Stellenbosch University stands strong against anti-Israel pressure

Stellenbosch University (SU) continues to stand firm against repeated attempts by some members, staff, and students to pressure it into adopting resolutions against Israel and suspending collaboration with Israeli academics. Last week, SU again reiterated that it wouldn’t be pushed into such stances or actions, prioritising academic freedom over politics.

In a statement on 19 June, SU Media Manager Martin Viljoen noted that “SU isn’t the only university, locally or globally, that has refrained from an institutional stance on this issue to safeguard academic freedom.

“SU remains committed to providing an inclusive, equitable space for constructive and rigorous debate, free from political or ideological pressure. We support individuals’ rights to express their views, and will uphold the principles of freedom of expression, including academic freedom, and institutional autonomy,” Viljoen said.

He was commenting in response to a letter released in mid-June by “concerned members of the SU community”, who called on SU to “commit itself to suspending all collaboration with Israeli universities where there is a risk of direct or indirect involvement in human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories”.

The letter expresses support for South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, quotes Hamas casualty figures in Gaza, and makes no mention of the hostages or the 7 October 2023 massacre. It also ignores the crimes Hamas inflicts on its own people, or the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organisation bent on Israel’s obliteration.

Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies (Cape SAJBD) Executive Director Daniel Bloch says his organisation firmly upholds the principle of academic freedom and the right to express diverse viewpoints.

“However, no university should be coerced into endorsing a particular political stance, especially on an issue as complex and polarising as the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. There are multiple perspectives on this conflict, and it’s neither appropriate nor constructive to expect a single institution to represent only one side.”

Bloch says the university’s official response “rightfully recognises its responsibility to a diverse, multistakeholder community. We’re encouraged by its ongoing commitment to creating and maintaining a safe, inclusive environment for all students, including the growing Jewish student population, who continue to thrive and participate fully in campus life.”

A Jewish academic at the university, speaking anonymously for his own safety, lamented the fact that local media made it sound like all SU academics supported the letter.

“This is another attempt to force the university into a political position, even though it is an academic institution,” he told the SA Jewish Report. “I can’t remember the university being called on to address any other conflict, so it’s a complete double standard. The letter is not supported by all academics at SU, and students and staff are free to express themselves on campus.”

Bloch commended the leadership of SU for “remaining principled in its approach and resisting pressure from so-called ‘concerned members of the SU community’ who appear more interested in advancing their own narrow political agenda than in safeguarding the integrity and well-being of the university, its students, and its academic mission.

“A notable statement made by this group is its call for the ‘cessation of all violence against the Palestinian people’. What about the violence against Israelis, and their Jewish and non-Jewish supporters?” says Bloch. “The Cape SAJBD believes all human life is sacred, and we condemn the loss of all lives.”

About a year ago, Dr Cameron Joseph, who recently completed a Master of Philosophy degree in Applied Ethics at SU, wrote an article in the South African Journal of Bioethics and Law on why SU should stay neutral on the Gaza war. He told the SA Jewish Report he stood by his position today.

“It’s precisely when university bodies adopt public stances on fraught socio-political issues that there’s risk to free inquiry,” Joseph wrote in the article. If the university took a stance, then “academics and students will inevitably self-censor their work if they feel that the university publicly holds a different position”, he argued.

By maintaining neutrality, “the Senate [SU’s highest decision-making body] leaves room for the debate to occur in the appropriate forum”, and does not run the risk of “poisoning the well” of public debate at SU, Joseph said. By not taking a position, the Senate ensures that “no person who wishes to contribute to the debate will have to grapple with the burden of institutional overreach or the repercussions thereof”.

In his statement, Viljoen said SU was a “multistakeholder institution”, and members of this “diverse community” will often have differing views. While SU as an institution “must safeguard this freedom”, it strongly condemns “any form of violence where innocent lives are affected”.

He said a resolution on the war was not accepted by a majority of the SU Senate at a special meeting on 30 April 2024. Eighty voted in favour, 101 against, and 18 abstained from the vote. However, “SU acknowledges that this is a humanitarian crisis, and has repeatedly expressed its sympathy for all those affected”.

Viljoen said the university was committed to providing “a space that encourages constructive debate and academic freedom”. To perform its role fully, the university “must maintain an environment of freedom of inquiry and expression”. This is also the basis for “hosting and participating in conferences, webinars, and networks, and for maintaining collaborative partnerships across the globe”.

For Joseph, the importance of institutional neutrality as a necessary condition for academic freedom at universities “cannot be overstated”.

This is because, he said, institutional credibility is undermined when a university issues public statements on matters outside its area of institutional expertise. In addition, university leaders are “hired based on their ability to run a university, not their political views” and “should therefore practice self-restraint, and limit their activities to matters within their institutional realm of expertise and mandate”.

Furthermore, if a university develops a precedent of issuing official statements on matters beyond its well-defined core functions, “inevitable pressure will arise for it to issue statements on nearly all current-affairs issues. This will distract time and energy from the university’s core purpose.”

In fact, to perform activities outside of its mandate, SU “might reasonably be construed as adopting powers and privileges it has no authority to wield”, Joseph argued. “The protection of institutional neutrality on socio-political issues is the best strategy to ensure that the core functions of SU are achieved.”

Bloch agrees that a university must remain a space for critical thought, rigorous debate, and respectful engagement. “We encourage students to ask difficult questions, challenge prevailing narratives, and exercise their constitutional rights.” However, “this must be done responsibly – without incitement to hatred, discrimination, or violence. We stand in support of academic freedom, responsible dialogue, and the right of every student to feel safe and heard on campus.”

Said Viljoen, “Our commitment to academic excellence and the well-being of our community is unwavering. We will continue to uphold these principles while navigating the complexities of this issue and other global challenges.”