Academic Freedom Crisis at UZKN : IMC-SA

4 October 2006

The Vice Chancellor
Professor Malegapuru William Makgoba
University of KwaZulu Natal
King George V Avenue, Glenwood
Durban
Fax Number: 262 2192

Dear Professor Makgoba

We write to you because of a growing concern that the Freedom of Expression
Institute has had over the recent past regarding the state of freedom of
expression and of academic freedom at the University of KwaZulu Natal. We
believe that free expression and academic freedom are in severe decline at
your university and urge you to act expeditiously to stem this trend which
is already derailing your vision of being “the premier university of African
scholarship”.

The latest incident that has caused us to stand up and take notice and which
has raised the level of our concern is the matter of Fazel Khan, a lecturer
in Sociology and Social Studies on the Howard College campus of UKZN. Khan
gave interviews to certain media that had approached him regarding the
publication of an article in the latest issue of ukzndaba (Vol. 3, No. 6/7,
June/ July 2006), the newsletter published by your Public Affairs and
Corporate Communications Department. The article is about a film that Khan
co-directed, but the article makes no mention of him or his involvement in
the film, while mentioning his co-director as the director. The article was
accompanied by a picture showing Khan’s co-director. The original picture
had included Khan but he was cropped out in the version that appeared in
your newsletter. As a result of his being excluded in this manner, an
aggrieved Khan, when approached to comment by a few newspapers, was quite
critical of the newsletter. These criticisms (detailed in the charge sheet
presented to him by your university and supplied to us by one of the staff
unions) will now be used against Khan in a disciplinary hearing where he
faces possible dismissal.

We find the action of the university in hauling this academic before a
disciplinary hearing in such a manner – and for such comments – to be
appalling. Only in the most authoritarian societies do universities prevent
academics from speaking to the media about their work, their research and
their opinions and criticisms on the development of society and of their own
institutions. South Africa, fortunately, is not such a society, though one
might not realise that fact if one were to base one’s understanding on the
state of free expression at UKZN.

>From the charge sheet and from examining the newspaper articles referred
>to, we are convinced that Khan simply acted on the basis of his
>constitutional right to free expression and was neither ‘dishonest’ nor
>‘reckless’ in the statements he made – as the charge sheet alleges. In our
>opinion any disciplinary action taken against Khan would constitute an
>unreasonable limitation on Khan’s right to freedom of expression and thus
>unconstitutional.

Khan would moreover have the right to review any disciplinary action taken
by UKZN in any competent court. Our courts have consistently upheld the
right of workers to engage in speech critical of their employers, most
famously in the 1999 Constitutional Court case of SANDF Union vs Minister of
Defence. In the 2006 case of Costa Gazidis vs The Minister of Public Service
and Administration, the Pretoria High Court found that Dr Gazidis’ criticism
of government’s policy in the media, including his utterance about the
Minister of Health, did not amount or constitute prejudice to the
administration of the department. Dr Gazidis was therefore reinstated.

This year the FXI successfully intervened as amicus curiae in the CCMA case
of Vusi Sibeko, a member of the Commercial, Services and Allied Workers'
Union (Cosawu), who was dismissed for writing an article in the newspaper of
the Democratic Socialist Movement that was critical of working conditions at
Superspar. Sibeko won his case for unfair dismissal at the CCMA. His
employer, the Royal Ascot Superspar in Cape Town, was ordered to reinstate
Sibeko and pay 5 months of back pay. The case became a cause celebre for
labour organisations both locally and internationally and Superspar
attracted much criticism in the media.

Should disciplinary action be taken against Khan, UKZN will face a similar
barrage of local and international condemnation. The FXI undertakes to
intervene in all legal processes as a witness or amicus curiae, as well as
launch a media campaign in support of Khan.

However, the fact that we believe that the charges cannot hold up in a court
are irrelevant to the main issue of concern for us: that this is an example
of the manner in which freedom of expression is being eroded at UKZN.

