“I understood that my every move was being watched. I felt like I couldn’t perform my job properly.”

“Now to introduce myself: while I’m certain we all agree that labels are for boxes not people, for the purposes of this story, permit me to use broad strokes: I’m a hearing-impaired Jewish lesbian vegetarian with a bi-racial Xhosa fiancé (nobody panic – she’s converting)” Read LARISSA’S TALE in her own words.

She was then booked off work for a while in April and May for “stress related leave on the advice of my psychologist supported with the appropriate certificates,” she explains. She says she had the sick leave days due.

The formal CHARGE SHEET would eventually include 15 specified charges and a further 18 issues – the vast majority of both being related to pro-Israel activities – which, said the charge sheet “will be canvassed at the hearing.” The charges ranged from “behaving in a sexually provocative manner in public” to causing “considerable discomfort to student leaders” and being “untruthful with the Head of Division.” The charge sheet is signed by HR director Sarah Fisher and copied to the Dean of Students Dr Viv de Klerk.

Even when she returned to work she was unable to find out what she was being investigated for. “A charge sheet was finally given to me on 7 June and I was told that I needed to be ready to defend myself a week later!”

Larissa immediately contacted Chuck Volpe, who is the Board’s representative for the Eastern Cape who put her in contact with Michael Bagraim in Cape Town. She also sent a RESPONDING DOCUMENT to the charges.

“Chuck was very helpful and supportive and had been briefing the Board and providing me with advice for months,” she says as she had anticipated that charges would be brought. She had even liaised with Bags before 7 June. Larissa sent the charge sheet to Bags who told her he would not be able to attend on 14 June, but would get advocate Izak Smuts to appear on his behalf.

Bags takes up the cudgels

Michael Bagraim chuckles when referring to the four-page CHARGE SHEET that was served on Larissa. “The charges were amorphous and not identifiable,” he says. There were 15 defined charges and a further 18 issues which “will be canvassed at the hearing” said the letter which was signed by Rhodes’ HR director, Sarah Fisher, and copied to the Dean of Students Dr Viv de Klerk.

The ‘amorphous’ charges Bags referred to ranged from “behaving in a sexually provocative manner in public” to causing “considerable discomfort to student leaders” and being “untruthful with the Head of Division.” Bags laughs again.
 
RIGHT: “I’m so proud to be able to be here with my partner to say publically that we stand with Israel, the only country in the Middle East that supports the rights of women and gay people” said Charlene Donald, driver of the bakkie renamed “the Zionator’ for the parade. Flying the Israeli flag would only have served to infuriate the anti-Zionist element on campur further. Read LARISSA’S TALE in her own words.

“You can’t charge someone for walking down the main street holding their partner’s hand,” he says. He also says you can’t expect someone to respond to a charge like “you caused someone discomfort.” He says a charge sheet must specify the details of the charge so the accused can prepare a defence.

Larissa told the Jewish Report that when she discussed the charge sheet with HR director Sarah Fisher she was assured it was drawn up by Rhodes’ attorneys. Fisher herself had not been briefed on the matter – only received the charges, asked to put them on a letterhead and sign it.

“We immediately requested further and better particulars and we said that we presumed a postponement would be in order to allow us time to prepare,” Bags told the JR Online. “My office then got a phone call and we were told that the charges could be discussed at the hearing. We were also told Larissa was only allowed internal representation,” he says.

“I told them that I disagreed,” he says, and he therefore sent Izak Smuts along on 7 June to ask for further particulars and to get a postponement.

Larissa continues the story

When Larissa and Izak walked into the hearing on 7 June, they found Rhodes prepared with their big guns. They had appointed an external chair for the hearing – a common practice but only when a hearing may lead to a dismissal – and to prosecute the case was Rhodes’ external attorney, Brin Brody of Wheeldon, Rushmere & Cole.

