutions, not only universities but also companies and other. Disciplinary hearings serve as a tool to silence and dismiss staff members who for some reason or other are not liked by those in power.
This is an abuse of power which will continue as long positions of authority are not seen to require responsibility, empathy, foresight and accountability but are symbols of power. People in authority are there to reign, not to perform and improve people’s lives.
Perhaps other societies do not differ much on this score but then it could also be a continued legacy from apartheid and colonialism during which power was absolute and turned into a real fetish.
This is my experience from Wits University but also from the private organisations for which I have worked for.
Prof., I think you are on the spot on this one and it’s really a shame on UCT to stifle debate for it’s where I was taught to argue rationally.
However I vehemently, as always, disagree with you personal onslaught on Paul Ngobeni as I agree with his persuasive argument for the Honourable JP!
Prof, I agree with both Mdu and Thomas. Stifling debates is a diabolic phenomena in our society. Recently I read a disturbing news paper report about an inquiry into the hoax e-mails in the ANC and how, when presented with the internal report that pointed at him as the source of the problem, Mr. Mbeki and the NEC of the ANC, rejected the report. Billy Masetlhe was savaged as aresult, but thanks to the Constitutional Court that cleared him.
About Paul, I sometimes feel Prof plays the man and not the ball, like he is doing now. I really do not see the relevence of including Ngobeni’s past record when dealing with freedom of speech. Anyway, that’s your freedom of speech, Prof.
I’m not very clued up on freedom of expression or academics but I do feel that this is a grave injustice to the academic freedom which should be afforded to everyone involved with universities.
If academic freedoms are not respected at some of the country;s top universities then can we expect it to be respected elsewhere? If staff are subject to censure then how can one value their work? Institutions of higher learning need to be tolerant of many differing views and a know that their survival is dependant on the culture of debate and research at the institution. This is very saddening and could signal many more abuses to come. I hope that I am wrong and that common sense will prevail. In the case of UKZN I hope Prof Alan Rycroft will have a very successful defence of Professors Chetty and van den Berg. I hope he does not, in turn, land in hot water for having convictions. I am quite unhappy that UKZN is makig this a costly affair by hiring two advocates, one of whom is SC. Why should the institution suffer even more because of the hubris of the Vice-Chancellor?
This is a waste of time and money and a great disappointment in the management of UKZN and UCT.
As for Ngobeni, I feel that he should be careful. If Jhonny (Hlophe JP) really has been a bad boy and daddy (the JSC) punishes him then Ngobeni will be seem to be of questionable character. Rather like JZ and Shaik. I do, however, feel that his right to express himself in his personal capacity is important, as it is for everone else.
Mdu // Nov 14, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“However I vehemently, as always, disagree with you personal onslaught on Paul Ngobeni as I agree with his persuasive argument for the Honourable JP!”
It is these little Ngobeni and JP niggles of Prof and everybody’s reaction to them that that make this blog the interesting one it is. So lets not stop falling for the bait.
@Nkululeko. “I sometimes feel Prof plays the man and not the ball.” I’m surprised you’ve made that distinction because in this article, which is about freedom of expression, it is exactly the other way around. It is not about Ngobeni. Maybe you just heard the saying somewhere but failed to fully understand it.
Addressing students at the University of Limpopo’s Turfloop campus, Malema apparently accused Terror Lekota of being a tribalist.
Since it was suggested by Mdu ( Nov 13, 2008 at 12:35 pm ) that I might be tribalist
[“That the odd children were Xhosa and that one of the reasons given for not willing to vote for him was that He is a Zulu, actually what are you trying to potray yourself as, a tribalist, such has no place in the ANC, and normal grade 11 and 12 wont vote!”]
My question remains how does one distinguish a tribalist from a racist from a nationalist?
“but it would be constitutionally untenable for a University to try and discipline one of its employees for taking part in a debate of public interest which is unrelated to his job.”
Prof, I agree with you. But doesn’t Ngobeni get some mileage out of making sure that he always gives his job title at the same time as he says he is writing in his personal capacity? Therefore every time he publishes an article, UCT’s name is associated with it whether his views are in line with theirs or not.
Maybe you can explain how this works, as I realise that many people write or speak in their ‘personal capacity’ – you, for instance! – while their readers know what their ‘professional capacity’ is. Where is the line drawn: academics, it is clear, should be encouraged to enter the debate; politicians wouldn’t be doing their job if they failed to. Now that he is retired, Judge Kriegler can give his views on constitutional or other matters. But surely Edwin Cameron or Pius Langa, Anonymouse, etc, can’t publicly state a personal view on judicial matters. Especially if it relates to other judges’ or magistrates’ decisions.
Is Ngobeni working as an academic at UCT or as an administrator? Or both?
Sarah:
Do not worry! You still the hottest.
