Thursday 25 May 2017

MANGCU, MAXWELE AND ‘FALLISTS’, AND NOT UCT RACISTS, HAVE BEEN UNMASKED





XOLELA MANGCU, CHUMANI MAXWELE AND ‘FALLISTS’, AND NOT UNVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN RACISTS, HAVE BEEN UNMASKED


http://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/the-raceobsessives-destroying-uct?utm_source=Politicsweb+Daily+Headlines&utm_campaign=e7728e742d-DHN_8_Sept_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a86f25db99-e7728e742d-140202025

This is a commentary on Mr Chumani Maxwele’s expurgated letter published in the Sunday Independent (SI) on 21 August 2016 in which he announced that he would “identify” racists at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and “document” their acts.  This is potentially great news since, as he maintains, it could contribute to “the spirit of fighting racism at UCT”.   I have called for such exposées time-and-again. http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/let-us-face-this-white-racism-once-and-for-all-1999930


Unfortunately, this letter did neither.

However, in a much longer, unexpurgated Facebook post on the same day, Maxwele did reveal names of people accused of racism by UCT Prof. Xolela Mangcu. 
 
Mangcu’s allegations stem from a dispute that began in January 2016 relating to lecturing duties.  Mangcu chronicles this publicly in two of his weekly commentaries published by SI. 

In his ‘fictional’ commentary “Different times, same old Rhodes”, Mangcu identifies the primary racist as “Mary Rhodes”.  Her victim, is “Nkululeko” (= Mangcu).  The dispute with “Rhodes” degenerated into a department-wide “war of words” between Mangcu, “Rhodes” and two other senior UCT academics outlined in part in widely circulated e-mails to which Maxwele refers. 
 
This culminated in “Rhodes” filing a formal grievance against Mangcu, soon followed by counter-grievances by Mangcu against ‘”Rhodes” and the two other UCT academics.

On 4 September 2016, SI published a subsequent letter from Elijah Moholola (officially representing UCT) that reveals “racist Rhodes” as UCT Prof. Nicoli Nattrass. 
 
UCT’s letter ends as follows:

“Fighting racism is a noble act.  Accusing individuals blindly and publicly without evidence is not.”

UCT’s letter summarizes the conclusions of a mutually agreed upon (by Mangcu and Nattrass) “stage 3” UCT grievance procedure relating to Mangcu’s grievances against Nattrass and the two other UCT academics.   The adjudicator nominated by UCT Vice Chancellor, Dr Max Price, was Deputy Vice-Chancellor Danie Visser, an eminent professor of law and a “leading internationally researcher” (“A” –rated by South Africa’s National Research Foundation) in that discipline.

In short, Visser ruled that all of Mangcu’s racism-related allegations were “defamatory and unsubstantiated” and Mangcu should “publicly retract” them.  So, no racists unmasked as yet.

Inter alia, Mr Maxwele’s letter makes other incorrect and/or defamatory statements.  With one exception, I will not attempt to defend those which defame me personally.  He and those who may tend to agree with him are referred to my testimonial http://www.fitzpatrick.uct.ac.za/news/prof-tim-crowe-retires-31-december-2013-after-40-years-fitzpatrick-institute.  To find out more about my views on racism, consult some of my public intellectual publications in: 
 
Politicsweb http://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/ditching-jammie  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, 
UCT In the News – debates section (when it’s available)
and the Sunday Independent http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/lets-ask-the-hard-questions-and-rebuild-uct-together-2054311 
 
The exception is Maxwele’s statement that, since I am “retired”, I am “no longer aware of what is happening at UCT”
.
Mr Maxwele is correct on the first score.  He is not on the second, which is blatant ageism.  If he had kept up with his reading of the Cape Times (a newspaper in which he features prominently), he might have read my piece “Proposals for quality university education” published on 28 October 2015.
 
Now to Maxwele’s other incorrect and defamatory questions/statements.

“Can a white [UCT] administration judge against a white professor?”
My personal assessment of the current administration (which includes ‘blacks’), given the UCT Executive’s repeated lenient treatment of Maxwele and other ‘fallists’, is most definitely: “No”.   I would have not been surprised if the DVC who adjudicated the “Mangcu Grievance Affair” had ruled in his favour.  My guess is that Prof. Visser, being the law-abiding man he is (and about to enter retirement), acted objectively on evidence instead of political correctness or what Dr Price calls “contextualization”.  Just wonder might have happened to Maxwele et al. if Dr Mamphele Ramphele were still VC, given her well-known views on student discipline and mistreatment of women?

“Professor Sakela Buhlungu [Dean of Humanities] has been subject to racism too.”
This refers to events at a meeting of the UCT Board of the Faculty of Humanities held in September 2015. http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-07-13-fanon-meets-biko-meets-jm-coetzee-as-uct-academic-row-over-food-highlights-racial-fault-lines/#.V8x8w2fr3IU  They relate to a proposal by Professor David Benatar, head of the Department of Philosophy, and several other colleagues suggesting that, on ethical grounds, no meat or animal products be served at any Faculty event or meeting. 
   
Mangcu and Adam Haupt (Associate Professor Media Studies) condemned this proposal as “an ad hominem attack on the Dean, on his authority as chair of the Board and the authority of his office as Dean.”  Those in favour of the proposal were thereafter prevented from replying and, in protest, left the room.  So, still no more racists unmasked.

“The [RMF] movement is a political project that seeks to confront white power using radical political approaches.”
At last, Maxwele “unmasks” something!  If the various “movements” are “political projects”, please identify their party affiliations and political positions.  Their modus operandi is indeed “confrontation”.  Maxwele and ‘co-activists’ (reinforced by Mangcu? http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/so-many-stories-so-much-neglect-2036141) have long-since abandoned the processes of non-intimidatory, rational debate/dialogue and consensus-seeking.  http://www.groundup.org.za/article/rhodes-and-politics-pain_2796/  Given the actions of Maxwele et al. to date and their consequences: intimidation, destruction and arson, the goal of their “radical political approaches” appears to be not replacing an oppressive colonial cultural hegemony (sensu Gramsci) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci  with an enlightened, organic intellectual-driven Afrocentric alternative. The goal appears to be the destruction of UCT by the Movements’ ‘organic-intellectual’ perpetrators: a leaderless, intellectually bankrupt, non-democratic minority of educationally misguided humanity.   By the way, hasn’t Mr Maxwele been ejected from the Rhodes Must Fall movement (for allegedly assaulting women) as stated by well-known member Mohammed Abdulla? http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/rmf-movement-dumps-activist-maxwele-2006149 

The ‘Fallist’s’ Gramscian 'war of manoeuvre' (direct revolution) was further implemented at a recent panel discussion held the University of the Western Cape.  Rather than participate in a constructive discussion about how South African universities can be transformed, http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/students-shouted-me-down-2027581 ‘fallists’ attacked Mangcu, describing him as a “typically self-indulgent” “Uthengiwe lo” (sellout) when he tried to persuade them to allow speakers to present their views without interruption/intimidation. http://www.thedailyvox.co.za/uwc-students-response-xolela-mangcu/ 
  
To close, the tactics of the wholesale or situational branding of opponents as racists in the absence of evidence might have had some application at some South African universities 25 years ago.  It never had any such application during my 40-year association with the University of Cape Town and, to use it now, is professionally disgraceful.  The facts that the current UCT Executive refuses to deal with it quickly and decisively and many (most?) of my ‘extant’ academic colleagues quietly tolerate it is shameful. 

No comments:

Post a Comment