UCT prof sues university over anti-Israel resolutions

Professor Adam Mendelsohn, the head of the University of Cape Town’s (UCT) historical studies department, is taking his university to court to set aside its recently adopted anti-Israel resolutions.

Mendelsohn, who is also the director of the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies at UCT, says the resolutions curtail his research and have profoundly negative implications.

He’s calling for UCT’s council, the establishment’s highest-decision-making body, to review or set aside the resolutions, which it formally adopted on 22 June 2024.

“I don’t pursue this course lightly, but the council hasn’t acted with responsibility,” Mendelsohn said this week. “Its failures will cost UCT dearly.”

He filed his affidavit in the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape division, on 29 August.

His application includes five supporting affidavits from UCT academics and Trevor Norwitz, who resigned as chairperson of the UCT Fund in 2023 in protest of the university’s one-sided anti-Israel stance.

“I was disturbed by the tone and content of the debate around these motions in senate, and then by council adopting them unchanged, errors and all,” Mendelsohn, also a member of the UCT senate, told the SA Jewish Report. “UCT has now endorsed a very problematic position on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. That Norman Arendse, the chairperson of the council, signed an agreement on behalf of the university in September last year committing to the IHRA definition, makes the adoption of such inflammatory language all the more surprising.

“I worry, too, about the implications for academic freedom, grant and donor funding, and the politicisation of the university,” said Mendelsohn. “When this was raised at the senate, they were shouted down and seemingly disregarded by the council in its decision-making.”

South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) spokesperson Rolene Marks said the SAZF welcomed the case. “The resolutions will have a severe impact on UCT’s ability to fundraise, limit academic freedom, and exacerbate the hostile environment for Jewish students at UCT. They also curtail UCT academics’ ability to engage with international counterparts.”

The first resolution states: “No UCT academic may enter into relations, or continue relations with, any research group or network whose author affiliations are with the Israel Defense Forces [IDF] or the broader Israeli military establishment.” The second resolution rejects “the IHRA conflation of critique of Zionism and Israel’s policies as antisemitism”, among other points.

Said Mendelsohn in his affidavit: “My research, which focuses on modern Jewish history, will be impacted by these sweeping resolutions. I cannot clearly anticipate the impact, which is precisely why they are irrational.

“But it’s clear enough that they will have a detrimental impact on my research, which often relates to or involves Israeli citizens, including citizens who were conscripted to the IDF or remain reservists.”

He goes on to clarify that “the council is not an authority on the lsrael-Hamas war, or on the conduct of the IDF. The council didn’t consult with experts or hear views of persons who represent parties to the conflict. The council is well-placed to speak on issues facing UCT, but not a complex war thousands of kilometres away.

“The resolutions limit academic freedom in two ways,” Mendelsohn said. “They preclude academics from ‘entering relations’ with certain groups or networks.” Then, “rejecting the IHRA definition of antisemitism is akin to taking a position on scientific theories or deciding that one scholar is right over another. That cannot be what ‘governing’ a university entails.”

Mendelsohn said his academic freedom will be impacted because he has networks that include Israeli citizens and universities. In addition, his research will be affected. For example, he is the principal investigator of a project tracking antisemitism on social media in South Africa. “Central to this research is the freedom to define antisemitism. The decision by the council to ‘reject’ the IHRA’s definition potentially imposes such restraints,” he said.

“The resolutions are hopelessly vague,” he said. “Crucially, the resolutions don’t provide for the consequences of entering the prohibited ‘relations’. UCT academics are in the dark.”

He said the council didn’t have the power to pass these resolutions, because in 2010, it adopted a policy regulating when it may take positions on public issues. “The council’s decisions contravene its own policy, making it unlawful.”

Furthermore, “The council didn’t afford academics affected by the resolutions an opportunity to be heard,” Mendelsohn said. He noted they set a dangerous precedent, easily banning academics from collaborating with scholars in other countries that may be seen as “undemocratic”.

Mendelsohn also raised concerns about how the resolutions will affect funding. “On 8 August, the recently-appointed vice-chancellor, Mosa Moshabela, said that in his first week, he had been informed that there had been a withdrawal of at least R300 million in donor funds. He said that wasn’t going to be the end of it.

“A senior colleague showed me a contract of a donation to UCT, for a very substantial amount, which includes as a term that UCT show zero tolerance for antisemitism, as defined by the IHRA,” said Mendelsohn. “The council’s resolutions place UCT in breach of this contract and at risk of losing the donation.”

This is echoed in Norwitz’s supporting affidavit, which explains that UCT may struggle to raise funds in the United States due to several states’ laws prohibiting donations to institutions boycotting Israel.

Norwitz told the SA Jewish Report, “There’s little doubt that the resolutions will harm UCT. It’s disappointing that individuals would abuse their positions and put political priorities ahead of their duty to act in the university’s best interests. Either the reconstituted council or the courts need to step in and repeal or invalidate these resolutions before real harm is done.”

In their supporting affidavits, other UCT academics from a range of disciplines including quantum nanoelectronics, organisational psychology, pathology, and economics expressed their concerns.

Professor Keertan Dheda, the director of the Centre for Lung Infection and Immunity at UCT, said that he was part of a “network” of academics that may be considered “affiliated” with the IDF or the “broader Israeli military establishment”.

For example, he collaborates with Professor Hossam Haick, a highly accomplished academic in Haifa. They recently submitted a grant application for tuberculosis research. “This is particularly relevant to South Africa, where TB remains a leading cause of death,” said Dheda. He fears this now may be torpedoed because of the resolutions.

He said the council had “signalled to the UCT community that there is a ‘right side’ to the Israel-Hamas conflict, and even a ‘correct’ definition of antisemitism. This has a profoundly chilling effect.”

Emeritus professor of philosophy at UCT, David Benatar, who has written about the deterioration of UCT, told the SA Jewish Report, “Given recent changes in UCT’s leadership, there is some reason for hoping that the new council won’t contest the case and will reverse the previous council’s decision. If that doesn’t happen, it remains to be seen whether the case will be considered fairly.”

In his affidavit, Mendelsohn said the case was urgent. “Once the council begins implementing its resolutions, academics will suffer harm that cannot be remedied. There can be no undoing of cancellations of existing relations with academics or interruptions to time-sensitive research. Second, there’s imminent concern that donors will withdraw funding.”

Marks notes that “reducing partnerships could potentially jeopardise UCT’s international rankings. If UCT is willing to base decisions on political expediency, it’s shutting itself down as a free academic institution.”

Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies Chairperson Adrienne Jacobson said, “Academics at UCT are exercising their constitutional rights. The matter is sub-judice, and we respect the legal process. This boycott will have major ramifications on university faculty, students, and the academic community.”

UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola said, “UCT has noted the review application filed in the Western Cape High Court by an academic staff member at the institution. UCT is considering the matter, and will respond through the relevant processes.”