The ‘use’ and abuse of defamation at the University of Cape Town (UCT)
Palaeo-defamation
To
correct the impression that defamation, hooliganism and challenges to hegemony
are confined to UCT’s recent history, during the late 1920s, students disliked “arrogant, supercilious and caustic”
Zoology Prof. Lancelot Hogben so intensely that they rolled his car down the
embankment where the R.W. James Physics Building now stands and burned his
effigy outside the Zoology Department Building!
In
his years at UCT (1927-30), Hogben:
1.
described his predecessor, marine taxonomist
John Gilchrist, as “a dedicated necrophilist”;
2.
jettisoned Gilchrist’s specimen collection,
describing his research as “not zoology”;
3.
forced students to pay for his lecture notes;
and
4.
referred to a fellow UCT professor as an
“animal”.
Resurrected defamation and retaliatory
racism
Debate
and rationalism were replaced recently at UCT by defamation and retaliatory
racism as early as December 2012. Assoc. (now full) Prof. Imraan Coovadia used
his critique of J.C. Kannemeyer’s biography of eminent Prof. J.M. Coetzee to
defame the character and liberation credentials of the Nobel laureate and the functionality of
UCT’s Department of English [rated top in Africa and amongst the top 100 worldwide] as a
whole.
Thereafter,
Coovadia focused further criticism on UCT Vice-Chancellor Dr Max Price.
Soon
after the defacing of Rhodes’ statue, in
a public intellectual article entitled The Day of the Jekyll , then pro-Fallist Coovadia described
Price’s inaugural speech as “practising tokenism without the tokens”, accusing
him of embodying “two personalities – one rational and benevolent [Jekyll],
while the other is irrational and undecipherable [Hyde]” and having a
“genius for spreading confusion” and someone who “present[s] a number of
additional arguments of stunning implausibility”.
In
short, he branded Price as a two-faced populist.
Overt racism at UCT resurrected
In
the same ‘Jekyll/Hyde’ article, Coovadia implied that UCT’s leadership
encouraged students and others to denounce ‘black’ staff for various
improprieties and then hide behind anonymity.
Furthermore, he then outright stated (without any evidence) that ‘black’
professors were expected by the Price-led UCT Executive to have sterling
qualifications (e.g. an NRF A-rating), and that their ad hominem promotion could take about two decades of high
performance to achieve. ‘Whites’, on the
other hand, could become professors 10-15 years sooner and only have a
C-rating. Later, UCT Associate (also now
full) Professor Xolela Mangcu argued similarly (Business Day - 3 November 2014:
Black academics are getting a raw
deal), debunking the use of measurable criteria in the current ad
hominem promotion process, saying that he could: ”smell that talent from a
distance”.
[By
the way, in June 2017, when Prof. Robert Morrell (Director of the Next Generation Professoriate) presented clear evidence that there is NO
institutional racism in the ad hominem
promotion process and practice, when his results were dismissed by the
chairperson of the Black Academic Caucus, they were suppressed.]
Mangcu,
“possibly South Africa’s most prolific public intellectual”, in the Cape Times
(20 February 2013 - “UCT's Senate is the
Problem”), condemned Price’s open letter vis-à-vis a non-racial admission
policy because it was “a slight of hand”, “conditioning” the university
community to accept the commission’s recommendations. Mangcu then stated that, because the UCT
Senate is “a predominantly white structure”, it would “rule in their own
favour” (i.e. against ‘blacks’) on this matter”, a bit like the “wolves [UCT
professors] inviting the lambs [‘black’ students] over for dinner.”
In
other words, Price is a ‘conman’ and the Senate is a “slaughterhouse for racial
justice”.
Mangcu
further stated that members of Senate, a broadly representative body that has
been primarily responsible for “academic matters” at UCT for more than 90
years, are also not competent to be involved in such decision making. They should “stick with empirical research
[rather] than to wage an ideological assault on affirmative action”. He described UCT Executives advocating of
non-racialism as “purveyors of swartgevaar (‘black’ peril) [who] argue that
there is already too much race — read ‘black’ — in UCT’s admissions
policy”.
In
short, UCT had deliberately failed to achieve demographic goals in the
staff/student population because it was led by racist exclusionists terrified
by ‘blacks’.
