ANT KATZ

During the Gaza conflict, The Palestinian Solidarity Forum (PSF) and the then-Student Representative Council (SRC) at the University of Cape Town had called upon the University’s management to make a statement on behalf of UCT in solidarity with the Palestinians around the Gaza conflict.

In particular there has been a demand for the university to:

• Declare unconditionally that Israel is an apartheid state;
• Support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign;
• Not renew UCT’s contract with the security company G4S; and
• Call for the South African government to cut diplomatic ties with Israel.

With the change of power in the SRC (SEE: BDS GROUP ROUNDLY DEFEATED IN SRC ELECTION) and the resounding defeat of the PSF – the pressure from both groups is expected to abate.

Price had addressed the following letter to the university’s alumni a week before the SRC elections, as published by POLITICSWEB:

UCT Management statement on Gaza conflict

Dear [Alumnus],

We do not normally write to you about every controversy on campus – as interesting as many of the debates are, this would be an abuse of your inbox.  However, we have now received a significant number of e-mails from alumni expressing concern about tensions on campus around the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the war in Gaza.

The UCT Palestinian Solidarity Forum drafted a memorandum which was then endorsed by the Students’ Representative Council (SRC) to support these calls:

Declare unconditionally that Israel is an apartheid state.

Support the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) at our university, as well as nationally and internationally.

Call for the South African government to cut diplomatic ties with Israel.

The memorandum also calls on UCT not to renew UCT’s contract with the security company G4S.

Please refer to our response  (see below) which explains first why UCT as an institution cannot support the resolution, and furthermore, why UCT will not support any form of academic boycott, whether against Israel or anyone else.   Not surprisingly, we have received correspondence both in support of and opposed to the SRC resolution and both supportive of and critical of the University’s response.

I wish to emphasise that, first, while the SRC is free to adopt any position it likes, such a position is quite distinct from the University’s institutional position, and the SRC has no power to commit the University to anything. Second, I wish to assure you that UCT remains committed to keeping the campus a safe place for responsible freedom of speech and academic debate on important issues such as this one.

The University recognises that there are many staff members and students with strong opinions on either side of the issue, and we encourage all of them to take part in these discussions in a peaceful and responsible manner.

Finally, the South African Union of Jewish Students at UCT has circulated very widely a letter claiming that the SRC has violated the rights of students, and that the resolution  stands in contravention of the South African Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is completely untrue. The letter I have written to SAUJS rejecting these allegations, is here (also below) if you wish to read it.

Sincerely, Dr Max Price, Vice-Chancellor, UCT

UCT’s prior response to anti-Israel measures

Text of earlier statement by Price re call on UCT to implement boycott:

The University community is distressed by the loss of life as a result of the conflict and we offer our deepest condolences to all the families affected. However, after extensive discussion, UCT management has concluded that we cannot support the statement and demands of the PSF and SRC.

The reasons are as follows: Firstly, while as individuals in the management team we all have views on the conflict between Palestine and Israel, and there is significant overlap in our views, when UCT management speaks, it is necessarily a position that it takes on behalf of the institution; it is read by the members of staff, students and the public as an institutional position. So the call to management to support the above is therefore a call to the institution to take a position.

UCT is not reluctant to take such a position when there is sufficient clarity on the essential issues, and especially when there is a clear moral imperative. But given how controversial and highly contested the interpretation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is, including disputes over the facts and interpretations of motives, we do not think at this stage that there is a shared or even dominant view on these issues.

Does this mean we can do no more than maintain silence? The answer is no.The evidence, from on-campus marches, to Israel Apartheid Week, to the stream of speakers visiting UCT to address related topics, is that a large number of our students and staff feel involved in or affected by the Israel-Palestine issue and would like their university to show some moral and intellectual leadership on the issue. That, it seems to us, is good enough reason to engage.

The University’s role is to create and protect safe spaces for controversial and competing views, and to nurture rational debate on difficult issues in accordance with the principle of academic freedom.

We also have a duty to provide thought leadership. We will initiate a project inviting essays from members of the university offering analyses of, arguments about and possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Gaza war. In producing an anthology of position papers from across the University, we hope to re-emphasise the point that on the one hand the University as an institution does not have a single view, and on the other, that the University is a place where ideas, argument and reason matter.

