I am writing in the hope that some of UCT’s best-of-the-best share deep concerns (outrage against?) about additional – and growing – threats (beyond ‘Anti-Racism’) to UCT as a TB-Daviean ‘Real’ university. These threats are ‘politics’ sensu lato and, in particular, anti-semitism (history’s oldest identity-based hatred) that join in undermining (crushing?) SA-Constitutionally-protected Academic Freedom and the ability to generate internationally recognized Excellence in education and research.
The most recent prominent victim of politically motivated and anti-semitic ‘activism’ at UCT is eminent ex-professor Anton Fagan, a highly respected educator and NRF-rated internationally acclaimed researcher. He was arguably forced to resign (‘constructively’ dismissed?) from his Chair in the Faculty of Law for challenging two anti-Israeli resolutions adopted by the UCT Senate – and rashly endorsed by UCT’s Council – concerning the war in Gaza and for the consequences of setting an exam question for his delict course that ‘trigger’-offended a small minority of students. These ’offenses’ prompted the Law Students’ Council to lodge an official complaint supported by an ‘anti-Zionist’ group called UCT4Palestine. In short, rather than be subjected to terror from the anti-semite brigade, Fagan ‘retired hurt’. It now seems that it is no longer possible for UCT academics to express their views on what constitutes ”truth and not what it is demanded by others for the purposes of sectional, political, religious or ideological dogmas or beliefs”. This ‘new policy’ undermines academics’ ability to discover, improve, and disseminate knowledge and limits the domain of inquiry and scrutiny of ALL aspects and ALL values of society. So much for “diversity”!
Now I hear that a “woke lynch mob” within Senate has added insult to injury by sabotaging the normal policy of awarding enforced-retiree Fagan’s status as emeritus professor. This disgraceful ‘activism’ besmirches his distinguished service and effectively severs his ability to ”remain active in the life of the university through teaching, lecturing, mentoring and advising faculty staff”.
Indeed, it seems that Senate ‘functioning’ is literally “Humanities and smatterings from other faculties vs the rest with the former being far more coordinated and vested in playing politics”, while the still Silenced Majority “try to educate students and publish scholarly work”. In short, some (many, too many!) advance their careers through grandstanding and writing non-peer reviewed opinion pieces.
Before I ask those of you better placed than a long-retired evolutionary biologist to use your professional skills and institutional influence to take action, let me explain my personal views on what constitutes real academically diverse freedom.
In the early 1970s, when I was choosing which university to attend to pursue post-Bachelors research, the University of Chicago UC was a ‘no-brainer’. It was populated by many of the best evolutionary, behavioural and ecological biologists at the time and ‘stars’ who worked elsewhere were frequent visitors. The other key factor was UC’s positions on political and social action – with the exception of matters that threaten the very mission of the University. These were outlined in 1967 in its pioneering and highly respected Kalven Report. In its essence, the Report explains that the very taking of institutional socio-political positions by the University “chills the environment for free expression and academic freedom”. It is essential that the University “remain a place where individuals and self-identified groups can explore and hold whatever positions they wish”. Tellingly, the report concludes:
“The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”
What needs to be done?
One way to effect Daviean ‘real’ transformation at UCT is to encourage major business-oriented donors and alumni to work in consort with members of Her currently “Silenced” academics and students and to emulate Bill Ackman. Bill is a double Harvard alumnus, billionaire entrepreneur and a major donor to the university. He not only publicized the drop of donations to Harvard because of its purported antisemitism, but also helped bring down its president for ‘context-justified’ inaction against anti-semitism.
My fellow evolutionary biologist and UC emeritus professor Jerry Coyne summarizes Ackman’s presentation entitled “Harvard: Buy, Sell or Hold?” by highlighting some of his slides. He concludes that Harvard (like UCT?) has become a ‘business’ aimed not at providing a quality education to students, but to fulfilling the dreams (retribution?) of a small, radical minority of ideologues. Its mission has changed from promoting learning to pushing a “progressive” ideology. In the process, it’s become woke and bloated with administrators and apparatchiks.
The time is ripe for UCT-Ackmans to act. If they don’t, who’s next in queue for wokist ‘activism’?
