UCT on a precipice with anti-Israel path

The University of Cape Town’s (UCT’s) top decision-making body, its council, had the chance on 15 March to cancel its anti-Israel boycott motions adopted in 2024, but it purposely chose not to.

Had it taken that chance, it would have saved the university from a haemorrhage of funding, with two thirds of donor funding reportedly being cancelled since adopting the resolutions.

Instead, it chose to keep the resolutions, continuing on a path to self-destruction. The decision comes after UCT was hit by the Trump administration’s cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and as individual donors reportedly abandon UCT in light of the resolutions.

“This self-inflicted crisis threatens vital resources and undermines UCT’s global standing,” says South African Zionist Federation spokesperson Rolene Marks. “It exposes the ideological capture of its leadership at the direct expense of academic freedom, financial stability, and student welfare. Council members have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the university, yet some are wilfully disregarding this obligation. Their hatred of Israel outweighs their responsibility for UCT’s future.”

“By taking this decision, the university is on a precipice,” warned an analyst speaking on condition of anonymity. “This is an existential threat to UCT’s future. Those who voted to maintain the resolutions care more about going after Israel than the fate of the university they are supposed to protect. The decision not to rescind the motion could threaten UCT with annihilation.”

Cancelling the motion would also have meant that UCT would have chosen not to fight the case that Professor Adam Mendelsohn, the director of the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies at UCT, brought against it for not following its own processes when adopting the resolutions and for their negative impact on research and academic freedom. UCT will now continue to oppose the case at a cost to the university.

A supporting affidavit for the Mendelsohn case from Mark Goldfeder, an American lawyer and expert in United States (US) law, confirms that UCT may trigger anti-Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions laws in 37 American states. The effect would be to preclude UCT from obtaining funding or otherwise collaborating with universities in these states.

At the 15 March meeting, some council members suggested that “every effort should be made to procure alternative funding from other countries supportive of South Africa”, according to a 17 March statement from council Chairperson Norman Arendse. This could possibly lead UCT to approach anti-Western actors for funding.

The resolutions call for the rejection of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism; and that no UCT academic may enter into or continue relations with “any research group or network whose author affiliations are with the Israel Defense Forces or the broader Israeli military establishment”.

Mendelsohn filed a lawsuit in the Western Cape High Court in August 2024, asking the court that the resolutions, passed on 22 June 2024, be declared unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid, and be reviewed and set aside.

According to Arendse’s recent statement, in the council’s first meeting of the year, “a motion was tabled that the Gaza resolutions and the university’s opposition to the pending Western Cape High Court [Mendelsohn] case be rescinded. By narrow majority, the motion wasn’t carried.”

Thirteen council members voted in favour of rescinding the boycott resolutions, but 14 voted in favour of keeping them. This was against a backdrop of a lengthy discussion about “the threats of defunding, especially of the National Institutes of Health [NIH] grants of which UCT is the largest recipient outside of the US”, wrote Arendse.

The dire financial implications for the university if US funding is withdrawn were highlighted by Vice-Chancellor Professor Mosa Moshabela and his team in a comprehensive presentation to the council.

“Many questions were asked, and answered, and some answers remain uncertain,” wrote Arendse. “A range of views were expressed, including the view that the Gaza resolutions should be rescinded to facilitate management’s task in procuring funding from donors who have either withdrawn or threatened to withdraw their donations, or from new or different funders.”

The university has already lost the donation of a hospital – the Donald Gordon Foundation was planning to donate R400 million to R500 million to UCT to replicate Gauteng’s Donald Gordon Medical Centre in the Cape. Discussions broke down as a direct result of the council’s resolution rejecting the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Another donor, the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, suspended funding because of the resolution to boycott Israeli academics.

If there are NIH cuts, Arendse says they will mainly affect the Faculty of Health Sciences and its research programmes. Goldfeder explains in his affidavit that at a federal level, which includes funding from the NIH, the resolutions would further probably trigger congressional sub-committee reviews of all federal programmes. He observed, as an example, that UCT would likely trigger a review of its current relationship with the University of Florida.

David Benatar, emeritus professor of philosophy at UCT and the author of The Fall of the University of Cape Town – Africa’s Leading University in Decline, says, “The majority of the council who voted to uphold UCT’s boycott may think that they were standing on principle against the pressure of withheld funding, but the problem with that justification is that their principles are all wrong. In a conflict between a democracy and a repressive theocracy, they are siding with the latter.”

Director of the Free Speech Union of South Africa, Sara Gon, who has written extensively about UCT, says that the university’s anti-Israel obsession “is a public relations disaster. Loyal alumni have lost faith in the institution. With the withdrawal of funding from USAID, the federal government and the NIH, the omens are bad for UCT. The money can never be made up, and the effect on health sciences is grave.

“UCT has become a hostile space for debate, which is crucial to a university’s intellectual health,” says Gon. “If UCT cannot get to grips with the fact that Israeli expertise shouldn’t be disregarded so cavalierly, then it deserves to lose its reputation.”

Marks says the resolutions also “reek of hypocrisy, singling out Israel while ignoring actual human rights violations worldwide. This decision does nothing to advance human rights. Instead, it isolates UCT from valuable collaboration and punishes students and researchers. The university must urgently abandon this destructive stance, and reaffirm its commitment to open inquiry, rigorous scholarship, and responsible governance over exclusionary dogma.”

Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies chairperson Adrienne Jacobson says the organisation is disappointed by the council’s decision to uphold the boycott, despite its negative impact on students and academics. “It is concerning that a small group within the council is advancing its own agenda at the expense of the institution’s future,” she says.

“UCT should prioritise academic freedom and the best interests of its students. We will continue to oppose this boycott, and advocate for the future of all South African students.”