I’ve received a couple of emails asking about a recent letter the Vice Chancellor of Wits University sent to the entire campus. The letter was a response to allegations lead by the Palestine Solidarity Committee that “apartheid era” styled racial profiling took place on campus during Limmud.
During Limmud, a small silent protest was allowed just outside the entrance to the building where the lectures took place. I have been told that the number of protestors allowed was agreed upon prior to the start of Limmud.
Outside the campus, some individuals, draped in Palestinian regalia, were prevented from entering the university. Whilst private security was on-hand to ensure the safety of all Limmud attendees, when I entered the campus it was the Wits security that allowed me in whilst preventing a young screeching Muslim man from entering. It is clear to me that race was not a factor in deciding who to allow onto campus. In fact, during the course of Limmud, I noticed many black students attending some of the lectures I was in. But even if I hadn’t seen black students, why on earth would Limmud, a liberal and progressive Jewish movement, prevent black and Muslim people from entering the campus? What would they possibly have to gain from such discrimination?
I’d be interested to know why it seems that students reported their allegations of racial profiling to the PSC. Are they the gatekeepers of racial equality on campus? My conclusion is that people who were barred entry, were those that were looking to join the protest, which had already used up its allowed quota. I say this because the allegations have been spearheaded by the PSC, whose strategy on campus is often to hurt Israel by painting its supporters as apartheid loving racists. The PSC’s cries of racism are equivalent to Bernie Madoff shrieking antisemitism!
I have reprinted the letter from Wits Vice-Chancellor and Principal professor Loyiso Nongxa. It’s a despicable display of cowardice, giving into the accusations, almost accepting them as fact, and then ordering an investigation. In the letter Prof. Nongxa explains his personal view, that anyone (and that would include students) who can justify what happened in Gaza, should not be welcome to Wits University. This means that almost all Jewish students who support Israel’s right to self defence, in the eyes of the Vice Chancellor, should not be allowed at Wits.
It’s an extremely heated issue and its obvious from his personal views that Prof. Nongxa has sympathy with the cause of the students making the allegations. Without the investigation even starting, he issues an apology and thereby accepts the allegations as fact – “I would like to apologise to the all people who felt targeted because they were Black.”
The investigation will be headed by former apartheid activist advocate Geoff Budlender.
|
From: Vivienne Rowland Dear Members of the Wits community Yesterday, at rather short notice, I met with a group of students who issued an ‘open letter’ that was circulated widely, expressing their concerns at Wits having hired one of its venues to an external Jewish organisation, Limmud, who invited a controversial speaker to their event over the weekend. I undertook to initiate a formal investigation based on the disturbing allegations contained in the letter and in other communications that I have received in this regard. It was brought to my attention, during the meeting, that (certain sectors of) the University community wanted a public statement to be issued from the University about the events of the last few days. The students informed me that failure to do so would lead to the conclusion that the University associates itself with the views and actions of the controversial speaker. I found this assertion disturbing, particularly because it reduces the commitment of the University to issues of human rights, freedom of speech and the right to protest, to a single event and how we respond to it. My position as the Vice-Chancellor does not always qualify me to speak on behalf of the Wits community on all matters. Sometimes I do, when I am confident that the majority of the University community would support that stance, the Dalai Lama issue being a recent example. I don’t feel confident that I can speak on behalf of the Wits community when it comes to the complex politics of the Middle East, and especially the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. I do have personal views that I will express below, knowing that certain members of the Wits community will be vehemently opposed to them. As a South African who lived under Apartheid and who was once stripped of South African citizenship and declared, against my wishes, a citizen of a pseudo-country which I did not recognise, I am appalled at what is happening in the Middle East. There can be no justification for what I see as atrocities committed against civilians. My late mother taught me that, as an adult, we should treat every child as our own. The traumatic experience of the children of Gaza haunts me. The destruction of people’s homes and livelihoods and the loss of their limbs and body parts horrifies me. The human being inside me would find it difficult to welcome to my home, and Wits is my home, anybody who would justify what has happened there, whether it’s based on legal, religious or historical grounds. But we live in a diverse community and a country which values and celebrates differences and diversity and as the Vice-Chancellor of a public institution which invariably reflects this diversity, I have to uphold the values of freedom of expression which is an integral part of academic freedom. I believe that many of us have not thought carefully about what it means to live in a society that celebrates freedom of speech – universities are spaces where all views should be aired and heard. Many of us have not thought carefully about what it means to live in a non-racial or non-sexist society. Sometimes we tend to impose on others our sectarian view of that future democratic, non-sexist and non-racial society. Let me now offer a preliminary response to some of the allegations in the “open letter”. The first time I received notification about the weekend event at which Lieutenant Colonel David Benjamin was to speak, was on the morning of Friday, 7 August 2009. I responded to the student concerned and informed her that I was leaving for the Eastern Cape and that I would refer the issue to colleagues in the Vice-Chancellor’s Office. The students that I met with yesterday seem to disbelieve this response and one even called my response “outrageous”. The investigation will possibly throw some light on this issue. I appointed one of my senior colleagues as Acting Vice-Chancellor in my absence. On Saturday, I received correspondence between the Acting Vice-Chancellor and the students