Warnings about UCT’s anti-Israel gatekeeping bear fruit

When the University of Cape Town (UCT) adopted two anti-Israel resolutions a year ago, commentators warned that they would have dire consequences on diversity, academic freedom, and freedom of association.

Now, those warnings have become reality for participants at the IAMHIST (the International Association for Media and History) 2025 Conference, which took place at UCT from 30 June to 2 July. Ahead of the event, Israeli applicants were “requested to provide sworn statements confirming that they had no ties – direct or indirect – to the Israel Defense Forces [IDF] or the broader Israeli military establishment.”

This is according to an article published by concerned UCT alumni and staff on local news site Politicsweb on 29 June. The demand comes in light of one of the so-called “Gaza resolutions” adopted by the university’s Council – its highest decision-making body. According to these resolutions, “no UCT academic may enter into relations, or continue relations with, any research group or network whose author affiliations are with the IDF or the broader Israeli military establishment”.

A member of the legal community speaking anonymously to maintain neutrality says this incident “highlights the ambiguity of UCT’s anti-Israel boycott policy. In court papers, the university maintains that the restriction applies only to academics who list the IDF in their author affiliation. Yet, in practice, UCT is asking Israeli academics who don’t list the IDF whether they are members of it.

“This divergence from the legal arguments advanced in court creates uncertainty about the policy’s application,” he said, “and results in Israeli scholars being singled out for differential treatment. Such conduct may amount to unfair discrimination under the Equality Act.”

He is referring to arguments made in an affidavit by UCT Council Chairperson Norman Arendse, submitted in May. These arguments were made in response to a case filed in the Western Cape High Court by UCT’s Professor Adam Mendelsohn in 2024, which asks for the resolutions to be reviewed or set aside because he says the university didn’t follow its own processes when adopting them, and they have a negative impact on research, academic freedom, and fundraising.

The demand of the Israeli academics “was made outside any formal university disciplinary process; wasn’t extended to participants of other nationalities; and wasn’t rooted in any binding IAMHIST policy”, stated the Politicsweb article.

However, conference organisers told the SA Jewish Report, “We are convinced the [Politicsweb] article misrepresents several events and the work we are doing. As an organisation that wants to promote international exchange and dialogue, we don’t share any resolution that prohibits scholars from attending academic conferences as long as they accept universal human rights, academic standards, and our conference etiquette.

“Given that none of the Israeli scholars who submitted their proposals had direct relations with the Israeli military, the opportunity for them to attend remained open.”

But Cape South African Jewish Board of Deputies (Cape SAJBD) Executive Director Daniel Bloch says asking Israelis to complete an affidavit “disclosing their personal or political affiliations, while other nationalities weren’t asked, is clear discrimination. This raises serious concerns that some within UCT’s leadership are advancing a narrow anti-Israel agenda.”

It has become increasingly evident, Bloch says, “that the anti-Israel narrative in South Africa is driven by a minority group. We cannot allow this small but vocal minority, which supports internationally designated terrorist organisations, to hold our academic institutions hostage or undermine the principles of open inquiry and fairness.”

Bloch says the Cape SAJBD remains in constant communication with UCT regarding “the academic boycott and its damaging impact on the institution. We continue to engage proactively to protect the well-being and rights of Jewish students on campus.”

South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) spokesperson Rolene Marks says the SAZF is “deeply concerned” by this “exclusion and obstruction of Israeli academics”.

The SAZF formally raised its concerns with the UCT Centre for Film & Media Studies “regarding the exclusionary implications of this conference, and the broader academic boycott environment fostered by the university. Disappointingly, our communications were ignored,” Marks says.

For Marks, what is particularly alarming is the “ideological purity test” imposed on Israeli participants – “a demand that they disassociate from the IDF, the only military force charged with protecting the Jewish people. No such condition is applied to academics from other countries or conflict zones.”

It’s “especially hypocritical that UCT academics continue to travel and collaborate freely with Israeli scholars, while Israeli academics are told to renounce a core part of their national identity to participate in academic engagement hosted by UCT”, Marks says.

David Benatar, emeritus professor of philosophy at UCT, who has written extensively about the deterioration of the university, says that though this may be the first publicised application of UCT’s resolutions, it’s unlikely to be the last.

“Nor should we think that all the manifestations of the policy will become public,” he says. “Many will be covert, including quiet boycotts by those too fearful to risk the ire of UCT’s activist ideologues who believe that, of all the armies in the world, the only one to single out for boycott is Israel’s.”

UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola told the SA Jewish Report that UCT is “working on a clear policy for the uniform implementation of the Gaza resolutions. UCT acknowledges the deep complexities involved, and regrets any inconsistencies on this matter.”

Meanwhile, in an affidavit filed in June at the Western Cape High Court, Advocate Kessler Perumalsamy stated that he and other members of the UCT Council had been kept in the dark about the implications of the “Gaza resolutions”.

He wrote that the debate on the resolutions “suggested that Council was seeking to rush a decision. It became clear that some Council members sought to forge ahead despite legitimate concerns about inadequate information before Council.”

The anonymous lawyer says Perumalsamy “reveals that UCT’s Council wasn’t informed of the serious consequences [of adopting the resolutions]. His affidavit provides a compelling foundation for the view that the Council’s decision was irrational, and should be set aside.”

Perumalsamy said that other Council members “have indicated that they would like to share their perspectives with the court, but are fearful of doing so. They are concerned about their tenure being called into question; retaliatory conduct by other members of Council; and being labelled ‘pro-Zionist’; ‘anti-Gaza’; or ‘Zionists with a political agenda’ on Council.”

Perumalsamy described a Council meeting on 15 March 2025, where the vice-chancellor said that the resolutions had “created a risk of UCT being specifically targeted by the United States”, and that UCT staff “may be targeted through visa denials and restricted participation in US activities”.

He reports that the vice-chancellor said that “UCT had become a pariah institution with donors” because they are concerned about antisemitism and freedom of speech, and that the resolutions could lead to job losses.

Ultimately, “the vice-chancellor asked Council to rescind the resolutions. He said that if Council didn’t do so, it was asking the executive to do its work with its hands tied behind its back.” However, Arendse defended the resolutions.

Moholola says UCT has noted Perumalsamy’s affidavit, but “isn’t in a position to comment further on a pending legal matter”.