Rhodes’s dubious ethics

I HAVE just read the front page article “Protesters throw poo on Rhodes’s statue” (Cape Argus, March 10), and watched the video of the incident.

This video looks more like one taken pre-1994 than one at UCT 21 years later.

There is more than one issue apparent to me, and I think they may be of considerable importance.

On a reading of the article alone, it would be easy for many Capetonians to dismiss the actions of Chumani Maxwele in his pink helmet. However, I would suggest that no one, particularly the UCT vice-chancellor Max Price and the UCT spokeswoman Patricia Lucas, jump to any conclusions, or consider legal steps against this protest at this time.

From his comments reported in the article I think that Maxwele may raise valid points, and I think UCT would be wise to put these to academic debate, as a matter of some urgency, and certainly before judging him to be wrong.

My understanding is that a news photographer from the Daily Voice should be allowed freely to take pictures; if he is not allowed on campus, then he should be requested to leave in an appropriate and polite way. But harassing him, as shown in the video, seems to be an impossible truth. Shame on you, UCT.

If indeed “black students at UCT have to change their ways to just fit in, and we have to keep quiet for almost three years before we can speak in the classrooms”, then perhaps UCT is failing in its mission?

I grew up in some awe of Rhodes, with him a sort of demi-god in our home. There was (and remains?) even a bronze statuette of him in our formal sitting room next to the baby grand piano.

Later, I came to see different, less savoury aspects of him, and although he was clearly financially powerful, and generous in leaving so much to so many institutions, I am not sure how ethical it is to accept these bequests. I say this because although he did not break any law of the time (to my knowledge), I increasingly suspect that at least a portion of his wealth may have been acquired with dubious ethics.

I now believe that he may have tricked former Ndebele king Lobengula into giving him certain rights in present-day Zimbabwe, and not declared his true and full intentions; and he certainly appears to have acted selfishly, unethically, and possibly illegally, even if his behaviour was judged to be acceptable according to the Eurocentric mood of that time.

So by accepting all that he has given, in terms of Rhodes Scholarships, UCT land, Groote Schuur, etc, has an educational institution like UCT been morally compromised? I suggest this is a matter for thorough debate.

A fish poacher, who donated a substantial sum – if I recall – to his old high school, had his donation returned, because it came from the “proceeds of crime”.

Other generous benefactors who, it later became apparent, were dishonest, had their gifts claimed back by liquidators.

I visited Zimbabwe over the new year and I inquired as to how so many articulate and intelligent people, who are so clearly suffering as a result of the present leader, do not manage to remove him from power.

I did not receive a clear answer, but he certainly appears to have removed many opponents by killing them many years ago. Not so in recent times, and I expected him to be gone five or 10 years back.

The fact that he is supported so strongly in Africa, surely cannot mean that all African countries and their leaders are weak, unintelligent and corrupt, can it?

President Robert Mugabe is apparently a person of huge personal ability, sharp and intelligent, and able to defeat almost any modern world leader in debate, even if he uses the (very efficient in Africa) “divide and rule” strategy, or pushes the race button.

No, I suspect that President Mugabe, even with the huge damage he has caused to so many people, has the moral high ground in that he represented people who were disenfranchised and oppressed, people who were prepared to overlook his (many) flaws because he stood up for what was right against the colonial power, England, which Rhodes apparently so successfully represented.

So perhaps the South African government should sell the president’s house, Groote Schuur, and build another with no tainted legacy.

Even if Maxwele acted illegally or unwisely, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me till proven otherwise, from his 2010 action – when he gave the finger to President Jacob Zuma’s motorcade – which must have taken considerable bravery.

And even if he were a fool, which I don’t believe, then as a past UCT student of Smuts Hall, I hereby raise his points for debate.

I think that in modern society we should support ethical organisations first, not hold shares in companies which may pay bribes or do underhand business.

I think that you will find with modern technology and 80 percent of the world population with hand-held computers soon, that dishonest individuals and companies will increasingly find it difficult to operate.

Rhodes may be one individual that, had he been alive today, I would not have associated with, even though this comment will have many of my forebears turning in their graves, and my living family upset with me. M PICKSTONE-TAYLOR Franschhoek