Mangcu
and Coovadia’s statements and others that followed, provided no South
African-sourced supporting evidence.
Mangcu,
then also attacked UCT's ad hominem
promotions policies by extrapolating from some shocking statistics on the
paucity of black academic staff at UCT. (Ripping the veil off UCT's whiter
shades of pale, Sunday Times, 6 July
2014). Price countered that it
generally takes more than 20 years from getting a Ph.D. to becoming a
professor. In doing so, he inadvertently emphasized the failure of UCT’s Core
academic system to ‘grow its own timber’ during the previous two decades. Finally, Price correctly attributed the
paucity of potential ‘black’ academic employees to competition from the
government, civil service and corporate sectors.
Even
closer to home, there is the “Mangcu Incident”.
In April 2016, a sociology professor (hereafter “A”) instituted a
grievance against fellow sociologist Assoc. Prof. Xolela Mangcu. Mangcu then instituted grievances against “A”
and two other departmental colleagues (hereafter “B” and “C” – both full
professors) who defended “A”. All four
grievances involved a conflict that arose from an e-mail exchange in January
2016 between Mangcu and “A” following a disagreement concerning lecturing
duties. The conflict then expanded through the subsequent actions of Mangcu,
“B” and “C” involving e-mails circulated within the department, Mangcu’s
columns in a weekend newspaper and exchanges in departmental meetings.
By
agreement of all parties involved, the grievances were dealt with at “stage 3”
of UCT’s grievance procedure. VC Price nominated DVC Prof. Danie Visser (an NRF
“A-rated” law scholar) to assess all four grievances.
In
June, the DVC Visser completed reports setting out his findings. He found
that the original dispute involved discourteous e-mails that deteriorated into
a war of words, none of which constituted defamation. However, he characterized
Mangcu’s subsequent behaviour as “a serious instance of non-collegiality that
could lead to a department becoming dysfunctional”. Mangcu
questioned the
legitimacy of “A’s” appointment, suggesting
that it had
to be revisited. Furthermore, using his
position as a powerful public intellectual, his taking these issues into the
national media before establishing the full facts or utilizing the available
procedures of the University, compounded the injury done to “A”. Visser also found that specific allegations made by Mangcu
against “A” were not true and, in all probability, constituted defamation. Publishing his views in the newspapers falls
outside the ambit of the careful balancing that the South African
Constitutional jurisprudence has done between freedom of speech and the
protection of the reputation and dignity of individuals.
Therefore,
DVC Visser found that Mangcu must retract all the defamatory statements in the
public arena. Inter alia, Visser also found that “B’s” characterization of Mangcu
as an “egotistical bully” was “rude”, but that he had been provoked by Mangcu’s
defamation of “A”.
In
summary, the ”Mangcu Incident” created a crisis in the Sociology Department and
there was an urgent need to restore collegial relations. According to the UCT
Executive, the restorative process was to happen under the aegis of the Dean of
Humanities (Prof. Sakhela Buhlungu), assisted the DVC responsible for faculty
affairs (Professor Francis Petersen).
Mangcu
dismissed Visser’s ruling and retracted nothing. There was no action or “restorative
process”. Visser, Buhlungu and Petersen
have all left UCT’s employ.
Mangcu
and Coovadia were promoted ‘ad hominem’
to full professor.
The faeces hits the fan
In
April 2015, soon after the illegal and vulgar defacement of Rhodes Statue, DVC Crain
Soudien respectfully criticized Mangcu’s views on the role and importance of
‘race’ and racism debate (Cape Times - UCT
stands devoted to debate - April 14 2015).
He expressed his “surprise” and “worry” at Mangcu’s various statements,
summarizing them as “an attack on the legitimacy of the very institution on
which he [Mangcu], in his own work, depends”, i.e. a structure dedicated to
investigating competing ideas based on evidence debated in an open, rational,
respectful manner. Mangcu’s evidence, he
said was “characterised by assertion and argumentative short cuts”. He expressed his concern that Mangcu supports
the view that ideas of certain eminent scholars (because of their temporal, racial,
gender-based and geographical provenance) should be eliminated from UCT’s
current curricula because of their “rationalist conceit”.
