‘Yes, universities should take a stand against genocide’

Universities in South Africa should not be neutral in responding to geopolitical conflicts as the country’s history, especially in knowledge production, is replete with ideologies of racism, colonialism and apartheid. Instead, universities should question the cost of silence in the face of injustice, violence and atrocities.

This is a summary of the polemical joint response by two South African scholars, Ashraf Kagee, distinguished professor of psychology at Stellenbosch University (SU), and Dr Shuaib Manjra, honorary senior lecturer at the University of Cape Town’s School of Public Health, about whether universities should respond to geopolitical conflicts.

Jonathan Jansen, a distinguished professor in the faculty of education at SU and a former vice-chancellor, also believes that, rather than universities isolating themselves, they should play a critical role in demonstrating how to respond to global conflicts and pointed out that universities globally are, by nature, political and not neutral.

In their commentary, ‘Yes, our universities should take a stand against genocide’, published in the latest edition of the South African Journal of Science, Kagee and Manjra rejected the position of Nithaya Chetty, a professor of physics and dean of the faculty of science at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, that universities should be wary of issuing official statements and resolutions on issues of a political nature where there is no consensus among academic staff and students. Chetty’s argument is set out in another article in University World News.

Academic freedom and geopolitics

Chetty’s commentary, ‘Should our universities respond to geopolitical conflicts around the world?’ originated from the council decision of the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa to endorse two UCT senate resolutions on Israel’s war in Gaza.

The two resolutions that were passed on 19 April 2024 and later adopted specifically included a clause that condemned the destruction of the education sector in Gaza and the scale of the killing of teachers and university staff in the current conflict. The resolutions are currently being challenged in court by Adam Mendelsohn, a professor of history at UCT.

Chetty argued that such official statements and resolutions as those passed by UCT’s council were contrary to the basic principles of academic freedom, as there was no consensus. He emphasised that academic freedom should be exercised on an individual basis, particularly in cases involving volatile and divisive geopolitical issues.

“It goes against the principles of academic freedom for the university to impose a hegemonic view from the top of an essentially political matter when we have differing views on this among staff and students,” Chetty stated in a commentary in the journal.

No neutral space

However, Kagee and Manjra dismissed Chetty’s ideas on the principles of academic freedom, arguing that universities are places where political and social ideologies are nurtured and reproduced.

“It is only those steeped in dominant hegemonic cultures, power structures and narratives who would view the university as a neutral space,” said the two scholars.

They argued that, before 1994, South African universities, as sites of state power and authority, were challenged by the anti-apartheid movement, including faculty, staff, students, communities and workers.

Drawing further references from the apartheid era, Kagee and Manjra noted that tertiary institutions were contested spaces, with faculty holding differing views on boycotts, academic freedom and the role of education as a tool for liberation. “Universities took political positions, some progressive, others deeply reactionary, but in the democratic era, the vision and mission statements of many universities extol the virtues of social justice, human rights and societal benefits,” stated Kagee and Manjra.

Their commentary cited UCT’s bold statement on Vision 2030, which proclaims a commitment to pursue transformative goals to unleash human potential and create a fair and just society.

Quoting Saleem Badat, a critical sociologist and professor of research at the University of the Free State as well as a former vice-chancellor, the two academics noted that a university is not a value-free space but should be informed by a commitment to human rights.

They argued that, instead of calling for neutrality, Chetty should have supported human rights and stood in solidarity with Palestinian universities, scholars and students.

Commitments to social justice?

For Jansen, institutional neutrality is somewhat doubtful because the modern university has never been neutral on the most significant moral issues of the day, whether local, regional or global, or even in matters of admissions, funding or curricula reforms.

Drawing insights from Professor John Higgins, the holder of the Arderne Chair in Literature at UCT, Jansen explained that the neutrality principle aims to make the university a space outside of politics; yet, in reality, it can only serve as a cover for severe political consequences.

Jansen’s key response to Chetty is that a university that remains neutral in the face of a staggering loss of human life and flagrant breach and disregard of human rights, as in Gaza, would have to revisit its mission statements, which often include commitments to social justice.

Addressing the issue of the illusion of university neutrality in the face of global conflicts, Jansen’s opinion was that no official university statement, whether on racial justice or transgender rights, will ever carry the consent of all campus citizens. Nevertheless, universities could make statements based on humanitarian values as outlined in institutional mission statements and the constitution.

Revisiting the apartheid era

In this regard, Kagee and Manjra argued that the acts committed by Israel in Gaza were not issues of political conflict but tilted the balance towards the realm of violation of human rights and social justice.

However, challenging Chetty’s proposition that a vote in solidarity with Gaza was unnecessary because no similar political statements had been made concerning conflicts in Africa, Kagee and Manjra stated that the suggestion was intended to deflect attention from Gaza.

According to Chetty, if a university wants to comment on one major human rights issue, it should make every effort to comment on essentially every other major human rights catastrophe, a situation he describes as hopelessly untenable on practical grounds. “But if we want to become a university that speaks out on human rights matters, let us do this consistently and sincerely,” said Chetty.

However, for Kagee and others, this is a false assertion that, unless we take a position on every issue, we cannot take a position on any issue, however horrifying it may be.

Responding to Chetty’s idea with a counter-argument, Kagee and like-minded scholars are faulting supporters of Israel for not having an abiding interest in supporting the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Sudan or other people living in conflict areas in the continent.

In addition, Kagee, Manjra and Jansen, in their counter-argumentative responses, appear to be concerned about whether, in earlier circumstances, Chetty would have advocated for neutrality among the student-intelligentsia and staff in various universities who, in the 1960s and 1970s, demonstrated and rioted on the streets and raised their voices against apartheid.

The question of university neutrality in geopolitical issues still looms large in the current debate; however, Kagee and his associates see no way out for South African universities, which are deeply rooted in the country’s political circumstances, power structures and experiences of discrimination.

The question of donors’ values

They also reject the notion that universities can remain neutral on crucial political issues, fearing donor flight, a position that universities often adopt. However, while this could be a legitimate concern, the three academics are concerned about the potential cost of prioritising donors’ values.

More questions are also still arising as to what should happen if the moral and ethical values of donors do not align with the values of the university. In this regard, should universities accept being bullied and forced to comply with beliefs that pose threats to their institutional autonomy and academic freedom?

Nevertheless, whichever side one supports, Chetty has sparked an essential debate that is likely to expose South African universities and their counterparts in Africa to the challenge of not avoiding moral and ethical judgments on the continent and beyond.

However, for now, it is difficult to determine how some South African universities and academics will, in future, respond to the hardline message of Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), the moral German philosopher, that ‘it is good to let justice reign, even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it’.