UCT initiates anti-Israel resolutions despite court case

The University of Cape Town (UCT) is taking steps to implement its two anti-Israel resolutions despite the fact that there hasn’t yet been judgement in the court case reviewing them. 

Professor Adam Mendelsohn, director of the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies, took UCT to court over anti-Israel resolutions that he said were adopted irrationally, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally. The case was recently heard in the Western Cape High Court before a full bench, and judgement was reserved. The matter is therefore still sub judice (under judicial consideration). 

Yet on 12 November, UCT’s deputy vice-chancellor of teaching and learning, Professor Brandon Collier-Reed, wrote to staff and students saying, “A working group of the UCT Senate has been established to develop a proposal regarding how the ‘Gaza resolutions’ can be operationalised.” The Senate is UCT’s second-highest decision-making body. 

A stakeholder speaking anonymously for her own security says UCT going ahead with implementing the resolutions shows “contemptuous disregard” for those who oppose them. “It feels that, once again, UCT is thumbing its nose at Jewish staff and students.” 

Independent practising attorney David Polovin says, “UCT’s decision to begin ‘operationalising’ the resolutions while they are still under judicial review raises serious concerns about respect for the rule of law.” 

Moving ahead with the resolutions “effectively assumes the outcome of the court process and risks undermining the authority of the judiciary”, he says. “A public university, bound by constitutional principles, must demonstrate respect for due process, not act as though its decisions stand above the law.” 

Mendelsohn called on the court to order UCT to review or set aside two resolutions that were adopted by UCT’s highest-decision-making body, its Council, in June 2024. The first “resolves to reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s [IHRA] definition of antisemitism”. The second states that “No UCT academic may enter into relations with, or continue relations with, any research group or network whose author affiliations are with the Israel Defense Forces or the broader Israeli military establishment.” 

UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola says UCT is “aware of the pending Western Cape High Court outcome in the matter around the Gaza resolutions. In accordance with South African administrative law, the resolutions remain valid, binding, and in effect unless and until a court orders otherwise. 

“The Senate group isn’t working on implementing the resolutions but was established to develop a proposal regarding how the resolutions can be operationalised,” he said. 

However, the deputy vice-chancellor’s email was titled “Towards implementation of the Gaza resolutions,” and the word “implementation” was used multiple times in the text, concluding with the phrase, “How these two resolutions can be implemented.” 

In court hearings, Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC, representing UCT, said that the resolutions were only a symbolic gesture of solidarity with Gaza, and weren’t yet being put into policy. 

He also said that a Senate committee would provide guidance on the meaning of the resolutions’ wording. This is at odds with “operationalising the resolutions”, echoing earlier interactions between UCT and the court. Mendelsohn alleges that Council Chairperson Advocate Norman Arendse misled the court about events around the adoption of the resolutions. Now, UCT’s actions again differ from what it told the court. 

Collier-Reed asked staff and students to provide anonymous feedback on how the resolutions could affect them. However, the link he provided for feedback asks them to log into a Microsoft form, which means that it’s not anonymous. In addition, there’s no requirement to give one’s connection to UCT, so anyone can flood the system. 

Collier-Reed said UCT would use the feedback to “ensure that we better understand the nuances involved in the implementation of the resolutions”. Once the Senate working group has developed draft guidelines, members of the university community will be invited to provide additional input. 

The anonymous UCT stakeholder says staff members emailed the UCT executive asking why the university was proceeding with the resolutions while the matter was sub judice, but no response has been received. 

She says there isn’t a representative of the Jewish community on the Senate working group, nor an expert on antisemitism. 

Collier-Reed sent the texts of the resolutions in his email, and on re-reading them, the stakeholder was “once again struck by their blatantly anti-Jewish sentiment”. 

She noticed that they include “no condemnation of the 7 October [2023] attacks, nor support for Israeli civilians who have suffered”. 

While the resolutions express solidarity with “academic colleagues victimised for speaking out [against Israel]”, there’s “no expression of solidarity with colleagues who are victimised for their support of Israel,” notes the stakeholder. 

She was also struck anew by the university’s rejection of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. “Normally, when a body adopts a definition of racism or sexism, it does so with a view to protecting the victims.” But here, UCT adopts a definition “to protect critics of Jews from being labelled antisemites”. 

Wendy Kahn, the national director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, says working to implement the resolutions prior to the court’s judgement, “shows bad faith by UCT”. 

The university’s “belligerence” in getting these “flawed resolutions” implemented, despite the “serious consequences for UCT, its students, and academics”, shows its “blind-sighted obsession” and “disregard for the issues that were exposed in the courtroom”, Kahn says. 

It shows a lack of respect for “due process and procedure”, pushing “political agendas above the interests of UCT”, she says. “These virtue-signalling exercises cause only division and hostility among the UCT community. It’s regrettable that UCT wouldn’t prioritise the interests of its academics and students above pursing the resolutions.” 

South African Zionist Federation spokesperson, Rolene Marks, agrees that the establishment of the working group “is in bad faith” because it shows “flagrant disregard” for the rule of law. It’s “disrespectful to the courts for UCT to plough ahead when the court’s judgement is pending”, Marks says. 

She notes that the time for consultation was before Council adopted the resolutions. “Council was unconcerned with input from academics and students at that point,” says Marks. “UCT’s thinly-veiled attempt now to try to undo its failure to consult with stakeholders is a farce.” 

Polovin says UCT’s leadership should “pause all implementation efforts until the court has spoken. Anything less conveys disregard for the legal process and the fundamental values of accountability and institutional integrity that the university should be upholding.”