The first thing that happened after the introductions had taken place, says Larissa, was that “Brin asked if the chair would step out of room.” Larissa and Izak were somewhat confused but had no objection. As soon as they were alone, Larissa told Jewish Report, “Brin offered me an amount of money to walk away.” Due to her agreement of non-disclosure of financial matters Larissa could not say what the ‘amount of money’ was. But she did say it was a surprisingly substantial amount.

She promptly told them that there was no way she would entertain any settlement. “I wanted my day in court,” she says. The chair than came back in and a date was set to reconvene two weeks later. She would have her day in court, with Bags at her side.

“When Izak said that he was there representing Michael Bagraim,” says Larissa, “it seemed to change everything.  Until then, I think they thought I would admit guilt and take their offer,” she said.

Enter Susan Smailes

After the adjournment of the hearing, says Larissa, Susan Smailes, who is vice-Chancellor Dr Saleem Badat’s director of special projects and herself a lawyer, told Larissa that “she was going to speak to the VC because she felt things had gone badly wrong somewhere.

“The VC and deputy-VC invited me to tea at 5pm – together with Susan Smales,” explains Larissa.  She wasn’t sure what to expect. She certainly couldn’t have foreseen what would happen over tea, that’s for sure.

“They told me that the case would be completely ‘aborted’ according to the VC and that I should take some time off.” Just like that! Larissa says that Dr Badat said he was so appalled at the charge sheet and the manner in which the matter had been handled, that he dismissed the entire case.

Not only that, says Larissa, but Dr Badat told her that to avoid any discomfort, Larissa would “report to Susan Smales until a settlement could be reached.” He also suggested she take a few days leave.

LEFT: The Rhodes campus 

“As it happened,” says Larissa, “I had already applied for annual leave so I was given three days of so-called special leave” added to it.

It seemed that VC Dr Badat had, by all accounts, acted very quickly and admirably to address the situation once it was brought to his attention.

When Jewish Report contacted him for a comment and pointed out his apparent commendable action, the VC was originally prepared to talk. But, once asked why, then, an immediate process began to negotiate a “shut-up” package and why the matter was not handed off to the human resources department for the normal grievance and/or disciplinary measures to be followed, Badat changed tone. This was a complex matter, he said, and he was on holiday. He was not prepared to comment now, but he invited SAJR Online to contact his office in the new year and he would be prepared to discuss the matter further, he said.

Jewish Report also tried to ask about whether the VC had authorised Rhodes’ attorney, Brin Brody, to make a substantial offer to Klazinga earlier on 14 June if she would walk away. But, before the question could be completed, Dr Badat had terminated the call.

Both Bags and Larissa say that while she was within her rights to continue working for Rhodes, the relationship between herself and her line managers had deteriorated to the extent that she just wanted out. It was therefore agreed by all parties that Susan Smales and Bags would negotiate a departure package.

“When I came back to work about a month afterwards, it seemed that there hadn’t been any communications (from the VC) with Roger and Viv regarding the reporting lines,” which was difficult for her.

This led to a few months of acrimony says Larissa. “It became progressively more difficult. Susan and Bags did the negotiations – at some point I met with Susan directly – I consider her a good friend and we work well together. That wasn’t acrimonious at all, just frustrating because it took so long,” she told Jewish Report afterwards.

“Susan (Smales) was adamant that neither the VC nor the deputy-VC had seen the charge sheet beforehand,” says Larissa. She herself believes they were aware of the goings-on, “but I don’t think they were aware of exactly what (the charge sheet) contained.”

Larissa decides to tell her own tale

“One of the reasons I wanted to tell the story in my own words was because I wanted to make clear that Rhodes is not an institution full of scoundrels,” Larissa told the SAJR Online. “There are a lot of very good people there who stood by me. Someone like Susan, who is an attorney, and many others,” she said.

 “If there is just one hero in this story,” says Larissa, “I would say it was Susan, who acted with integrity under very difficult circumstances.”

But Leon Reich believes that Larissa herself was the hero. “She was very brave,” he told Jewish Report. “She had no financial backing and couldn’t afford to lose her job – and still she took on Rhodes. The atmosphere in the office was very difficult for her, she was being asked to assist with IAW issues and she refused,” he said.

Bags, on the other hand, thinks Leon Reich was the hero for putting the story in the public domain – against all odds. 

Practicing Jews afraid to disclose their religion

Little wonder, then, that a Rhodes staffer who spoke to Jewish Report last week only on condition of anonymity, said he had complained to management in an email earlier this year that he knew of some “Jewish students who leave the Religion question blank on their enrolment documents” for fear of discrimination.

In his email, the staffer was asking Rhodes to ensure that the “toxic environment” for Jewish and Christian Zionists on campus was dealt with.

Larissa showed SAJR Online an email conversation she had to endure in March 2012 to illustrate this toxic environment caused by anti-Zionists who are not sanctioned for their actions.

RIGHT: Larissa and Charlene had mustered all the Jewish and Zionist members on Campus to show publically in an Intertnational parade that they stood proudly behind Israel

At 09h33 on 12 March 2012, almost two years ago and in the heat of IAW 2012, a research associate whose name is known to SAJR Online addressed an email to Larissa and another person whom he believed to also be a Zionist:

“As a Rhodes University staff member I am extremely uncomfortable knowing that some of my colleagues flaunt allegiance to ideologies such as racism and ethnic cleansing which are criminalised in South Africa. I can only imagine that you are misinformed of the situation in Palestine/Israel,” wrote the research associate.

He copied the correspondence to Dean of Students Vivian de Klerk, who was Larissa’s boss, and to an Andrew Buckland, the Drama Dept. Head Of Department. Neither senior staffers appear to have intervened in any way (which later forced Larissa to initiate a succesful charge herself).

The writer attempts to direct the two Zionists to sources where he tells them they will see for themselves what crimes Israel is committing and he ends his e-mail thus: “Please reconsider your alignment with ideologies many of us here in South Africa, plus millions of decent folk from around the world, fought hard to eradicate and finally to criminalise. Apartheid is a crime against humanity.”

At 10h32 the same morning, Larissa promptly responded to the writer, telling him she has no idea of the other ‘accused’ party’s position on Israel “and will allow him to respond in his own right.” She also adds that she will “be seeking legal advice about the rest of your email.”

Barely an hour after it all began, the research associate’s reply comes to Larissa. By now, he has clearly established that the other party he had accused is not is not a Jew or a Zionist. “May I remind you that this is not America, or Israel for that matter, and you may find the courts here rather less sympathetic to your cause than you seem to think,” he tells Larissa. “And thank you for clarifying the matter of Mr Haxton, who is UNDERSTANDABLY UPSET AT BEING ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR ILK.” (All capitalisation and bold type by the editor)

Financial impropriety in funding IAW questioned

Some members of Rhodes academic staff who are pro-Israel supporters have expressed concern about the funding of IAW since March, particularly in relation to the Dean of Students’ (DOS) office. Jewish Report has been corresponding with two of them since June and established that both have been liaising with the deputy-Dean Roger Adams – who has now moved to UCT.

Adams had responded to one of the men’s e-mails in April confirming that an amount of money had been allocated to the IAW event. He subsequently denied to the other sleuth In September that the DOS has not allocated any funding to the event. When the second sleuth sent a copy of Adams’ April correspondence confirming the allocation of funds to IAW, Adams explained that while the DOS office had initially intended to make a grant, it had later decided not to.

One staffer wrote to the DOS in March expressing appreciation for the difficulties they had “especially considering the prominent role of the VC’s son in IAW.” But, he said, on behalf of the Jewish students on campus he asked the DOS to appeal to the SCR’s better nature and allow all views on the Israel/Palestine issue to be “aired without fear or favour.”

Senior staff don’t sympathise with Israel

Adams responded that he had spoken with Jewish students: “I did also mention to the students that it is probably not untrue that sympathy in “senior” circles of the university, although not official, may sway more towards the Palestinian cause as is the case with our national government – that is our national reality and this may inform our office’s assessment of the scale to which something like the IAW is controversial. You may want to debate this, and “our office may want to review whether funding of the IAW is a good idea at all.”

Adams writes that he believed mediation (between pro-and anti-Israel groups) would be constructive “but I suspect that the charge laid would have to be dealt with first.” The charge he was referring to was the racism issue but no charge was ever laid as far as Jewish Report can establish.

Second staff sleuth responds…

Roger Adams, after telling the second senior academic staffer that no funds were given to IAW 2013, was challenged with his own earlier e-mail.

“Although a notion prevailed to offer funding to the IAW organizers at some stage,” responded Adams, “…no money was given in the end.

“As far as senior management and their sympathies are concerned I was merely speculating based on what seems to prevail in mainstream politics in the country and I had no particular individuals in mind… But I would admit that maybe it was not my place to make this speculation and I will certainly be more careful in future.”

Adams speaks to Jewish Report

Deputy Dean of Students Roger Adams was most obliging when approached by Jewish Report. In Larissa’s Tale, she writes about him removing a printed copy of an Israeli flag on her office door:  “I could not have been more wrong. I returned the next day to find the page removed and shoved under my door with a note written on the back by Roger Adams, the deputy Dean of Students, asking me to discuss the matter with him immediately.”

Adams’ response: “I thought based on previous political positions taken that my actions were not controversial. That is fairly accurate – it was a politicised sticker.” Adams said it wasn’t just a flag but had a political message on it as well. “Its intention was to espouse a political position. We wouldn’t allow an ANC or DA flag on our doors,” he explained, (in the DOS office) “we must be welcoming to any kind. It was not because it was an Israeli flag, it was political.”

Larissa writes: “I arrived at his office wearing an IDF shirt and was instructed to remove it and not wear any ‘military or pro-Israel’ clothing to work. I was told that using my office to further a political position was inappropriate and I was instructed not to make any public statements in support of Israel.” Asked about this by Jewish report, Adams said: “Once again it was with general reference to anything militarised.” With regard to Larissa saying she has worn the same clothing before, Adams agreed. “We were tolerant of it before,” he says, “but when things became heated we thought such things may become provocative.”

Financial impropriety rears head again

Larissa writes: “IAW 2013 was more of the same, with the Dean of Students’ Office offering to sponsor IAW events at the invitation of Roger Adams.” This question caused Adams to pause for some time. He then said he “did not liaise with (Larissa) about IAW this year at all because of problems they had encountered last year.” He then used the exact words SAJR Online had seen on his e-mail: “There was a notion of giving, but it never happened.”

Again, Adams repeated that in any event he had especially not discussed anything financial related to IAW with Larissa this year.

Jewish Report respectfully explained to Adams that it had a copy of an e-mail thread between him and Klazinga on 5 March to this effect. He insisted it couldn’t be so. And so we read to him from it (greetings excluded):

Roger Adams  to Camilita Naiker 5 March 2013 12:20 Subject: RE: Israeli Apartheid Week – “Thanks you for your proposal. Our office will contribute R1500 towards your event.”

Roger Adams to Larissa Klazinga 5 March 2013 12:34 Subject: FW: Israeli Apartheid Week – “Larissa ‐ FYI. Their full ask was for R2700.”

Larissa Klazinga to Roger Adams 5 March 2013 13:42 Subject: RE: Israeli Apartheid Week – “Hi Roger, is it coming out of event sponsorship or awareness? I didn’t budget for this so if it’s coming out of awareness I need to cut somewhere else. Let me know.”

Roger Adams to Larissa Klazinga 5 March 2013 13:47 Subject: RE: Israeli Apartheid Week – “Yes please cut somewhere else. I was presuming that we should be fine given that we were well underspent on your budget last year due to the SP t‐shirt windfall. Please send me a copy of the budget.”

Larissa Klazinga to Roger Adams 5 March 2013 13:59 Subject: RE: Israeli Apartheid Week – “Please could you send me the final budget allocation I ended up with so that I can fiddle with it. I didn’t work on the budget submission last, you all the hard graft there so I don’t have a final amount and have been working on a guestimate from previous years. Is Israeli Apartheid week to become one of our annual awareness weeks?”

 Roger Adams to Larissa Klazinga 5 March 2013 16:56 Subject: RE: Israeli Apartheid Week – “Let’s take IAW as an ad-hoc event that we decide on annually and see where it goes. Our office will not get involved with running it.”

Roger Adams told Jewish Report last week that “no money was given – that I am pretty sure of.”

Asked whether any monies were transferred, Klazinga explained to the JR Online that she had sent the paperwork but that as she didn’t physically make the payments she couldn’t say for sure one way or the other.

Anti-Israel inter-staff e-mail attacks

IAW 2013 turned out to be disastrous for Rhodes. Apart from the Dean of Students’ failed disciplinary charges against Klazinga, Rhodes had also tried to lay charges of racism against students who put up pro-Israel posters on campus after complaints by a pro-Palestinian group. The case was presented to a Rhodes’ Fairness Forum which found that there was no charge to answer.

There had also been persistent rumours since the beginning of December on the Rhodes campus that Dean of Students Dr Viv de Klerk had either left Rhodes’ employ, or planned to take early retirement.

Approached for comment by Jewish Report on both the story and on her status, Dr de Klerk said she had no comment to make. Jewish Report then offered to send her a draft of the article by e-mail with some questions. “I would prefer not make a comment at all,” she said emphatically

The ‘unterste shura’

“The reality of the situation,” says Michael ‘Bags’ Bagraim, one of the country’s top labour lawyers who acted for Larissa talking about the charge sheet, “is that they were basically saying we are finding you guilty of Zionism and homosexuality.” He said that the “performance issues were tacked on to make the other charges sustainable.” Hence the “laundry-list” of charges.

Bags points out that “the cornerstone of (Larissa’s) job was to assist the Dean of Students to craft policies” that would assist to sensitise students to people of other “cultures, races, religions, sexual orientations, and so on. And then they try to dismiss her for being Zionist and homosexual!” he exclaims.

Fed chair Avrom Krengel, left, supported Reich’s efforts but when the Board didn’t follow up, says Reich, the Fed had relegated their power to the SAJBD – THE STORY THE BOARD DIDN’T WANT YOU TO READ

Nobody expected the job to be easy, says Bags. “Some people will never accept these things,” he says about the type of differences Larissa had to resolve. “Islam doesn’t accept either,” he said. And frum Jews or Orthodox Christians wouldn’t accept being gay. But that was precisely what Larissa was employed to deal with, says Bags, not changing people but changing their perceptions and tolerance of others.

The matter was eventually settled and Larissa is “extremely happy and satisfied with the outcome,” says Bags. “Under the circumstances, it was the very best outcome I could have hoped for,” says Larissa.

So, what’s really happening at Rhodes?

SAJR Online will take up the VC’s offer to have a more in depth discussion in the new year. There are certainly more questions than answers and no doubt that Jewish and Christian Zionists on campus, students, staff and faculty have a genuine concern about what they perceive as prejudice against them.

The informal, internal financial investigation continues to see if public money has been allocated to IAW. Donor losses are substantial and it would seem that inflamed Jewish alumni are determined to gather others OF THEIR ILK to try and encourage more donors to shift their funding. And, of course, there is the question of the legal costs and settlement to Larissa.

But there is also a loss of know-how with rumours of more looming. The Dean of Students’ office has lost two key personnel and there are rumours that Dean Dr Viv de Klerk is considering taking early retirement. Word has it that Dr Badat is short-listed for a position at UWC in Cape Town.

Where to now for Jews at Rhodes…?

Related reads:

LARISSA’S TALE in her own words on SAJR Online

THE STORY THE BOARD DIDN’T WANT YOU TO READ on SAJR Online

OUTRAGE OVER ‘HOMOPHOBIA’ POSTERS on M&G Online