Tim Crowe: Phantom-racism tackles academic excellence at UCT

By Tim Crowe*

Just some background. One of my major Ph.D. related publications as a student at the University of Cape Town (UCT) was on subspecific (‘racial’) variation in Africa’s most widespread game bird, the Helmeted Guinea fowl. By chance, I discussed this work in connection with scientific racism with Robert Sobukwe, whom I met in Kimberley. 40 years later after a successful academic career at UCT and internationally (+/- 300 scientific publications, 50 M.Sc./Ph.D. students, promotion to full professor, fellowships, etc.), this led me to write two widely-read articles on race as it applies to humans.

How origin of the Khoisan tells us that race has no place in human ancestry & How science has been abused through the ages to promote racism.

Recently, when I referred them to the UCT professor discussed below in an e-mail ‘debate’, he described me, amongst other defamatory designations, as a “eugenicist”, i.e. someone who favours improving the human genetic condition by promoting of reproduction between people with desired traits and/or reducing rates of reproduction (e.g. through enforced sterilization) of people with undesired traits. I took strong exception to this.

In the article discussed below, he summarily and similarly demeans many other unidentified colleagues at UCT.

The article concerned is by Sociology Prof. Xolela Mangcu and continues his long-running condemnation of the University of Cape Town.

He begins by stating: “Our universities are dominated by self-designated Donald Trumps who have taken it upon themselves to protect the family silver from the barbarians at the gate.”

So, deans, heads of department and members of the UCT Executive [who/all?] are racist, sexist and xenophobic demagogues bent on preventing ‘blacks’[?] from acquiring knowledge/wealth. I had hoped that these “Trumps” would finally respond to this and past attacks against them. Since they haven’t, I will.

Mangcu continues his practice of quoting controversial, anti-colonial/Apartheid intellectuals, this time eminent post-colonialist literature Professor Edward Said. Said, although described as an “anti-Semite” and “professor of terror” by his critics, was a sought-after speaker who gave a UCT TB Davie Academic Freedom Lecture. Nevertheless, his invited lecture to the Austrian Freud Society was cancelled in 2001 because of “the political situation in the Middle East, and its consequences” had led to an accusation of anti-Semitism and was a “very serious matter” which had “become more [politically] dangerous”.

Read also: Mailbox: UCT cuts Rose’s talk. Is it the end of Freedom of Speech?

Sadly, a common tactic employed by members of totalitarian movements (and now Mangcu and the UCT Executive) to deal with their critics when they cannot expose their moral or logical flaws is to label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. We only need to look to at the South African Broadcasting Corporation (past and present) and post-liberation Zimbabwe to find ongoing examples of this tactic.

Mangcu then describes unidentified UCT academic departments as employing undescribed “embedded intergroup dynamics”operating “in the image of the British imperial monarchy” based on the ‘praxis’ of unidentified “paternal master[s] and loyal servant[s]”.

Then, he (a distinguished 50 year-old, non-uniform-garbed, “full black professor”) alludes to undocumented instances in which he has had “to deal with personal slights [from “masters”?] as being mistaken for a ‘delivery boy’ [servant?] or being told to look for students’ toilets or having my [his] intelligence and integrity questioned by my [unidentified] colleagues in full view of [unidentified] everyone”. The perpetrators of these racist acts are unidentified “UNTOUCHABLES [my caps – presumably in the sense of the film and not in the Indian caste system] who sustain themselves by selling fellow [unidentified] white colleagues a false sense of security”. He goes on later to say that some of these unidentified ‘white’ “untouchables” have “special deals [what and with whom?] that are not entirely transparent” and that unidentified “young black academics [are] leaving UCT because it could not accommodate their [unidentified] projects”.

With regard to his last point, over my 40+ years at UCT, I have known many young academics (‘black’ and ‘white’) who have left UCT and other South African universities to go elsewhere in the public/private/academic sectors. Almost invariably, this has been for career advancement because UCT sets (or at least used to set) exceptionally high standards for ad hominem promotion. Many of these ‘emigrants’ (and in my own field I could rattle off the names of a dozen) have had very successful careers locally and internationally. The alternative (in the ‘imperialistic’ past and in at least in some faculties presently) is to ‘hang in there’ and meet the criteria (peer-reviewed evidence of excellence in teaching and research and the production of graduates who have successful careers) to warrant ‘unassisted’ ad hominem promotion.

