Attacks not helping

PROFESSOR David Benatar, my colleague in the philosophy department at UCT, wrote an article (Cape Times, June 29) in which he raised important issues regarding the issue of transformation at universities in general, and at UCT in particular.

Professor Benatar argued that it is essential that we are clear on what constitutes appropriate transformation in the higher education sector. Such clarity is vital if we are to ensure that South Africa moves towards a just society. Radical changes are difficult to rectify, and it would be irresponsible and foolhardy for academics simply to follow the clarion call for transformation without investigating which kinds of transformations are desirable and which are undesirable.

I have thus been dismayed that some of Professor Benatar’s respondents – including colleagues at UCT – have not only failed to engage with his arguments, but have attacked him personally. Such ad hominem moves are, as we teach our students, not only errors of logic, but disrespectful and unhelpful, for they fail to advance either one’s own or one’s interlocutor’s arguments.

I am particularly concerned about the thinly veiled charges of racism that have been levelled at him by Professor Mangcu, who, in his piece “Flagrant denialism”, writes that “If (Professor Benatar) does not ‘man up’ to his retrograde views about black people, then he loses his folk hero status in his carefully cultivated constituency.

“But if he is honest enough about them, then he loses credibility among his academic peers.” Here, Professor Mangcu is insinuating that Professor Benatar holds racist views. I object to these insinuations in the strongest terms. Professor Benatar is the most scrupulously honest and fair person I have the privilege of knowing. Moreover, accusing others of racism does nothing to enhance dialogue, but merely serves as an intimidation tactic to silence opposing voices.

Academics should be fostering rational and reasoned debate, especially on difficult and contentious topics. In another article, Professor Mangcu writes: “Civility means we can disagree with each other, and do so vehemently, without having to throw racist epithets and insults at each other. Anyone who believes that argumentation is not possible without degrading other people does not belong in a university.” He would do well to heed his own advice.