Beware the Ides of March: The University of Cape Town (UCT)
Alumni Association (AA) waives the rules
Tim Crowe
The UCT AA held its delayed (by lawbreaking Fallists) https://www.biznews.com/mailbox/2016/12/16/uct-fallist-fiasco/ AGM
on the Ides of March (15 March), the date on which Julius Caesar was murdered
by conspirators, many of whom benefitted from his clemency.
From its genesis, alumni argued that the AGM’s chairperson unilaterally
violated the AA’s Constitution, giving notice of the meeting eight days (rather
than one month) before it was held and adjusting
the cut-off for submission of motions to two days (rather than 21) days before
the meeting. This resulted in the
addition of two motions (revised from ones submitted too late for the AGM of
UCT’s Convocation). These were only
listed in the ‘reminder’ notice issued on the day before the AGM. I did not receive this ‘reminder’. When it was forwarded by a concerned overseas
alumnus (parent of two current UCT students) disturbed by a new motion, I
reversed my decision not to attend.
Perhaps because of its late notice, the AGM was poorly
attended, barely exceeding the quorum of 40.
In any event, the meeting was peaceful, perhaps due the
chairperson’s impassioned introductory remarks emphasizing the need for
civility.
The first item was a RESOLUTION TO RECONSTITUTE THE ALUMNI ADVISORY BOARD
(AAB). The key changes involve creating a large management
body, the “General Council/General Assembly”, which would be dominated by eight
additional members (versus three elected by the AA) from “affinity/chapters/interest
groups” or “volunteers of note”. Just
how these ‘affinity/interested/volunteers’ might be elected or co-opted was unspecified. Also, the reconstituted AAB would revert to
an “executing body”.
After discussion, the
proposal was deferred for revision/clarification. Alumni concerns were that implementing the
resolution could lead to the AA being controlled by “affinity/interest” groups
not representative the full diversity of alumni opinion. Indeed, the AAB’s choice of the AA
representatives on the Steering Committee of the Internal Reconciliation and
Transformation Commission (SC IRTC) was strongly influenced by a recommendation
of one such “affinity group”, the UCT Association
of Black Alumni.
This decision has
increased the influence of such groups (e.g. the Black Academic Caucus and
Shackville/TRC) within the SC IRTC whose recommendations could result in the
radical “decolonization” of UCT. http://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2016/12/28/uct-drawing-battle-lines-shapes-future/ http://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2017/01/11/decolonising-universities-tim-crowe/
Furthermore, a complaint from a chairperson of one ‘chapter’ led to a
motion of censure of a member of UCT’s Council, simply because he/she had strongly
criticized Fallism.
Then an AA representative
on the SC IRTC reported on its progress to date. Since the report summarized feedback already
received by the UCT Community https://www.uct.ac.za/dailynews/?id=10159 https://www.uct.ac.za/dailynews/?id=10199 I will not
repeat it here. However, the presenter’s
title slide REPORT ON THE STEERING
COMMITTEE OF THE IRTC / SHACKVILLE TRC was disturbing because it
seemingly places one of the SC’s ‘affinity’ groups as co-equal to the SC.
The first motion called
for the UCT Executive to consult proactively with alumni, echoing (more
‘politely’) my motion initially blocked and ultimately rejected (on
technicalities and defamation) by the UCT Convocation. http://rationalstandard.com/re-racialization-proto-fascism-uct-tale-four-meetings/ It was not considered because the ‘motioner’
failed to attend the AGM.
The second and third
motions called for regular review of the AA Constitution and investigation of
its mis-application. After discussion
focusing on the existing provision for review/investigation, they were
withdrawn.
The fourth motion was based on premises that criticisms
of UCT’s Executive in social media were “rhetorical abuse from both sides aimed
personally at denigrating VC Max Price” and that ”key decisions and choices
were not made by one man, but were considered by a team of veteran UCT
leaders”, and are “collective [in] nature”.
It called for a condemnation of this objectionable criticism and an
affirmation of collective accountability for executive decisions.
The discussion challenged the blanket
application of the premises. Certainly
some (many?) of the commentaries on published criticisms were undisputed
“rhetoric” and “denigrations” of Price, but, in general, not the published
articles. With regard to Price’s
personal vs collective responsibility, the VC post’s description indicates
that: ”The Vice-Chancellor is accountable to Council for the leadership
of the university as a whole, and for determining the university's strategic
goals, and ensuring their implementation.” https://www.uct.ac.za/about/management/vc/ No mention
is made of “collective” leadership/accountability.
In the end, without voting, those still
present (by then <40) called for rational debate at UCT and condemned ad hominem attack, in any form.
The fifth motion was difficult to
interpret. So, I’ll present it in full.
We propose that UCT Council endorses a
decision that there will be no further financial exclusions at the University
of Cape Town based on bullet points 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 reproduced in footnote
one.
The UCT Senior Management Team ensures that
all persons who violate the clauses below regarding offensive behaviour (bullets
3, 4, 5 in particular) are held accountable and face consequences for their
actions.?
We commend the Vice Chancellor, his team and
the student leadership for having the courage to start processes of conflict
resolution and peacebuilding which extends itself to the UCT community.
UCT Statute Oct 2013: [presumably the
“footnote”]
Accordingly, we undertake collectively and
individually
• to promote and protect academic freedom;
• to oppose and take steps to prevent racial,
gender or other forms of unfair discrimination, harassment, violence or abuse;
• to actively promote social justice and
equity;
• to nurture a culture of learning, which is
supportive of students, scholars and teachers;
• to refrain from speech or conduct that
demeans or humiliates others;
• to encourage our members to enjoy life; to
laugh, to love, to appreciate and take full advantage of the wealth of
opportunities available to us in academic endeavour, in making friends, and in
social, cultural and sporting activity;
• to advance the principle of open governance
and to be fully accountable for our actions, decisions, and the stewardship of
the University's resources and mission; and
• to nurture and empower our members.
Several alumni and VC Price could not support
the “financial exclusions” part of the motion, because it failed to
discriminate between students on the basis of ability to pay, academic
performance and involvement with lawbreaking protests. The latter mentioned will also be dealt with
by the SC IRTC.
There was confusion vis-à-vis the “offensive
behaviour” part of the motion. Does it
apply to lawbreaking protesters (who will be dealt with by the SC IRTC) or only
to individuals who commit even “micro-aggressive” racist acts?
No one seemed to disagree with the “courage”
part of the motion.
In the end, there was no vote on the motion.
There were fewer than 30 attendees by the
time that motion 6 was presented/discussed.
It called for “support for the [current] Student Representative Council
(SRC) by the UCT Alumni, celebrating the positive impact that they have had
during very difficult times”.
The ‘motioner’ offered the following evidence.
The Students Representative Council Assistance Fund awarded grants to 89
students whose education would have otherwise ended. It set a record for fundraising, seven times
what had been raised in previous years.
It held +-1000 “one-on-one” meetings assisting and advising students.
It held campaigns on sexual harassment and assault, student workshops
and forums on decolonization and re-engineered policies and practices
throughout the Department of Student Affairs.
This service was delivered despite the facts that:
1. of 17 SRC
members elected to serve, only six completed their term in office and four remained
with the SRC in an extended term.
2. they have
been harassed/taunted/insulted by a host of tormenters and the social media.
3. the SRC
Offices in the Steve Biko Building were invaded, occupied, vandalized and looted
by protesters in October 2016 and still are inaccessible.
When the
chairperson called for a vote (by hand), a majority supported the motion. However, after an impassioned objection by an
alumnus, a paper ballot reversed this.
So, emotion rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment