The ‘use’ and abuse of defamation at the University of Cape Town (UCT)

The ‘use’ and abuse of defamation at the University of Cape Town (UCT)

Emeritus Professor Tim Crowe – B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D. and F.U.C.T.

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”.