Ahem.. try to find out what happened to UNISA. Their vice-chancellor Barney Pityana only said two words against Jacob Zuma and now his COSATU staff is calling for his head for “unethically aligning himself with the disgruntled new breakaway party”.
Seems that if he were to align himself with the Zuma communists, it would be ethical. Pot: Hello, black Kettle. Kettle: Hello, black Pot.
Why do so many of you write under pseudonyms on this blog? By using another name you lessen the full impact of your missives. If, however, you HAVE to use a pseudonym, for God’s sake, let it be clever and witty. The current lot of names are frightfully dour, dear hearts.
Herman Lategan // Nov 17, 2008 at 10:58 am
Why do so many of you write under pseudonyms on this blog?
So yours is not a pseudonym?
Prof, for the first time! I fully agree with your analysis. I mean you are hundred percent correct. I so wish the great DEFENDERS OF THE CONSTITUTION (C.O.P/COPE/COKE/SHIKOTA/SADECO/SANC) or whatever their name is-can NOW defend the constitution. But i agree 100% with you-i.e as far as this article is concerned, I m “100% P.D.V” -nothing tribal about that!
Herman Lategan
If, however, you HAVE to use a pseudonym, for God’s sake, let it be
clever and witty.
As you are clearly an arbiter in such matters, would you care to indicate which pseudonyms are witty, which clever, which dour and which none of these.
But then, one person’s wit is another’s woo, so rather keep your judgements to yourself and focus on the debate.
Spuy, your last sentence had me in stitches!
Tatera, I have finally taken the liberty to attempt to answer your question with, of course, the assistance o Concise Oxford English Dictionary. I have a feeling that you want to betray my ignorance once I have defined these for you:
Nationalist-: one who betrays patriotic feelings, principles or efforts and/or one who is extremely patriotic accompanied by feelings of superiority over other nations;
Racist-: one who believes that each race or ethnic group possesses specific characteristics, abilities or qualities that distinguishes it as inferior or superior to another such group;
I could not find the definition of a tribalist but common sense dictates,and having taken my cue from the above definitions, that a tribalist is one who believes that each tribe possesses specific characteristics,abilities or qualities that distinguishes it as inferior or superior to another such tribe.
I hope I have finally answered you and now awits your response.
Mdu – thanks for the elucidation to Tatera, and I agree with your view on what a ‘tribalist’ is. Someone who calls someone else a “Xhosa bastard” just because he holds opposing views than the other (a “Zulu …?”) is clearly a racist (which does not only distinguish between black and white to qualify as racist, but also between ethnic groups) and, therefore, a tribalist.
Herman – for some pseud’s you will have to go back quite a number of blogs to determine the true rationale (cleverness / wittiness) behind them.
Herman! Mine is truely my surname not a pseudonym. But if anyone so much as stalk me-someone like u Herman maybe- I ll call on Julius Malema who had me in stitches when he said ANC members must make anything looking like Lekota to run @ their branches….Run Lekota ruun!…In your case he ll say… Run Herman ruun!…(if u or anyone stalks me!)… Forget witty n clever pseudonyms and focus on debate or else you ll….ruun!….
Thank you Mdu and Anonymouse for your honest contributions.
Once one gets past the thorny issue of defining what a tribe, race, or a nation is, it boils down to somebody thinking s/he is better than the next. And that, in our present situation in South Africa, will not contribute to our survival.
How do you define white and black? When are you white and when are you black? Why is Obama black and not white? You may remember me asking previously why is somebody who is half black considered black and somebody who is half white also considered black. Half clean, and half dirty considered inferior? Is that not racism?
I believe in the USA somebody from North Africa (presumably Arabs) is considered White. So the definition varies depending on who you speak to.
Although based on external morphological characters and cultural differences one may believe there are racial/tribal grouping in Homo sapiens, genetically this is not the case. However, we are not all the same. I know I am not, I just have to compare myself to Mandela or Einstein and it becomes abundantly clear. But that does not mean that we should not all have access to equal opportunities and work towards providing it to all. What we do with the opportunities is up to us.
I find it a natural tendency for one group (what ever it may be) to think that they are better than the next. Reminds of my high school and university days. We considered the neighbouring school inferior to ours. Similarly at university we consider the one down the road to be inferior to us. Years later when I got some sense, I realised that in fact my university or then at least my faculty, was inferior at the time.
However, even if it is a natural tendency it does not make it right. In South Africa we will sink together if we do not respect each other and work together towards a better life for ALL.
I believe Eleanor Roosevelt (or was it Ghandi) said, nobody can take your dignity away unless you give to them.