Read also: RW Johnson: UCT’s critical choice – go private or become another Turfloop

At UCT, this takes (or used to take) “decades of effort … invariably in the face of obstacles” and “intellectual creativity”. An excellent example of how to ‘get the job done’ right is Prof. Bongani Mayosi, dean designate of the Faculty of Health Sciences and one of UCT’s newest National Research Foundation A-rated researchers.

Despite this, Mangcu writes about “right-wing attacks on affirmative action”, but fails to identify the attackers, victims and the nature of the attacks. He also highlights the existence of a pervasive “subterranean anger among students”? The violent/destructive acts of the various ‘MustFall’ students and other ‘protesters’ have been certainly ‘above-ground’.

Then he defames the duly constituted UCT Academic Freedom Committee (AFC), comprised of eminent ethicists, philosphers, etc, which he states has “invented its own version of academic freedom”. He even, suggeststhat this committee would have invited “Adolf Hitler or Hendrik Verwoerd to our campus”.  Like the UCT Executive and #RhodesMustFall students, he condemns the AFC for inviting a “religious hate-monger”, journalist Flemming Rose, whose publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad is arguably no more controversial than Said’s speeches and actions.   Mangcu characterizes the AFC members as ‘tone-deaf’ and ‘arrogant’, and concludes that: “Academic freedom is too important to be left in the hands of provocateurs”. But, Prof. Mangcu offers no evidence demonstrating that anyone on the AFC committed, or enticed other persons to commit, illegal acts. Some real UCT-based “provocateurs” have been identified and ordered to cease their activities on UCT property. They have not, and Mangcu favours pardoning them.

So, what is the solution? Well, first it makes sense to identify the problems unequivocally. Mangcu could personally help lay the foundations for this by identifying the “Trumps” and their acolytes who have “trained [and continue to train] their guns” on him and provide evidence of their nefarious activities. Better still, he could encourage similarly persecuted student/collegial “victims” to do the same.

Read also: UCT students in forefront of explaining transforming power equation to SA

Others, including myself, would go further. We call for a transparent, anonymous (intimidation-proof) democratic ballot/survey aimed at determining the “real” views and experiences of self-identifying subsets of the UCT Community (e.g. Africans, Indians, ‘Coloureds’, ‘whites’, males, females, LGBTQs, abled/disabled, wealthy/poor, academic/support staff, alumni, invested parents/donors, et al.). This is because, in fact, no one really knows what’s happening at UCT and/or what ‘it thinks’. In addition to seeking tangible evidence of Mangcu’s accusations, key questions that I would like asked in such a ballot/survey should relate to: the relative importance of academic merit/achievement vs demographic representation in appointments/promotions, exclusion of elements of the curriculum based on geographical/gender/racial provenance, the utility of programmes/departments/faculties/staff (especially non-academic) who absorb huge chunks of UCT’s budget but deliver few successful graduates and little evidence of intellectual excellence or creativity. Prof. Mangcu, staff students, alumni and invested parents/donors must also be invited to add other questions.

Then, it makes good sense to follow Mangcu’s advice to have “a public inquiry into the governance and decision processes” at UCT and encourage other universities and/or the Department of Higher Education to follow suit.

The time is ripe at UCT and elsewhere for transparent, democratic, intimidation-free, and unbiased investigation to identify problems and shared goals. Once this is done, rational, intimidation/violence-free debate and pragmatic deliberation is the only way to generate solutions and achievements. Up to now, all we’ve had are unsubstantiated opinions and accusations and non-transparent, unjustified actions. If this continues, UCT could devolve into a bunch of buildings, controlled by a few demagogues and occupied by a bunch of censored academics obsessed with the need not to offend anyone, especially educationally disabled and ideologically misled students. In short, my alma mater could change from an island of academic excellence to a diploma factory with aspirations of mediocrity fulfilled with minimal effort.

• UCT Emeritus Prof. Tim Crowe.