Professor Makgoba, in your statement on the UKZN website, you say: “A
critical prerequisite for human development is the creation of a humane and
enabling institution; one that is based on respect for human rights,
dignity, diversity and sound ethics.” Having spoken to a number of academics
at the university over the past year, however, we are convinced that the
“respect for human rights, dignity, diversity and sound ethics” that you
aspire to for the university is being severely compromised. Indeed, we
believe that, particularly in the past six months, a climate of fear has
taken root at the university, where academics, workers and students are
afraid of, in any way, challenging or criticising the university
administration. Such a climate is disastrous at any academic institution and
very seriously threatens the spirit of enquiry and academic freedom. It also
can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression more generally at the
institution – something any university should be vigorously guarding
against. A number of incidents over the past year have led us to this
conclusion and we mention some of them below.

1. The recent report by Leana Uys and Charlotte Mbali that found that, “The
executive management of the University of KwaZulu-Natal is not trusted by a
significant number of faculty and staff to follow through on its promises or
to honour its commitments,” as reported by The Mercury (25 September 2006).
The report also found that there was, at the university, a lack of
consultation and a lack of meaningful communication; an authoritarian
attitude; the privilege of position; intimidation and bullying; a lack of
transparency and democratic procedures. The fact that such perceptions exist
among staff should be extremely worrying – whether they are true or not. It
is disconcerting when an institution that is supposed to be a bastion of
free thinking is regarded by those who have the responsibility to foster
such free thinking believe it to be authoritarian and bullying.
2. Your refusal, yesterday, to meet with representatives of the Student
Solidarity Counselling and Appeals Committee and the Socialist Student
Movement to discuss student exclusions simply because they had spoken to the
media.
3. An email notice from Professor Dasarath Chetty, on the 2 March 2006, to
the university community informing members of the community of the
university’s intention to prevent them from speaking to the media about the
impending strike action by staff.
4. An academic from Rhodes University, Professor Jimi Adesina, being sued by
your Professor Dasarath Chetty for defamation for an email that Adesina had
sent out wherein he had criticised Chetty’s email notice to the university
community (referred to in 2. above). (See summons served on Adesina on the
17th May 2006.)
5. An email notice from yourself to the university community on the 4 August
2006, informing the community that, “Senate resolved that all members of the
University Community should exercise due care when communicating with the
media, so as not to bring the University into disrepute.”
6. The issue of the banning of Dr Ashwin Desai has still not been resolved
by UKZN – months after a national public debate about the matter and months
after you had promised that the matter would be resolved.
7. The UKZN “Electronic Communications Policy”. We note that Professor Ahmed
Bawa wrote to the university community on the 3 October 2006 that the policy
is still in draft form and has not been adopted yet. However, the document
itself states that it is effective from the date stated thereon – the 12th
January 2006. This policy is a gross violation of academic freedom and
freedom of expression more generally. Apart from allowing the university to
spy on individuals’ email correspondences, it also allows the university to
read documents on staff members’ personal computers (that belong to the
university). Further, it makes “illegal” any email and web content that
“contains material that is unlawful or in violation of any University Policy
including but not limited to pornographic, oppressive, racist, sexist,
defamatory against any User or third party.” This is a severe restriction on
academics conducting research on various aspects of racism, sexism,
feminism, freedom of expression, etc.
8. The recent incident (The Mercury, 28 September 2006) when an academic at
the university was prevented by software installed on his computer from
sending out emails because he had not assented to the “Electronic
Communications Policy”.

