Don’t play the person
IN HER book about French philosopher Voltaire, titled Friends of Voltaire, SG Tallentyre describes an incident involving another French philosopher, Helvetius, who published a controversial work titled On the Mind. The book by Helvetius was roundly criticised, condemned and even burnt.
On hearing about the burning, Voltaire is reported to have said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Well, that’s how I feel about the termination of Manglin Pillay’s tenure as chief executive at the South African Institute of Civil Engineers (Saice).
But I would not only defend his right to say what he said, I would defend the rights of those who disagree to voice their concerns as well.
I think that before I share my views, I should disclose that I know Pillay through his wife and had occasion to have dinner with them and some of their friends at their home a few years ago. I found him to be a person committed to positive societal change, and this reflected in his interaction with his children.
I also learnt that he had actively supported young engineers through their study and employment. I had not kept in contact with him until I saw some of the opinion pieces that he wrote and posted on social media as well as other
platforms.
The two opinion pieces, one on equity and equality and the other on the way that technology is redefining the very essence of being human, did not elicit much reaction, although they discussed quite provocative topics. In the second piece, for example, he raised the challenge of artificial intelligence and the increasing role it plays in our lives.
He points out that in 2017, the Saudi Arabian authorities granted citizenship to an artificial intelligence humanoid robot called Sophia (which I found quite interesting, given that they have only recently allowed women to drive a car).
His third piece, titled “Out on a Rib”, raised a lot of discussion
and the anger of some people, who then demanded that Saice fire him forthwith – and as it was recently reported, they got what they demanded.
Now I wonder whether this is a victory worth celebrating?
Let’s put it into perspective: Alochna Govender used the k-word in a personal message, Adam Catzavelos used the same word in his video on a beach in Greece, and Vicki Momberg used the word in her rant against police officers.
All three were dismissed from their employment because they did something that was illegal.
Yes, it is illegal and an offence to use the k-word in South Africa. I can understand that these people brought their employers
into disrepute by their behaviour and, as a consequence, they were dismissed. The law took its course and justice was served without any violence or harm to anyone else.
Recently, the EFF arranged a protest outside the business premises of Catzavelos, and this, compounded by bad trading conditions and a depressed economy, resulted in the restaurant closing and 29 people losing their jobs. This was after Catzavelos was dismissed from the family business.
Exactly what did the EFF achieve through their action?
So, let’s be clear: Manglin Pillay did not do or say anything that was illegal in any way. What, then, did he do?
Well, simply, he wrote an
opinion piece that questioned why women are under-represented in science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) professions, despite the fact that women displayed a greater aptitude than males.
He pointed out that there is a greater participation rate in unequal societies (where women are discriminated against) than in egalitarian societies (where the discrimination is not so pronounced).
He went on to engage with some of the reasons why women leave the profession or do not rise up the ranks, and he presented some of the conclusions reached by some researchers.
That is when all hell broke loose, and some people accused him of being misogynistic and insensitive to the challenges faced by women in the workplace.
Other people (both men and women) analysed the opinion piece and concluded that Pillay raised some important issues that needed to be discussed and debated.
The article is available on social media and on the internet, so you can make up your own mind, but the point I want to make is simply that it’s never fair or sporting to play the person rather than the ball.
If we live in a civilised country, then we have to learn how to deal with divergent points of view without violence and, in my view, the call for him to lose his job is an act of violence and not an act of justice or fairness.
How is this different from the EFF’s actions?
Does the end justify the means? I mean, can a nonviolent and equitable society be achieved through violent means?
Interestingly, someone claiming to be a feminist responded to Pillay’s article by saying he was attacking women.
Now, there are many different types of feminism and
many different theories about feminism. Liberal feminism advocates for an equal and just society through political reforms and through the legal process.
Liberal feminism strives to change society through an evolutionary process aimed at objectives such as equal pay for male and female employees, healthcare, educational rights and abortion rights.
Radical feminism, on the other hand, is aimed at “rooting out the source of the problem”. They believe that the male-dominated hierarchy or patriarchy is responsible for the oppression of women and they actively seek to destroy such behaviour by revolutionary means and regardless of the cost or consequences.
To put it differently, one is a scalpel and the other is a sledgehammer.
Still, we must ask what has been lost, what has been gained and what has been learnt.
Saice, after all, is supposedly a “learned” organisation. The radicals will move on to the next person who dares offer a contrary view or who challenges their radicalism, unbothered by the actual damage that has been done. They will admit no mistake or show no mercy.
As Portia says in The Merchant of Venice: “The quality of mercy is not strained: It droppeth like a gentle rain from heaven…” in response to Shylock’s demand for his pound of flesh.
Eventually, he is allowed to get his pound of flesh, but with the condition that he does not spill even a drop of blood in the process.
Wouldn’t it be a great society if we can get justice without shedding a drop of blood?
■ Professor Kiren Thathiah is an artist, academic, author and creative director at SA Local Content