on their concerns and endorsed what was being discussed. The correspondence was cordial, respectful and spelt out the University’s views on freedom of speech and right to peaceful protest. On Tuesday, I received a briefing on how the difficult situation was managed in my absence and at short notice. I take full responsibility for all the decisions that were taken on my behalf while I was away - they are now my decisions. Let me stress that I am appalled by allegations of racial profiling. There is no place for that in South African society and certainly no place for that at Wits. I would like this to be part of the investigation. If we are to look at this as an opportunity to learn about what it means to live in South Africa in the 21st Century, I would like us all, as members of the Wits community to reflect on our own prejudices around this matter. How many of us become uneasy or even panic when we see a Black, African male at night and instinctively worry about being robbed? What comes to mind when we see a Muslim woman wearing a burka or a Rastafarian student donning his colourful garments? This is racial profiling that we may be guilty of knowingly or unknowingly. There have been questions raised about the presence of external security on our campus. This is a complex matter on which the University community should advise. There have been many instances when external security has been present on our campus without incident. Possibly the key issue here is how they behave when they are on our campus. It has been brought to my attention that people were photographed and that there are concerns that these photographs could be used for illegal or suspect purposes. I have already raised this matter with the parties concerned. Another issue has been the use of University venues and how the University should exercise its responsibility in managing what takes place in these venues. This is again another complicated matter. Wits provides a platform for various (and often conflicting) views to be aired, and forms part of our commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of speech. As the Vice-Chancellor of Wits, I was not given the power to ’vet’ people who come onto campus, nor do I think that any one person within the University should have the right to do so. Lastly, the students that I spoke with seem to feel that the senior management of the University have let them down, in not living up to their expectations with regard to the values to which they are committed and that they believe this University stands for. I am saddened by that and would like to apologise to them for feeling that way. I would like to apologise to the all people who felt targeted because they were Black. Earlier this year Prof. Yunus Ballim and I met with students who felt hurt that they have been targeted because they identified themselves with the State of Israel. They told me that this is part of their identity and upbringing. I was equally saddened by that and again will apologise to them for that hurt. I am saddened by the feeling of alienation of some Black students at Wits and apologise to them for that hurt. I am saddened by cases of violence against women students, in many cases these perpetrated by fellow male students. I would like to apologise to them for the hurt, some suffer in silence and never report these incidences. I am saddened by the acts of violence against gay and lesbian people. I am saddened by the intolerance that I witness in our community. As I have indicated, I will be appointing an investigation into the matter and I will advise the University community as soon as more details pertaining to the terms of reference and timelines are decided. Prof. Loyiso Nongxa |
Nongxwa writes: "There can be no justification for what I see as atrocities committed against civilians. My late mother taught me that, as an adult, we should treat every child as our own. The traumatic experience of the children of Gaza haunts me. "
But he condones by ommission the killing of Israeli children.
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2006/08/123-israeli-children-killed-by.htm
Are Israeli children not children?
Posted by: Gary | August 31, 2009 at 11:15
To be honest, the letter was fine other than his personal reflections which really shouldn't have been in the letter in the first place.
The letter was written in his capacity as vice chancellor, and he should have kept the reply to that capacity.
I think that an investigation is in order. If I was barred from campus and I felt discriminated against, then I would also expect an investigation. However the investigation needs to be fairly executed and the results should reflect the facts of what really happened (which I hope will be the case) and not pander to a specific political leaning. I also hope that there is an investigation into the not-so-peaceful protesters that were not allowed into Wits, those who were screaming and Limmud participants that they were Nazis and child-killers.
The investigation should also check ICAM (the Wits entry control system) records for who was allowed onto campus that day - they will find many black and Muslim students allowed onto campus and were not harassed by so-called "private security". They can also check those that were denied - mainly, I suspect, PSC members who are on the Wits Main Campus but not the med school and thus are not allowed onto med school campus in any case.
Personally, I hope that external events get banned from Wits.
I am actually tired of the protests that occur each time that the community hosts an event on campus - it's a security risk to the attendees that is very easily mitigated by hosting the event in a private venue.
Posted by: JoeTalin | August 31, 2009 at 12:04
Points taken, though I can't separate the letter from the personal views expressed therein. There was no reason for him to air those views in communication of this sort.
I think it has been followed up with a letter from certain concerned staff also saying that anyone who justifies Gaza should not be welcome at Wits. Don't know enough to do a main entry on this.
Joe, are you sure that a normal Wits student card is not allowed entry to the Med School.
Posted by: Steve | August 31, 2009 at 13:46
hmm 20 years ago or so, when I was a student (where the heck has the time gone geeez) a normal Wits student card would get you into the Med School campus. Of course twenty years ago you didn't need a student card to get onto either Wits East or West Campus, anybody could just walk onto campus. You just needed a student card to gain entry into the libraries if I remember right. Things change (especially in Joeys), and Wits of course is no exception. I'm sure so many other things have changed at Wits too.
Posted by: Lawrence | August 31, 2009 at 18:01
Steve, I'm not absolutely sure.