In the May 2006 issue of ukzndaba, Professor Dasarath Chetty writes about
the newsletter: “Views inimical to management’s have never been excluded
from ukzndaba but we have now decided to give these a regular slot in the
interest of stimulating debate and building a more open Institution.”
Referring to a new column that had been published for the first time in that
edition of the newsletter, Chetty remarked: “It is a column aimed at
soliciting contributions from members of the University community who occupy
leadership positions, those who are outspoken, controversial and
provocative, but who enhance the quality of the debates on transformation
and other University issues.” These are noble intentions and in keeping with
the spirit of academic freedom and freedom of expression that should be
fostered in South Africa. It is such a pity that UKZN has, rather, fostered
an environment of fear, apprehension and uncertainty among many of its staff
and students. It is a climate, the impression is given, where “those who are
outspoken, controversial and provocative, but who enhance the quality of the
debates on transformation and other University issues” have to be silenced.
Why else would Jimi Adesina be sued? And why else would Fazel Khan be hauled
before a disciplinary hearing?

If allowed to go unchallenged, this decision will set an extremely negative
precedent for freedom of expression in South Africa’s academic institutions,
because it will create a climate of self-censorship at the very heart of
policy-making and intellectual life in this country. It will mean that
academics will have to refrain from any form of commentary on or reasonable
criticism of their universities out of fear of being dismissed. This is
surely not what a democracy is about. As workers and citizens of this
country, these academics have an inalienable right to engage in political
speech about matters of public interest, and should be able to do so freely.
By attempting to stifle healthy criticism and debate, especially amongst its
own workers, UKZN has been exposed as intolerant and censorious.

Professor Makgoba, while we respect internal institutional procedures
regarding disciplinary actions against staff, we do believe that the
impending action against Fazel Khan is unnecessary. We therefore urge you to
withdraw all charges against Khan and to begin the process of transforming
the fearful environment that has been created at the university that you
head. We are seeing attempts to attain good short-term publicity for the
institution which will ultimately result in the very purpose of the
university being subverted. If we allow UKZN to continue sliding into the
abyss of a complete disregard of academic freedom and freedom of expression,
we will end up with the kind of university that only dictators can be proud
of, the kind of university that is not concerned with fostering academic
enquiry but thought control. We doubt that this is the kind of institution
you will like to be known to have presided over.

Yours faithfully

______________
Na’eem Jeenah
Head: Anti-Censorship Programme

http://www.mg.co.za

M&G has the following article written by David
Macfarlane:

'CLIMATE OF FEAR' ON UKZN CAMPUS

The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) has protested to University
of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) vice-chancellor Malegapuru Makgoba about a
"severe decline" in academic freedom and a "climate of fear" on the UKZN
campus.

Na'eem Jeenah, head of the FXI's anti-censorship programme, was
reacting to the bringing of disciplinary action against sociology
academic Fazel Khan. Khan is charged with making "dishonest" or
"reckless" comments to the media after he was airbrushed from a
photograph in the university's newsletter UKZNdaba.

In a strongly worded letter, Jeenah told Makgoba that this "latest
incident . . . has caused us to stand up and take notice and . . .
raised the level of our concern".

The Mail & Guardian reported on the apparent censoring of the
photograph, which accompanied an article on a documentary film about a
Durban shack-dwellers movement from which Khan was also omitted. He had
co-directed the film, shown at the International Labour Film and Video
Festival in Turkey.

Khan said his omission from the picture and the article was "dirty
revenge" for his role in UKZN's February staff strike. He belongs to the
Combined Staff Association, one of four unions at the university

The documentary's other co-director, UKZN graphic artist Sally Giles,
took responsibility for the airbrushing and for supplying the newsletter
with information omitting mention of Khan.

Khan's comments to the M&G are cited in the charge sheet delivered to
him this week. Two other charges are based on his comments to The
Mercury and The Witness on the same issue, published a week later.

Jeenah's letter to Makgoba notes that Khan faces possible dismissal,
adding that the university's action is "appalling . . . Only in the most
authoritarian societies do universities prevent academics from speaking
to the media about their work, their research and their opinions and
criticisms on the development of society and of their own
institutions".

The FXI's main concern, Jeenah wrote, is that the action against Khan
"is an example of the manner in which freedom of expression is being
eroded at UKZN". Having spoken to a number of the university's academics
over the past year, "we believe that . . . a climate of fear has taken
root at the university, where academics, workers and students are afraid
of . . . challenging or criticising the university administration".