Implicit in creating the space for debate is a position on the academic boycott. While there are many in our community who may support divestment, sanctions and other boycotts, UCT (through its Academic Freedom Committee) takes the view that academic boycotts are in a category of their own and should almost never be supported by universities. The day we ban people from speaking on our campus because we do not agree with their politics, is the day we sacrifice our commitment to academic freedom and the ability to protect different, unpopular, and dissident views, and set ourselves up to repeat the errors of the Galileo affair.

Finally, the PSF and SRC specifically called on UCT management not to renew its contract with G4S. The information about G4S activities and an alleged record of abuses, both in Israel and elsewhere, is disputed, but UCT will conduct its own assessment prior to making a decision on renewing the contract. As is the case with all contracts, when this one becomes due for renewal it will be put out to tender and many factors will be considered, including the findings of this assessment.

In summary, while UCT as an institution is unable to support the call to take a stand on the specific issues condemning Israel, we uphold the rights of individual academics and students to do so and will facilitate the promotion of all views and serious debate.

Dr Max Price, Vice-Chancellor, University of Cape Town.

SAUJS’ statement to UCT students

Dear UCT students,

It has come to our attention that the SRC at the University of Cape Town has adopted a resolution that represents a flagrant violation of the rights of students on campus. The SRC has unconditionally agreed to place their full support and influence behind this shameful resolution which calls for the SRC to:

– Declare unconditionally that Israel is an apartheid state.

– Support the call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) at UCT, as well as nationally and internationally.

– Call for the government to cut ties with Israel through ending trade relations, expelling the Israeli Ambassador, and withdrawing the South African Ambassador from Israel.

– Call for university management to support and implement this cultural and academic boycott throughout.

This resolution was adopted without the procedural consultation and input of the majority of UCT students. Most importantly, the SRC has failed to respect the multitude of opinions held by its close to 27 000-strong constituency. Recognising that no consultations were held, the SRC’s adoption of this resolution represents nothing more than their personal opinions and a violation of the duty they undertook once duly elected.

This resolution stands in contravention of the South African Constitution and the enshrined rights which the Bill of Rights was purposed to protect:

Section 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa

Freedom of association.-

Everyone has the right to freedom of association.

Section 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa

Language and culture.-

Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

Section 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa

Cultural, religious and linguistic communities. –

(1) Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community –

(a) to enjoy their culture, practise their religion and use their language; and

(b) to form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society.

(2) The rights in subsection (1) may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

This resolution contrary to the spirit, purport and object of the Bill of Rights has taken a position which is heavily biased, aggressive and divisive on campus that has embarked historically and presently, to represent the views and opinions of all South Africans.

UCT students must hold its SRC to account and call on them to consider the differing views of its students and recall its unconstitutional and regrettable decision to adopt this resolution.

The letter was co-signed by Luigi Bonfig, chairman; Amy Kessler, vice-chairman; and Carla Frumer, treasurer

Price’s letter to SAUJS leaders at UCT

Text of the August 26 letter by Dr Max Price to leaders of the SA Union of Jewish Students at UCT, in response to an e-mail they circulated about a recent resolution passed by the Students Representative Council:

Dear Leaders of the SAUJS at UCT,

I am writing in response to the e-mail you are circulating among UCT alumni around the world, about the resolution passed by the Students Representative Council (SRC) to declare unconditionally that Israel is an apartheid state; support the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) at our university, as well as nationally and internationally; and call for the South African government to cut diplomatic ties with Israel.

As you will recall, the PSF and SRC called upon the University management to support their resolution. I am attaching our reply, which explains first why UCT as an institution cannot support the resolution, and furthermore, why UCT will not support any form of academic boycott, whether against Israel or anyone else.

I am extremely disappointed by your e-mail for several reasons: In the first place, you make unfounded statements that that the SRC has acted illegally, unconstitutionally or outside of university procedures in passing this resolution. I need to know how you have come to this conclusion, and how your rights as South African citizens and students of UCT have been breached.

As leaders of a registered student organisation at UCT, you are aware of the rights and privileges you are accorded. These include the right to call meetings of like-minded students (freedom of association), to discuss anything you wish, and to invite outside speakers of any political persuasion onto campus (freedom of expression).