Most
tellingly, Soudien expressed his fear that some students and faculty members
(including Mangcu) appear to prefer “action” to rational debate and “that there
are sections of the UCT community [which] should not be involved in the matter
of this debate.”
He
summarizes: “We should hear all the views, even those we disagree vehemently
with” and “to disavow the need for debate is to disavow the lifeblood of the
university.”
In
his ‘rebuttal’ to Soudien (Cape Times - Assault
on idea of academic freedom - April 14 2015), Mangcu dismissed Soudien’s
comments as “personally offensive” and “the kind of statement that has sowed a
culture of fear among many [‘black’?] academics at UCT” who are “reluctant to
speak out publicly about the university’s policies.”
Because
of his “position of authority” Soudien “can reign in legitimate academic
debate.”
He
accused Soudien and other advocates of a ‘disadvantage-based’ policy of
admissions (which he describes as merely “tampering with rules”) of “insulting
and patronising” him and ‘black’ applicants because using and their families’
socio-educational-economic disadvantage to assess individuals fails to consider
past “oppression”.
Mangcu
described UCT’s “liberal” (whatever that means) approach to affirmative action
as nothing more than “helping poor black children” by “giving them handouts”
and then “walking away feeling they have done something”.
He
summarized the situation of ‘black’ students at UCT as “despised by their
classmates, despised by their lecturers, despised by the university
administration”.
He
dismissed Soudien’s view that the university should be a community within which
individuals can come together to freely identify and discuss problems and,
through that discussion, influence action that can deal with them. Indeed, Mangcu advocates abandoning such
discussion as an “assault on the very dignity and the very humanity of our
[‘black’] children”.
Lastly,
he implied that Soudien is a ‘baas’ who wants him to become an “Uncle Tom who
sings for his supper”.
In
short, Mangcu (who has no NRF rating, a low-citation rate for his publications
and no post-graduate students listed in his CV)) branded this eminent, NRF
B-rated, BCM ‘black’ academic who has
spent most of his life experiencing, studying ‘race’, educating dozens of
post-grads to follow in his wake, and fighting against racism in a South
African university environment as: a
patronising, character-assassinating, authoritarian co-conspirator in a
‘white’-supremacist, anti-’black’ racist institutional hegemony which has no
appreciation of what it means to be a ‘black’ university student.
Not
long after this defamatory attack, Soudien resigned.
Some Fallists ‘recant’, others press on
Fortunately
for Price, Coetzee, Soudien and other defamation targets, since their ad hominem promotion to full professor, Coovadia and Mangcu’s writings have shifted to be critical of Fallists, at least of
their hate speech and violent and
destructive modus operandi.
Then
there is, of course, finger-flicking-faeces-flinging-founder-Fallist-amnesty-violating-alleged/sexist
Chumani Maxwele. In
a letter published in the Sunday Independent on 21 August 2016, he promised to
reveal the names of racists employed at the University of Cape Town (UCT). He did not.
However, in a Facebook post [available in unexpurgated form on my Blog
Site - timguineacrowe.blogspot.co.za] on the same day, he did reveal names of
people accused of racism by UCT Sociology Prof. Xolela Mangcu. A subsequent letter (4 September 2016) from
Elijah Moholola (representing UCT) reveals the unjustly maligned “A’s” name
[but I won’t], and confirms the findings of an internal review - Mangcu’s
allegations were “defamatory and unsubstantiated” and Mangcu should “publicly
retract” them].
Inter
alia, Mr Maxwele’s letter refers to me as: a
“racist denialist”, “arrogant or ignorant”, “no longer aware of what is
happening at UCT”, and someone who “must know several cases of racism
documented at UCT”. I refer him to my
Blog Site.
Then,
last but not least, is his recent (2 August 2017) pronunciation
(at 149 min 20 sec) at Mahmood Mamdani’s T.B. Davie Lecture: “If we are to be
honest, we cannot have an intellectual debate at UCT when Dr Price protects
white racists in the characters of [deliberately multiply mis-pronounces
surname] Benatar, Jeremy Seekings and Nattrass, the white wife and who have not
apologized for questioning the actions of a ‘black’ professor, Xolela
Mangcu. Price also needs to apologize
for taking no action against the white academics who forced Mamdani to leave
UCT, but are still inside but “recycled”.
Dr Price has no courage, regard, wisdom, no vision to say to you I
apologize for this institutional racism.
He is morally bankrupt.”
Max
Price may choose to accept this defamation, but the Vice-Chancellor of UCT
should not.
Contextual defamation today
I
am a ‘member’ of a loose assemblage of the UCT community that I jokingly refer
to as “The Wild Bunch” [after an outlaw gang featured in an epic Western film], who try to exist in the changing post-modern
world. If there is one thing that
‘characterizes’ most who have appeared on various guises of the “Bunch’s” e-mailing
‘list’ [including VC Price], it is that we ‘self-identify’ with no one. Indeed, we often strongly disagree with one
another.
Sadly,
on 28 September 2017, one person frequently on the lists (hereafter ‘frequent
flier’) commented that the “repeated twittering” by UCT Research Deputy
Vice-Chancellor Professor Mamokgethi Phakeng indicated that she was “self-absorbed,
self-aggrandizing and narcissistic”. Later that day, a ‘first timer’ on the
list ‘REPLIED ALL’ saying: “I believe she is not mathematically qualified at
all... She has a ‘PhD in education of mathematics’. It might justify
investigating as she is such an embarrassment...”
I
regard the “frequent flier’s” comment as an insult. Indeed, at various times, I have been
similarly insulted (add on “condescending”) by colleagues and close family
members. The “first timer’s” comment is
derogatory at best or, arguably, defamatory.
I take this comment personally since my wife and colleague is an
award-winning UCT Ph.D. graduate in Biology Education.
The
“frequent flier” is an eminent UCT alumnus, donor and student-parent. His other independent publications to date
demonstrate that he is deeply personally upset about the actions/inactions of
the UCT Executive, especially those that he construes support Fallism. Like
many of UCT’s “Silenced – in some cases racially maligned - Majority” and
peaceful protesters, he is in genuine pain.
Nevertheless, he is accountable to explain the context that triggered
his comment.
The
“first timer” is an acquaintance of the “frequent flier” unknown to me.
Reaction
On
5 October, VC Price ‘REPLIED ALL’ to a version of the mailing list. He described the “frequent flier’s” e-mail as
“mockery” and the “first timer’s” as “insulting”, saying that he was “offended
and saddened by this email thread”. He countered their unwarranted “innuendo”
by alluding to Prof. Phakeng’s sterling academic record and unquestionable professional
achievements, easily accessible on the internet. Then, he rightly called for the two authors
to apologize to DVC Phakeng and all the addressees, and condemned their “malicious”
messages as “easy spamming”, “used to smear people and denigrate them”, to “create
the impression of the views being widely shared.”
Price
ended his message by suggesting that those on the ‘list’ should
“condemn these comments as malicious, and will distance themselves from the
doubt expressed about the DVC’s qualifications and competence – and that they
will refuse to collude with the smear, if necessary by asking to be removed
from the list”.
This
resulted in several listees asking to be removed from the ‘list’.
I
have deleted them and both the “frequent flier” and “first timer” from my
personal collective “Bunch’ list of e-mail correspondents. The
latter’s ‘style’ of involvement in discussion/debate has only exacerbated the
‘troubles’ at UCT.
To
date (16 October), the “frequent flier” has replied multiply, refusing to
apologize. I’ve seen no new
correspondence from the “first timer” on what now appears to have become the
“Phakeng Incident”.
After
communicating privately with the “frequent flier”, on 6 October I also REPLIED
ALL to the list employed by VC Price [and to DVC Phakeng], unconditionally
condemning the ”totally unwarranted, factually vacuous, defamatory, ad hominem characterization of DVC
Phakeng”.
I
went further to say that questioning of the professional qualifications of
Prof. Phakeng is reminiscent of Fallists’ attacks on the professional
qualifications of Ms Gwen Ngwenya [a
former UCT SRC President, who is currently COO of the South African Institute
of Race Relations]. In VC Price’s presence, she was defamed at the 2016 UCT
Convocation AGM when she opposed the UCT Executive’s policy of negotiating with
“unelected and unrepresentative student lawbreakers and
ideologues who have been party to violence on campus and who have not
been able to articulate their philosophy in any manner as to result in its
common comprehension”. Subsequently, she
was branded by Fallists as a “house ni**er” who misrepresented her academic
qualifications.
Sadly,
these mocking/defamatory comments are yet additional examples of a “toxicity” that has developed at UCT dating back at least five
years. As outlined in my 110+-page draft history of institutional
colonialism, sexism and racism at UCT [which can be found in my Blog Site - timguineacrowe.blogspot.co.za],
defamation at UCT began in earnest with personal attacks on Nobel laureate
Prof. J.M. Coetzee, VC Price, DVC Crain Soudien, Philosophy Prof. David
Benatar and the Senate collectively, e.g. characterizing them as incompetent “racist
wolves”. When no similar condemnation, let alone preventative
action, was taken by the UCT Executive in response to this defamation, such
behaviour became de rigueur,
eliminating rational discussion/debate. This ‘progressed’ to alleged
censorship, the undermining of academic and artistic freedom, vicious attacks
on staff/students and malicious destruction of sentimentally valued and
valuable property.
Regardless
of ‘race’, gender, age or political/ideological affiliation, members of Senate
(including some on this mail list) and other academic staff have been, and
continue to be, labelled as “bitches”, racists, sell-outs, Uncle Toms, etc. by
radically decolonist, destructive, retaliatory racist Fallists. In
the presence of members of UCT’s Senior Leadership Group (including VC Price),
I have been portrayed variously as: “Jim Crow”, “apartheid activist” and
“killer of black people” when I have attempted (but not succeed) to speak at
UCT-sponsored meetings. My wife, also a 40+-year UCT ‘person’, was
described as a “white bitch” at one of these meetings.
Why
has this been allowed to happen, given the VC Price’s promise that “no one will be left behind”.
Admissions of guilt
Even
more disturbingly, both VC Price and the Academics Union have, without supporting substantive
evidence, claimed that UCT remains institutionally racist and are acting on
this assumption.
In
‘my history’, I vigorously and totally reject this admission and explain why. There
may be racists within the UCT Community. But, for the umpteenth
time, I challenge her leaders, Fallists and their supporters to expose them to
the relevant authorities and, if they are found guilty, deal with them punitively.
I
closed by thanking all (even VC Price) for their willingness to discuss and
debate.
More reaction
On
7 October VC Price took a more aggressive position on the “Phakeng Incident”
when he formally issued a statement From the VC's Desk
vis-à-vis “a couple of private emails which have nevertheless been quite widely
circulated and are therefore in effect in the public domain”.
After
reiterating statements made in his e-mail, he confirmed that “frequent flier”
and “first timer’s” views emanate from “only one or two individuals” who “are
not members of staff”.
Nevertheless,
he also reiterated his implication that, by remaining in e-mail contact, the
Wild Bunch supports the defamatory authors’ views and are colluding to “smear”
of DVC Phakeng.
On
the same day Bunch ‘member’ Assoc. Prof. Michelle Kuttel wrote:
It
shouldn’t be necessary say so, but my receipt of an email does not (ever) imply
my agreement with the views of the sender.
This
should in any case be obvious, as should the fact that one email does not make
a "smear campaign”.
However,
I am decidedly opposed to implied threats and coercion, further symptoms of the
continued erosion of freedom of speech at UCT. So, in the interest of
hearing diverse views, I am not going to request removal from this “list”.
Minutes
later, ‘Bunchist’ MP [and UCT Council member] Michael Cardo wrote:
I
don’t know who [“first timer”] is; I set no store by his views on staff members
at UCT and their qualifications; and I don’t see why anyone should assume I
would.
If
indeed his false claim about Prof Phakeng’s qualifications is being widely
disseminated and seriously entertained then I welcome the VC’s intervention to
defend the DVC (and the university)’s reputational integrity.
However,
I would be wary of any attempt to coerce the members of this (involuntary,
somewhat random and seemingly mutable) group of recipients into opting-out — as
a collective — of receiving future emails. Of course, individuals should
be free not to receive these emails, in the same way that they should
be free to ignore them or consign them to their trash folder when the content
is nugatory.
Seconds
later, eminent UCT alumnus and 40-year MP Graham
McIntosh chimed in, supporting Michelle and Michael. In September 2016, UCT Executive Director
Russell Ally implied that McIntosh was an “ass” on the
‘wrong side’ of history.
I
too responded:
I
see that University of Cape Town Vice Chancellor Max Price has circulated [this
time in his official capacity From the VC's Desk] a second message relating to
two e-mails from non-UCT employees that he and I agree mock and insult (I would
say defame) UCT DVC Professor Mamokgethi Phakeng. Let me reiterate, Prof. Phakeng
is eminently qualified for the senior position she occupies. I have
communicated this view to her personally and look forward to engaging with her
on matters relating to research excellence at UCT.
Like
Price, I too am offended and saddened by these messages, which depart from the
normal constructive discussion/debate among our little group. Indeed, I
feel similarly about the prevalence of comparable ad hominem attacks on members of UCT’s staff (generally by pro-Fallist
colleagues or students) that have been allowed to recur since 2012.
However, I do not concur with Dr Price that: “The tone of the
communication and the unguarded nature of the comments creates the impression
that the views being expressed are widely shared by the members of the email group.”
In fact, based on my personal knowledge of many on the list, I strongly dispute
this implication.
I
also share UCT Prof. Michelle Kuttel’s, MP (and UCT Council member) Michael
Cardo’s and UCT alumnus/former MP Graham McIntosh’s objection to Price’s view
that remaining on the circulation list constitutes an admission of support for
the disparaging comments or, worse still, “collusion” or a “smear”.
I’ll
go further and say that, if anything, there is almost always a wide variation
in views amongst listees on the topics we discuss/debate.”
It is not for the VC of UCT, or anyone else,
to prescribe who should communicate with whom. Such a proposition rings
of attempted censorship.
On
9 October, de-listed Prof. Nicola Illing wrote:
Dear
members of this e-mail list (which was compiled without the permission of many
of us to be included)
My
first response of reading [“frequent flier” and “first timer’s”] emails last
week, was to remove myself from this toxic correspondence as soon as
possible. However, on reflection, my request to be delisted should have
also included the reasons why I found the comments so unpalatable. They
insulted a colleague at UCT, whom [“first timer’] may or may not have met. Prof
Phakeng is someone who I have worked closely with over the last 10 months, and
I have been impressed by her contributions to UCT.
Prof
Phakeng asked me to Chair a Postgraduate Studies Task Team which was
constituted in response to funding issues that I raised at a University
Research Committee meeting, and in response to grievances raised by
Postgraduate Students at UCT. Prof Phakeng has impressed me with her energy and
commitment in all my dealings. Prof Phakeng is also willing to be
challenged on her views, and we have had constructive conversations in trying
to find middle ground. There is no doubt that Prof Phakeng is making important
contributions to UCT at time that is particularly challenging.
Rather
than further engage on email, I am open to meeting anyone for discussion.
Fake news
Two
days later on 11 October, curious Daily Vox journalist Nolwandle
Zondi [who “dreams of setting a pile of cash on fire”] summarized material
from a Facebook posting by Prof. Phakeng and the “Phakeng Incident” ‘went
ballistic’.
Zondi
starts her piece off by inadvertently supporting “frequent flier” when she:
describes Phakeng as “social media savvy”; announces that there is a #handsoffPhakeng
trending on Twitter; and confirms Phakeng’s reliance on social media “because
that’s where the biggest network of people who know her is”. Zondi also claims that the two defamatory statements
- numbering 34 words combined and covering four sentences - constitute a “string of emails” and “a
malicious smear campaign”. She also
incorrectly reports the campaign’s “launch” date as 4 October instead of 28
September, and that “first timer” alleged “that her qualifications are fake”. [That’s what the Fallists said about Gwen
Ngwenya.] Then, for some reason, she
attempted a racial demographic analysis of the Wild Bunch.
Tellingly
comes a ridiculous conclusion: “Phakeng believes those that remained silent
means they are complicit.”
This
is equivalent to saying: “Because the vast majority of the UCT Community have
been silenced by Fallist thugs and pro-Fallists who have ignored their pleas,
they support decolonizing the university into a pluriversity; Ph.D. educated
scholars into public intellectuals; and Truth and Academic Freedom into
contextually contingent phenomena.”