These so-called “disciplinary” actions are not new to the University of Kwa Zulu Natal community. This trend has its provenance on the opression of students by both the academic and the management staff. In most cases when members of this institution enjoy their public use of reason, they become subjected to drastic disciplinary measures and hypocriticism from “intellectuals”. Difference in opinion is seen as counter-revolutionary, hence when your statements do not coincide with those of seniors, you are immediately assumed to be a non-member of the ANC, who is just trying to create a platform for illogical debate. The same institution is yet again faced with problems that once challenged “Dr.” Somadoda Fikeni. Could this be the ruin of the reputation that has long been fragile since the amalgamation? “Proffessor” Cowling will determine.
Tatera // Nov 17, 2008 at 8:20 pm
You wrote:”How do you define white and black? When are you white and when are you black? Why is Obama black and not white?……”
Perhaps Gregor Mendel can help answer your question, Obama is neither white nor black. Genetically he carries both black and white (skin colour) genes (he does however carry many other genes such as hair type, eye colour, nose shape, brain power, digestive system, metabolism, etc etc). In a particular person some genes are dominant and others recessive. Which is dominant in Obamas case? Think about this: if your skin is darker because you have one black and one white parent you are a person of colour (coloured), now some coloureds have straight hair and other coloureds have “kroesies” and that is an easy way to answer your question.
Retsrov // Nov 18, 2008 at 8:57 am
Thank you for your reply. I seem to recall that you are a scientist. I, however, do not have any problem with the genetics of species/subspecies/race. If I have any expertise, part of it is in this field. It is the philosophy (politics?) (in which I am a complete amateur) and perceptions behind it that bugs me.
You are the first person I can recall calling Obama a coloured. Although in South Africa that is what many would call him but up to now nobody has. Why? My question remains why is a coloured “black” sometimes but never “white” (not genetically but in our minds). Racial politics!?
Many so-called whites in South Africa have genes (blood) of other “races” in them and are therefore genetically so-called coloured but because it does not show in their phenotype they are still considered “white”.
It all shows that our definition of race is bizarre.
We still have a very long road of reconstruction ahead.
Tatera – Indeed, the road to reconstruction is going to be long. The problem is, our forefathers (and -mothers) have for some “irrational” (I suppose it depends on how you look at it) reason decided to distinguish between races (not sure whether coulour has everything to do with it all – there are black, ebony, white, off-white, ivory, brown, dark-brown, light-brown, pinkish, yellowish, etc people on earth; also not sure whether language, tribe or culture has everything to do with it); and to form (establish) perceptions of superiority/suborndination according to what race one belongs to. I don’t know how ‘race’ can be defined, and if I know, it would be much easier to define ‘racism’. I don’t think science or politics have all the answers, neither do I think religion has all the answers. (However, when God said to Abraham his descendants would be like the sand of the sea, He might have had a point – just take a handfull of sand from the seashore, look at it and behold the huge amount of different colours and hues in the pebbles.)
Further problem with racial politics is of course affirmative action. I cannot see how one could define in a broad and general basis, what groups of people have been previously disadvantaged simply by relying on their racial “classification” (which was, and still is, a political way of thinking and defining people). Some people (albeit the minority of them) who were regarded as “black”, “Indian” or “coloured” in the previous dispensation were not at all disadvantaged, yet they reap the rewards of the discriminatory practices of the previous regime. Some people who are white, did not share the advantages of the past, yet they bear the brunt of affirmative action. We are livcing in a mad, mad world, I tell you.
Anonymouse // Nov 18, 2008 at 11:06 am
“We are livcing in a mad, mad world, I tell you.”
INDEED!!!!
Tatera – yes, sorry for the typos – but that’s the way it goes when one works fast.
Mouse and Tatera, I agree with and thank you for your well-reasoned postings.
Tatera // Nov 18, 2008 at 10:22 am
Tatera,
I agree with you, we have a looong road of reconstruction ahead. I also agree with Mouse, we are living in a mad mad world.
I once heard a white person say the following about a coloured:
“’n kleurling is soos jou broer in die tronk, jy is lief vir hom, maar jy praat net nie oor hom nie”
I took that as : a coloured man is his WHITE brother, but he is embarrassed about him.
Isnt it amazing that when, in many cases, the sexual desires of man takes over, he becomes colour blind, even in a racist community, in this mad mad world. The moment the sexual tension has been “released” his eyes see colour again. We have a looong road ahead….
Retsrov // Nov 18, 2008 at 8:57 am
Tatera // Nov 17, 2008 at 8:20 pm
You wrote:”… Why is Obama black and not white?”
The reason Obama is African American is due to the “one drop” rule in the US. It works more as a non-white category, hence the bristling of black Amercians to the use of the term non-white. So no one is denying his white mother but the system.
Thanks Guys!!
Sex is thegreatest converter!
Tatera – come join the free-for-all on the latest “Malema – secret weapon post”? It’s fun.