Your rights also include structures for bringing a complaint to the University if you feel you are being mistreated by any other student organisation (right to dignity). To my knowledge, you have not raised such a complaint through any official channels at UCT. These rights are guaranteed and I can see nothing in the SRC resolution which threatens them in any way. Can you please explain to me, then, how you can publish such misleading claims.

The members of the SRC certainly have a constitutional right to express their view on this matter and they have done so within their ambit as an elected student body. There is no requirement for the SRC to consult with the wider student body each time they wish to pass a resolution – just as the government of the country does not conduct a referendum each time it considers a controversial topic. That is how representative democracy works.

Unlike government, though, this resolution in itself does not put any obligations or limitations on the University, nor does it imply any course of action that the University must follow, nor does it present any threat to SAUJS’ rights to raise its voice in opposition, or in fact to mobilise a petition or other test of student opinion to prove that the SRC is out of touch with what students feel, if that is what you believe.

If the SRC resolution is in contravention of the South African Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as you state in your e-mail, then I need you to show me exactly how it is so.

In the letter you have been circulating you claim the following without any formal attempt to explain your claims:

• “This resolution stands in contravention of the South African Constitution and the enshrined rights which the Bill of Rights was purposed to protect:
• Section 18 of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa – Freedom of association:

As I have said above, I cannot see anything in the SRC resolution which limits freedom of association. Please show me.

• “Section 30 of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa – Language and culture – Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no-one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

   

  Again, where is there anything in the resolution that contravenes SAUJS’ or anyone else’s rights to use the language they like, or celebrate the culture of their choice? Is it your view that calling for economic sanctions against another country because you disagree with their actions prevents you from celebrating your culture?

   

  Or that a demand to cancel a contract with a security company stops you from using your language or speaking freely? Or that recalling the ambassador has any constitutional infringements on your rights? Ambassadors are recalled when countries indicate disapproval all the time, by Western democracies – no-one has ever alleged that this is anti-constitutional.

   

• “Section 31 of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa – Cultural, religious and linguistic communities. –

• Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community –

1. to enjoy their culture, practise their religion and use their language; and
2. to form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society.”

Not only is there no hint of anti-Semitism in the resolution or position of the SRC or the pamphlet of the Palestinian Solidarity Forum, but I think it is remarkable that even in crowd protests, where it is often difficult to prevent individuals joining and using the cover of a protest to pursue their own agenda which may not be the agenda of the PSF, there has been remarkably little overt anti-Semitism on campus (unlike in many other fora and on social media).

You say “This resolution contrary to the spirit, purport and object of the Bill of Rights has taken a position which is heavily biased, aggressive and divisive on campus that has embarked historically and presently, to represent the views and opinions of all South Africans.”

This is not true. It does not contain hate speech. It does present a view that is biased towards the politics of the Palestinian Solidarity Forum, but the SRC members are not prohibited by the Bill of Rights from expressing such an opinion; nor are they prohibiting any other organisation from expressing a different opinion. It is also not the case that the values of UCT would eschew controversy or if necessary divisiveness.

To gag or discourage discussions or positions that are divisive and controversial would be to discourage the very freedom of thought and debate that you claim you are so concerned about in the constitution. That would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill of Rights. What are you actually saying? That the SRC and PSF should not be allowed to hold and express their views because they are controversial, divisive and biased? The parties to any controversy will be biased towards their own opinion.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say the campus historically and presently represented the views of all South Africans. If you mean it has created a space for all views, then yes, I agree with you, and that is why it should not inhibit the PSF or the SRC. If you mean that it has represented all views in the sense that it has only tolerated opinions or taken positions that are consensual and representing all its members, and are therefore not divisive, then you are wrong. That is not what a good university is, and that is not what UCT wishes to be.

Hundreds of people around the world are now writing to me based on your letter; they are threatening to cancel their donations to UCT and expressing their anger with the University because they appear to believe your interpretation of the state of intimidation and infringement of SAUJS’ rights. Have you considered that through your actions you may have unjustly brought the University into disrepute?

I assure you that UCT remains committed to keeping the campus as a safe place for responsible freedom of speech and academic debate on important issues such as this one – all in support of the Constitutional rights you refer to.

Yours sincerely, Dr Max Price, Vice-Chancellor, Issued by UCT, August 27 2014