Next,
she quotes Phakeng as saying that she isn’t the first person to experience this
kind of attack in academia: “[T]his isn’t just my story. It’s the story of many
black African academics.” Furthermore, Phakeng is using her stature, office,
and power to draw attention to this type of bullying that has nothing to do
with qualification. “We have to root it out. We have to call it what it is
because it’s not about qualification. In my view it’s racism.”
When
asked for names of “bullied” black academics, Phakeng offered former Wits DVC
Professor Malegapuru William Makgoba and,
more recently Professor Chris Malikane, Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba’s economic
adviser. I and many others would
challenge that these gentlemen were ever ‘bullied’, but rather legitimately
criticised.
Phakeng’s
“root it out” quote smacks of McCarthyism
or calling an Inquisition (via the Institutional Reconciliation and
Transformation Commission?).
Phakeng’s
reported statements that: “they’re” targeting her because she, as a black
African woman in one of the highest offices at the university, represents
something conservatives associated with the university don’t want, and “I
represent what conservatives are scared of. They think people like me are here
to take over or destroy.” somehow do not ring true. For three exciting years, UCT was united,
thrived and generally willingly dramatically transformed under the ‘reign’ of a
black African woman VC: Mamphela Ramphele.
I and virtually all members of the UCT Community I’ve interviewed would
have “gone through a brick wall for her”.
With
regard to the frightened ”conservatives” out to get her, I know of none and she
names no names (me?). It’s too soon to
tell.
Finally,
concluding that:
“This
experience has shown Phakeng that the state of transformation in South African
universities is worse than she thought because racist behaviour in this country
is not being called out.” and “highly educated people who are alumni and
successful in business, just can do this and get away with it; that a group of
people won’t even call them out on it.”
seems
unwarranted.
Two
individuals on a highly mutating e-mail list REPLIED ALL with brief
messages. One expressed his distaste for
her ‘Trump-like’ over-reliance on ‘twittering’ and concluded that this
undermined her ability to act as a UCT DVC.
Later, he specifically denied being influenced by the DVC’s ‘race’ or
gender. The other expressed an
erroneous, evidence-free belief that Prof. Phakeng lacks a university degree in
mathematics and implied that a "PhD in education of
mathematics" … “might justify investigating as she is such an
embarrassment...”. He also did not
suggest that her ‘race’ or gender rendered her unsuitable to be a UCT DVC.
To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Some disturbing news
But,
given Phakeng’s formidable background as a mathematician and mathematics
educator, the Executive’s choice to invite highly-controversial and
unwelcomed (certainly by the vast majority of UCT’s mathematical academics)
mathematician Prof. Chandra Raju to present a path for decolonizing science in
general and mathematics in particular, the news is not good.
Must already overworked and demoralized [in too many cases
despondent] UCT academics, time and time again, have to waste the time members
of UCTs Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics have expended to deal
with unsubstantiated allegations by highly dubious ‘opponents’ like Raju, simply
because they self-identify as decolonists; cloak their arguments with claims of
racism, epistemic fraud and geographical chauvinism; and, when their arguments
are challenged, resort to ad hominem
attacks and defamation?
Rest assured that, if similar biological ‘decolonists’ are foisted
upon my colleagues in Biological Sciences and Molecular and Cell Biology, I
[and others] will attempt to emulate their scholarly actions that epitomize
what has made UCT an African “University” that ranks with the best on Earth.
The UCT Executive should please consult closely with the highly
capable and dedicated academics and academics in training that remain at UCT to
maintain the process of generating the leaders so desperately needed to serve
the needs ALL South Africans, especially those denied opportunities for far too
long. Challenge them to come up with
solutions that can deliver the educational and research ‘goods’.
When they deliver these solutions, the highly paid/bonused VC,
DVC’s, Registrar, Deputy Registrars, Executive Directors and their deputies
should do their jobs and help the academics obtain the resources necessary to
get the job done. In this way they will
fulfil the administration’s goal of “justifying their existence” set by UCT’s
first registrar.
Only then, in VC Price’s words, will “No one be left behind”.
