FXI reports on how UKZN’s management tried, and failed, to crush academic freedom
Fazel’s case isn’t the first attempt made by the university to stymie academic freedom. Earlier this year, the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s head of Communications, Dasarath Chetty, lost a case in which he claimed defamation against world renowned academic, Professor Jimi Adesina. You can read the full transcript by clicking on this (287 page) pdf.
Media Release: FXI welcomes judgement in academic freedom case
21 February 2007
The Freedom of Expression welcomes the judgment handed down yesterday by Magistrate IM Ristow of the Grahamstown Magistrates´ Court in which he dismissed (with costs) charges of defamation made by University of Kwazulu Natal head of communications, Professor Dasarath Chetty, against Rhodes University academic Professor Jimi Adesina.
The case follows a series of emails last year, starting just before staff at UKZN went on strike for various reasons, including for better wages and working conditions. Just before the strike began, Chetty´s office issued an email to the university community requesting that “all staff who receive any media query related to the impending industrial action refer these calls” to staff at Chetty´s office.
In response, Adesina sent an open letter to Chetty, accusing the latter of attempting to gag the university community and of being an instrument of authoritarianism at the university. He also claimed that Chetty had brought sociologists into disrepute through his actions. As a result of this email, Chetty sued Adesina for defamation.
In passionate testimony in court, Adesina argued that the issue was less about defamation and more about academic freedom. He argued that the kind of actions taken by Chetty and other management figures at UKZN was typical of the beginning of the end for academic freedom on university campuses in other parts of Africa and expressed the concern that academic freedom and freedom of expression was under threat in South Africa too.In his judgement, the magistrate criticised Chetty for having been “reluctant to concede that he was aware of the fact that [the strike] did not only relate to a wage dispute despite the fact that the industrial action had received wide publicity in the media. As head of Communications,” the magistrate said, “it just does not seem possible that he could not have been aware of the surrounding circumstances”.
The magistrate found that, given the prevailing circumstances at the university at the time, Chetty´s letter to staff “could very well be understood” to be a gagging order. Adesina´s comments, the Magistrate said, showed no malice and were about “matters of public interest”.The FXI has been following the never-ending saga over the past year at the UKZN and has, on many occasions, expressed concerns that the university was moving in a direction that was constraining free expression and academic freedom. There are numerous instances of such attempts. These were listed in our letter to UKZN Vice-Chancellor Professor Malegapuru Makgoba (See http://www.fxi.org.za).
The Court´s finding vindicates our position.We are concerned that Professor Adesina´s fears about the academic landscape in South Africa are true: that there is a decreasing environment of academic freedom and that intellectual activity is being stymied by various authoritarian tendencies. This, we believe, is certainly the case at UKZN. Professor Adesina´s victory in this case is, thus, also a victory for academic freedom and needs to be taken note of by all South African tertiary institutions.
Some such institutions put impediments in the way of their academics´ ability to conduct research, some grossly constrain the ability of students fully to express themselves politically, socially and intellectually. All such tendencies need to be confronted.We are further concerned in this matter that a large amount of money will be paid in legal costs and we call on UKZN to clarify to its university community and the public more generally whether Chetty´s legal bills (and, now, Adesina´s as well) will be paid by the taxpayer through the university. If it is the latter, then serious questions need to be asked about why the public should have to pay for an academic to pursue a frivolous case against a fellow academic in an attempt to gag him.
A university that showed a massive deficit in the last financial year can ill-afford to squander money in this way. Incidentally, large sums of money have been spent by UKZN over the past year on litigation, commissions of enquiry and disciplinary hearings - usually unwarranted.We call on the Department of Education and the National Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor, to investigate this wastage of resources at UKZN and to bring to book those that are responsible. We further call on the minister to institute an investigation into the decreasing environment of academic freedom and freedom of expression at South African universities.
For more information, call:Na´eem Jeenah, Director: Operations - 011 403-8403 / 084 574 2674Jane Duncan, Executive Director - 011 403-8403 / 082 786 3600.