http://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/uct-the-flemming-rose-affair-reconsidered?utm_source=Politicsweb+Daily+Headlines&utm_campaign=dfdb2d4fbf-DHN_11_Aug_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a86f25db99-dfdb2d4fbf-140202025
Politicsweb
OPINION
UCT: The Flemming Rose affair
reconsidered
Tim Crowe |
10 August 2016
Late in July 2016, the UCT Executive overturned a statutory action taken
16 months earlier by the “vitally important” UCT Academic Freedom Committee
(AFC) relating to the selection of the speaker for the TB Davie Memorial
Lecture, “a flagship event that celebrates academic freedom”.
In doing this, I and many others maintain that the Executive undermined
the very structure and governance of UCT and violated its statutory
responsibility to defend the “fundamental and cornerstone rights” of academic
freedom and unfettered debate of “ideas, even unpopular ones”.
Before I attempt to justify these views, let’s look at the AFC that took
the overturned action. Like other statutory committees essential to the
effective governance of UCT, its job is to ensure the “expression to the
principles of simplicity, accountability and defined responsibility”, in this
case for academic freedom.
In 2015, the committee members were: the Vice-Chancellor (Dr Max Price);
Price’s nominee Deputy VC and eminent (NRF “A-rated”) law professor Danie
Visser; UCT Council representative advocate Jeremy Gauntlett of Nkandla
Constitutional Court fame; UCT Council representative Supreme Court Judge Ian
Farlam, chairperson of the Marikana ‘Massacre’ Commission; UCT Senate-appointed
Professors David Benatar (Philosoply), Leslie London (Public Health Medicine)
and Pippa Skotnes (Fine Art); two non-professors nominated by the UCT Staff
Association, Drs Elsia Galgut (Philosophy) and Christine Swart (Mathematics);
and two students nominated by the UCT Students’ Representative Council.
For its actions in the TB Davie Lecture ‘Affair’, this committee has
been described by
a senior member of the UCT community supporting the Executive’s
censorship decision as being composed of “tone-deaf”, ”arrogant” “provocateurs”
having an “absolutist conception of academic freedom”.
The UCT Executive justified its act of censorship (taken less than two
weeks before the scheduled lecture) on the basis of:
1. allegations of “bigotry”, “blasphemy and Islamophobia” against
the speaker;
2. “very serious security considerations”; and
3. the need to abandon academic freedom depending on “context” in
general and, in particular, “directives of our Constitution” relating to “hate
speech” and “incitement of imminent violence”.
Unfortunately, much of the commentary on this censorship has focused on
item 1 or, worse still, morphed into a debate about the Palestinian
vs Israel debacle. Regardless, neither the UCT Executive, nor
anyone else, has provided compelling evidence supporting the allegations
against the speaker, award-winning editor/journalist Mr Flemming Rose.
Until 4 August, the only commentary on this matter circulated within UCT
was a fear-motivated piece by Judy Favish condemning Rose
personally and maintaining that academic freedom needs to be “contextualised”.
Fortunately, AFC members Prof. David
Benatar, Mr Jacques
Rousseau and Dr Elisa
Galgut have, in their personal capacities, decisively refuted Favish’s and
other item-1-related allegations.
For more on this, see the
comments of a previous TB Davie speaker Kenan Malik and Rose’s own
comments.
If precedents have any bearing on this matter, what about previous TB
Davie speakers, eminent ‘Orientalism’ critic Edward Said and linguist/activist Noam
Chomsky? Said, has been described as an “anti-Semite” and "professor of
terror" and Chomsky as an “anti–Semite” “patron of the neo-Nazis” and
"the Ayatollah of anti-American hatred."
Sadly, a common tactic employed by members of totalitarian movements to
deal with their critics when they cannot expose their moral or logical flaws is
to label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders.
We only need to look to at the South African Broadcasting Corporation (past and
present) and post-liberation Zimbabwe to find ongoing examples of this tactic.
So, on the basis of item 1, the Executive’s action was not justified. If
there is some new evidence, that Rose is a bigoted, blasphemous,
hate/violence-speaking Islamophobe, produce it.
With regard to item 2, “security”, the UCT Vice Chancellor’s letter is
vague at best. The VC refers to “concerns”, but lists none specifically. He
says the Special Executive Task Team (SETT), chaired by Deputy VC Prof. Francis
Petersen, “raised concerns” about the speaker when it “became aware” of the
invitation to Mr Rose. Then it acted “immediately” and consulted “widely within
the University, and within the Muslim community of Cape Town”. The VC’s
statement generates more questions rather than understanding.
When did the SETT become “aware” of the invitation? Since two members of
the Executive (the VC and Deputy VC Visser) are members of the AFC, they were
“aware” of it from March 2015. Who within or outside of SETT was “concerned”.
It was
stated recently that some (all?) of the ‘outsiders’ were
“#RhodesMustFall students” who “would not have allowed the speaker on campus”.
What were the SETT/outsider concerns and underpinning evidence? Who were/are
the ‘outsider’ elements who constituted “very serious security considerations”?
Did they ask the AFC/Rose to confirm that his address would not contain hate
speech or incite violence? Who was consulted “within the University”?
Why consult “the Muslim community of Cape Town” about a UCT-specific
matter, given that there are many Muslim staff/students at UCT? Given that the
AFC “planned, in consultation with Mr Rose, a panel discussion between him and
his critics in order that disagreements related to tolerance and freedom of
expression could be aired”, were those “concerned” with or opposed to the
invitation invited to join this panel? If they were and declined, why?
Most importantly, why was this act of censorship taken only 16 months
after the invitation was issued, resulting in a cancellation of the 2016 TB
Davie Lecture?
A couple of questions about more general statements by the Executive.
What is meant by:
1. “The right to academic freedom is FUNDAMENTAL [= a central or
primary rule or principle], but cannot be exercised in a vacuum.”? and
2. “Our campuses have become charged spaces.”
So, UCT is now “an amalgam of ‘contextualised’ ‘spaces’ entirely
devoid of matter driven by ‘circumstances’.
We keep hearing about demands for and descriptions of “spaces”: “safe”,
“charged” or otherwise. To learn more on this see Dean of Law Prof.
Penelope Andrews’ piece:
“Disagreement can become an act of love and reconciliation”. Prof. Andrews and
I think that the last thing to do with members of the UCT community who
disagree with one another is to isolate them. Weren’t separate “spaces” the
goal of Apartheid?
One last question. Given the Executive’s statement:
“We know that many within our universities don’t feel safe to engage,
which undermines the spirit of mutual tolerance and understanding.”
Why cancel a world-renowned lecture that could have brought open-minded
opponents on to the same stage? Two possible answers are:
1. The Executive is most concerned about (fears?) the actions of
subsets of UCT’s community bent on using intimidation and violence, rather than
debate/discussion, to implement their ideologies.
2. It is, as described by some internal critics, controlled by
Trump-like demagogues determined to dictate what, or what not, should happen at
UCT.
I guess we just have to wait until the UCT Executive, SETT, “#RhodesMustFall
students and anybody else who can control academic freedom at UCT to
“ultimately” decide on the “unacceptability” of this behaviour so some action
might eventually be taken and the AFC’s vision can become a reality.
Otherwise, we may hear a repeat of the terrifying quote attributed to a
US military officer during the Vietnam War.
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
No comments:
Post a Comment