The letter cites a number of other recent developments that "threaten
the spirit of inquiry and academic freedom". One is a confidential
report of a joint management-union task team after the strike, which
recorded staff perceptions of executive management as authoritarian and
the climate at UKZN as intimidatory and bullying.

Another concerns the university's electronic communications policy,
which the FXI writes is "a gross violation of academic freedom and
freedom of expression. Apart from allowing the university to spy on
individual's e-mail correspondences, it also allows the university to
read documents on staff members' personal computers (that belong to the
university)."

The letter notes a university announcement this week that the policy is
still in draft form, but observes that it has been in effect since
January.

Other concerns the FXI raises include official cautions to staff about
communicating with the media; and the still unresolved banning of Ashwin
Desai "months after [Makgoba] had promised that the matter would be
resolved".

Makgoba said he had no comment on the FXI letter. Khan said he
preferred not to comment on the charges against him for fear of
prejudicing his case.

Combined Staff Association president Evan Mantzaris observed: "People
can't talk openly - this isn't a university any more. The whole
collegial relationship has disappeared." His union strongly opposed the
action against Khan and will look to the other unions for their
support.

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3037613

MLABA says claims are nonsense

UKZN academic accuses mayor of meddling
December 16, 2005 Edition 1

Zukile Majova & Carvin Goldstone

An academic at the University of KwaZulu-Natal's Centre for Civil Society, who has been at the forefront of protest against the perceived slow pace of service provision by the eThekwini Municipality, claims his academic freedom is being undermined.

The claim is vigorously denied by the UKZN Vice-Chancellor and Principal, Prof William Makgoba. The academic says he believes eThekwini Mayor Obed Mlaba is using his friendship with Makgoba to tinker with academic freedom. At the centre of the uproar is a claim that Mlaba told Makgoba he was very angry about the activities of some of the academics on Makgoba's payroll.

Fazel Khan, a sociologist from UKZN who is documenting the plight of shack dwellers living in informal settlements in Kennedy Road and Sydenham in Durban, said he was considering dropping his research because of political interference in his work. Khan's troubles reportedly started on December 7 after he attended the Vice-Chancellor's Consultation Forum. He said he had spoken to Makgoba at the end of the forum.

"I was talking about union matters when Makgoba told me the mayor was very angry with me," he said.

"He said Mlaba phoned him to voice his anger with my involvement with the informal settlement disputes.

"I told him that I was elected by the people to represent them, help them write press releases, teach them how to take minutes of their meetings, etc."

Khan, who is doing a PhD in sociology, told Makgoba that his involvement was in line with his academic work because he was producing a research paper on the matter, and it was part of his community outreach, a requirement expected of all academics. But he said Makgoba had repeated: "Mlaba is very angry with you."

Makgoba had added that the mayor was preparing a report regarding Khan's actions of instigating the informal settlers, and it would be presented to the university's council.

"For the third time he told me that Mlaba is very angry with me," said Khan.

"I then asked him (Makgoba) what his opinion was on this matter, and he said he did not have an opinion at the time, but would wait for the presentation to be made to council.

"I felt that instead of encouraging independence for researchers, he was exposing them to intimidation."

The conversation was overheard by Prof Kathan Pillay and an executive member of the National Education Health and Allied Workers' Union who attended the forum. Pillay said: "I can say that the conversation was informal, but I will not delve into its content because it was between Prof Makgoba and Khan."

Khan has reported the matter to the Freedom of Expression Institute and the Human Rights Foundation. However, Makgoba said the mayor had never phoned him. He said he had been told by a member of the university staff who had visited the informal settlement at the same time as Mlaba that the mayor had been angry at some academics in the university. He denied intimidating Khan, saying their conversation had been informal and not characterised by "finger-pointing intimidation".

"I spoke to him off the cuff. There are different kinds of conversations and this one was informal," said Makgoba.