UCT decisions raise alarm bells for free speech

The University of Cape Town’s (UCT’s) highest decision-making body, its council, is taking on its own head of its historical studies department and director of the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies at UCT, Professor Adam Mendelsohn, over his legal application to stop its anti-Israel motions.

The council made the unprecedented decision to oppose Mendelsohn’s legal application that calls for two motions it adopted in June to be reviewed or set aside. Mendelsohn took the matter up because he said the resolutions curtailed his research and would have profoundly negative implications for academic freedom and the university.

The council’s latest decision was made just three days after the university’s new vice-chancellor (VC), Professor Mosa Moshabela, put on hold a lecture scheduled for 17 October, because of what was believed to be pressure from the anti-Israel lobby.

The anti-Israel extremists demanded that the university cancel Claudius Senst, the chief executive of the newspaper Bild and chief operating officer of its parent company, Axel Springer SE, who was to give a VC’s open lecture, part of a series of lectures. Senst was to speak on the interplay between media, artificial intelligence, democracy, and governance.

UCT4Palestine claimed that Senst was unwelcome because Axel Springer SE “endorses and actively participates in the illegal occupation of Palestine and takes an unwavering pro-Israel stance”. The group launched a petition calling for Senst to be “de-platformed”, signed by more than 900 people.

The VC’s decision to put “on hold” the lecture set off alarm bells for academics and free-speech activists. One academic, speaking anonymously for safety reasons, said, “This is a chilling threat to freedom of speech because of the perceived pro-Israel stance of the speaker. This is the return of cancel culture, appeasement, and the end of academic freedom at UCT.”

The council’s decision to oppose Mendelsohn’s application added fuel to the fire. On 19 October, the chairperson of the UCT council, Norman Arendse SC, addressed the UCT community, saying, “Following full, frank, and robust discussion on all the relevant and material facts including financial consequences, the council resolved by substantial majority to uphold its commitment to its values and oppose the court application. Pending the outcome, we appeal to the university community, donors, and stakeholders not to pre-empt the outcome and take any action that might be premature.”

The director of the Campaign for Free Expression, Professor Anton Harber, said, “We are concerned that the cancellation of the VC’s lecture and the banishment of Ivor Chipkin’s conference from Constitution Hill represents a shutting down of space for those who aren’t towing the dominant line in relation to Gaza. Even those whose criticism of Israel is seen as not going far enough seem to be targeted.

“This is a time when we need open dialogue more than ever as we cannot leave the space to be dominated by extremists from either side. Public institutions have an obligation to make space for tough discussions. Instead, they are avoiding this and bowing to pressure.

“The lesson of our own South African history is that you have to keep the doors of dialogue open for that day when both sides realise there’s no military solution to such a conflict, and we have to find a political one,” Harber said. “We need more voices, more dialogue, more exchange. We need less name-calling and labelling – and that’s true for both sides of the conflict.”

Free Speech Union South Africa (FSU SA) Director Sara Gon said the FSU was perturbed by the “putting on hold” of the lecture. “The VC clearly thought Senst was a suitable invitee, given his high profile as chief executive of Bild, the largest circulation newspaper in Germany. Added to that, Senst is an alumnus of UCT.

“Academic freedom and free speech demand that the other side be allowed to be heard,” Gon said. “The opponents have a right to challenge Senst’s views, protest against him, and question him, but they shouldn’t have the right to have the lecture banned. The fact that some of the signatories are well-known for their antisemitic views suggests that there is more debate needed on campus, not less.”

Regarding the Mendelsohn application, she said, “Arendse appealed, inter alia, to donors not to pre-empt the outcome of the court action. The problem for UCT is that its antipathy to Israel has already been a source of dissatisfaction from significant donors. The absence of full debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue to affect its standing.”

David Benatar, emeritus professor of philosophy at UCT, said, “Both these decisions provide further evidence of UCT’s disregard for academic freedom and freedom of expression, especially of those who don’t toe the institutional line that demonises Israel. The principle of freedom of expression extends not only to those with whom one agrees, but also – and especially – to those with whom one disagrees. The disinvitation of Mr Senst is part of a distinct pattern in which those hostile to Israel are routinely given a platform while those not bowing to that narrative are repeatedly silenced or constrained. In taking these decisions, UCT continues its ignominious fall.”

Milton Shain, emeritus professor of history at UCT, said, “I’m shocked that the VC’s open lecture has been put ‘on hold’ due to certain stakeholders having reservations about the lecturer and whom he represents and the potential for the lecture to ‘polarise’ the university community. This means any group can de-platform a speaker whose views, or employer, they find obnoxious. This goes against every tenet of free speech, which is the life blood of a university. Hopefully this isn’t indicative of a return to the suppression of speech under the National Party.”

Regarding the Mendelsohn case, “It seems that council didn’t apply its mind when accepting these resolutions. What’s in the public domain suggests a problem with the deliberations,” Shain said. “A court will have to look at the procedures and what was presented to councillors. Arendse may well have a lot to answer for.”

South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) spokesperson Rolene Marks said, “The SAZF condemns UCT’s decision to oppose the court application by Professor Mendelsohn and other concerned academics. UCT’s decision to defend these resolutions is particularly disheartening as they are vague, legally unsound, and dangerously political.

“They restrict UCT academics’ ability to collaborate in networks with their international counterparts if research groupings contain an academic from Israel, thus limiting UCT’s ability to take place in global research,” she said. “The boycotts contravene the very essence of academic freedom and debate, a core value that any university should uphold. We believe UCT should reconsider its decision to defend the resolutions in court, which prioritises political expediency over the integrity of its academic and ethical commitments.”

South African Jewish Board of Deputies National Chairperson Professor Karen Milner said putting on hold the Senst lecture was “a fundamental breach of academic freedom and freedom of expression. UCT will be the poorer if it continues to concede to bullying tactics as it isolates itself increasingly from anyone with a worldview that differs even slightly from its own.”

Because of his involvement in the case, Mendelsohn said he was unable to comment at this point. UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola told the SA Jewish Report that there were no further updates on the status of the Senst lecture.