Outrageous, untrue statements about UCT need correcting

WANDILE Goozen Kasibe makes a number of statements about the University of Cape Town that are outrageous and untrue (“Maxwele being denied his rights”, June 2015).

Mr Chumani Maxwele exercised his rights in the matter of his suspension and upcoming disciplinary hearing with legal representation; because he did so, the first suspension order against him was overturned. As stated by UCT at the time, the suspension order was overturned due to a technicality – not the substance of the complaint laid against him. UCT is committed to following due process in this matter, as we do in all disciplinary cases.

There is no basis at all for Mr Kasibe’s accusation that Mr Maxwele is facing a disciplinary tribunal because he is black and because of his protest against the statue of Cecil Rhodes. The allegations against Mr Maxwele (which are summarised on www.uct.ac.za) are supported by witness statements and they point to the strong likelihood that a threat was made against another member of the UCT community. It is the institution’s responsibility in such a case to enforce a suspension that will limit contact between the two parties and thus protect both.

As UCT has stated repeatedly, the allegations have absolutely nothing to do with Mr Maxwele’s activities against the Rhodes statue or his involvement with the Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) movement.

The incident involving Mr Maxwele happened on May 1, 2015, over a month and a half after the Rhodes statue was removed to allow a process overseen by Heritage Western Cape to finalise the status of the statue.

The university has gone to extraordinary lengths to accommodate the protest activities of RMF and the debates that have been happening on campus. These have been well-documented on our website. UCT’s correspondence with a group of 240 students and staff members relates to a specific activity that falls outside the amnesty period granted by the university.

Mr Kasibe claims that UCT’s disciplinary processes “brutalise and victimise students for thinking differently and leading change”. On the contrary, UCT encourages students and staff to explore and debate new ideas and to act on them – but not in ways that prevent university staff members from doing their jobs or exercising their opinions. Freedom of expression is also a value at UCT – but not if it involves hate speech or a threat of violence against a fellow human being.

Mr Kasibe implies that the university is acting in an underhand manner and with secret motives. He ignores the many different approaches UCT has made to try to engage with RMF members. Unfortunately, each approach was turned down by RMF, until an agreement was signed last month, and backed by a court order, for UCT and RMF to enter into a mediation process. This is a sincere attempt on the university’s part to bring about change in a manner that will involve not just RMF but other stakeholders from the university community – who have an important role to play in the dialogue we are creating around the complex issues of transformation.