Political panderers in academia voids critical thought

SA academics are today generally anaemic shadows of the pugnacious intelligentsia who – at least in some English-language university faculties – stood up to the apartheid state.

Sadly, the many campus-based centres, agencies and research units – largely funded by sympathetic and generous Western governments and agencies – which interrogated every move of the oppressive state apparatus have withered. With despotism now routed and democracy assured, as the thinking went in 1994, overseas philanthropy dried up.

Many of their activist staff decamped to join successive ANC governments. With the disappearance of external funding, intellectual independence also wilted.

Every appointment and promotion was now dependent on cadres honouring academic freedoms that they had benefitted from during the struggle. But that’s not how Stalinists operate.

It quickly became obvious in academia that to criticise in any way the new government was a ticket to career marginalisation. As a result, there is a void in critical thought and discussion at our tertiary institutions.

Simultaneously, the stifling effect of these academic apparatchiks has been compounded by a Western epidemic of political correctness and the growth of identity politics. It means a world where social media hit squads and faceless critics abuse and increasingly decree what can be researched, how and by whom.

The recent explosion about the head of University of Cape Town (UCT) economics , Professor Nicoli Nattrass, is the recent manifestation. It followed the publication of a commentary by her, dealing with the failure of wildlife conservation biology to attract black students.

Her methodology passed scientific muster, including by a UCT deputy vice-chancellor and two eminent external reviewers, as well as by UCT’s ethics committee. Nor were her preliminary findings particularly startling.

In brief, black students were found to tend to prioritise job opportunities over interest in the field of study, when making their subject choices. The opposite is true among white students, whose relatively privileged backgrounds allow room for manoeuvre and indulgence.

The shadowy Black Academic Caucus (BAC) has labelled Nattrass as patronising, dehumanising, a racist and a white supremacist. The UCT executive, which can flip-flop faster than a spinning coin, immediately distanced itself from Nattrass’ “offensive” paper.

Nattrass makes the comparison that none of her colleagues dares: “Over time, the BAC appears to have transformed … into a secret network … not unlike the Afrikaner Broederbond.”

A few weeks back, Wits vice-chancellor, Professor Adam Habib wrote a compelling article questioning how one engages with “fascists, Stalinists and others who are intolerant in our deeply divided, politically polarised world”.

Until now, writes Habib, the dominant response as been a “dignified and formal” refusal to lower oneself to engage. But this simply emboldens these groups.

“Public leaders need to realise that when they retreat in the face of attacks by the intolerant and the violent, they disarm citizens and members of their institutional community…”

Habib’s words were directed at the politicians, especially around the threat posed by the Economic Freedom Fighters. They could as aptly been targeted at a higher learning sector that is in pell-mell retreat from academic rigour and in thrall to every half-baked intellectual fad that flits across their social media accounts.

Political panderers leading UCT should take note of Habib’s call for courage. But they won’t.

William Saunderson-Meyer.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.