Stories I heard from the gates was that the only people denied access were those who didn't have student cards, were not attending Limmud or whose student cards got the red 'access denied' light at the turnstile. Although that light also activates when one tries to swipe for a multiple entry (i.e. one letting others in with a single card).
Posted by: JoeTalin | August 31, 2009 at 18:04
Limmud's security certainly do have a right to 'vet' people who threaten to disrupt proceedings but next year it should probabely take place at an ideologically neutral function like one of the many convention centers, given the very stron pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel and Marxist bias that dominates Wits to the core.
Posted by: Gary | August 31, 2009 at 18:07
Student cards do allow entry into Med school
Posted by: The pil | August 31, 2009 at 20:26
Steve,
Geoff Budlender was a member of The SAHRD. Is he impartial?
Israeli visit 'depressing and inspiring'
SA Jewish Report, by Moira Schneider, 7/17/2008
GEOFF BUDLENDER found his visit to Israel as part of a group of 23 South African human rights activists, both “depressing and quite inspiring”. A former president of Nusas and anti-apartheid activist since his student days at the University of Cape Town, he now chairs the UCT Council.
He told Jewish Report that the visit was depressing “because of the circumstances in the occupied territories, where life seems very hard, very divided and very undermining of any attempt to build consensus.
“On the other hand, we were with wonderful young Israeli and Palestinian activists who are working for peace - it was really very inspiring and very moving to see what they are doing.”
Budlender, a practising advocate who has served as an acting judge of the High Court, noted that the group only saw “one piece” of the situation, saying that its attention was more focused on conditions in the occupied territories. “We got a good picture of what was happening there, but we didn’t try to see Israel itself, neither did we really go there to suggest solutions for the problems that they have.”
The five-day trip has brought him no closer to having a view on what the answers might be, but he feels that the “seemingly perpetual occupation and the seemingly ever-greater separation” do not bode well for a consensual solution. What also struck him forcibly was the “very deep impact” that the suicide bombings have had on the Israeli people. “Now standing back, one can see that they’ve not only caused terrible suffering, but were actually a terrible strategic mistake and miscalculation by those who were carrying them out and have also made any solution much more difficult. Everybody still clearly has them in their minds and understandably so.”
He agreed that the phenomenon has “coloured Israel’s response” in terms of the security measures it has adopted. Nor, he said, could one dispute the fact that the separation wall had been effective in putting an end to the suicide bombings. “One can understand that that is a high priority for Israel, but on the other hand, it seems to have other lasting consequences which just
make settlement difficult.”
Budlender said he had “certainly” gained a greater understanding of Israel’s predicament since going on the trip. “But I have to say that it seems to me that the response is in the wrong direction - and I’m not sufficiently wellinformed to say what ought to be done - but I do think that a response which is increasing separation and what seems to be an increasingly harsh occupation, are reducing the prospects of a settlement.”
He recalls feeling despair during a visit to Hebron when ultra-Orthodox settlers rounded on the group and its three Israeli peace activist tour guides, hurling abuse at them and “causing a helluva commotion”. When police arrived, they arrested the tour guides for disturbing the peace. “This was a very vivid illustration of what we had previously been told by some Palestinians we’d met in Hebron, who said the police were not a neutral force and would not take any action against the settlers.”
Budlender has agreed to work with some of the lawyers doing human rights and peace work in Israel, by helping to set up networks of lawyers in other parts of the world that can assist them in various ways
Posted by: The Blacklisted Dictator | September 01, 2009 at 12:29
Nice spotting BD! He has just been nominated for the Con court as well.
Posted by: Mike | September 01, 2009 at 13:34
BD. While you, may or may not, agree with his political views, from the above article he seems to be a very level headed guy. For example the fact that he recognises that it is suicide bombings that caused the seperation barrier to be built and not racism.
He also recognises that the situation is very complicated and not simple. This seems to be completely differnt to other participants on the tour- who came out with the conclusion that Israel is pure evil.
That brings another question, how was he virtually the only one able to recognise that it was not racism that caused Israel to react in such a way, but terrorism.
Posted by: The pil | September 01, 2009 at 16:12
It,s always the same rhetoric comparing apartheid etc. to what,s happening in Gaza etc.One problem with this logic is what possible justification could there be for sending crude but lethal projectiles at civilian housing ,not military,in Southern Israel?.
The learned Professor will blame apartheid etc. for Hamas thugs terrorising innocent civilians ,so what,s new .
Posted by: Samuel | September 03, 2009 at 14:02
What was that Swedish newspaper thinking when it allowed a reporter to publish blood libel ,blatant lies and anti-semitic propaganda.Wasn,t anyone aware of the repercussions when the story broke or was there an ulterior motive involved?Freedom of speech sounds wonderful until people take offence like the Mohammed cartoons fiasco in Denmark not so long ago.So what was the ulterior motive?We wait to hear .
Posted by: Samuel | September 03, 2009 at 14:10
Suprisingly there have be no talks ,demonstrations etc. concerning the butcher of Sudan at Wits or am i missing something.If not then hypocrisy is the order of the day which is not that suprising really.
Posted by: Samuel | September 03, 2009 at 14:17