UCT’s anti-Israel resolutions do not merely curtail academic collaboration — they stifle it. This underhanded boycott contradicts UCT’s Vision 2030 mandate to become “a premier academic meeting point between South Africa… and the world” by 2030, argues Rowan Polovin.
The current legal challenge against the University of Cape Town (UCT) Council’s anti-Israel resolutions is not just a necessary action but an essential stand for academic freedom, institutional integrity, and the future of UCT as a globally respected university.
A group of academics has challenged UCT management and its Council, confronting what can only be described as a legally irrational and dangerous set of decisions that jeopardize the very fabric of the university.
In June, almost unnoticed, the Council passed a series of Israel-Gaza resolutions. While they may appear on the surface to be anti-war and in support of human rights, a closer examination reveals their severe impact: limiting international academic collaboration, restricting academic freedom, and violating donor agreements.
The essence of these resolutions is that they threaten the ability of every academic in every faculty to engage in global research networks, attend conferences, and participate in collaborative research. The most alarming resolution dictates that no UCT academic may enter into or continue relations with any research group or network whose members are affiliated with the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) or the broader Israeli military establishment.
On the surface, this may seem like a boycott of institutions connected to the Israeli army. However, given that nearly all Jewish Israeli citizens, male or female, are conscripted into military service before university, this effectively amounts to a sweeping academic boycott.
Many global academic research groups, comprising scholars from across the world — whether from the United States, Latin America, Europe, Africa or China — often include Israeli academics who have served in the IDF or remain reservists. As a result, entire research groups could be disqualified from working with UCT, effectively isolating the university from vital global research networks.
Make no mistake: these resolutions do not merely curtail academic collaboration — they stifle it. This underhanded boycott contradicts UCT’s Vision 2030 mandate to become “a premier academic meeting point between South Africa… and the world” by 2030. It stands in opposition to the university’s stated aim of taking advantage of “expanding global networks” and ensuring African academics are better represented in the international arena.
Moreover, UCT proudly touts its status as one of Africa’s top-rated universities in global rankings. These rankings, however, rely heavily on the number of international partnerships a university maintains — the very networks now under threat. The resolutions could damage UCT’s standing in the academic world.
It is worth stating the obvious: these resolutions will not end the war, nor will they free hostages. Instead, they harm UCT, its staff, and its students while suffocating debate on the Middle East and intellectual freedom — freedom that should be the cornerstone of any academic institution.
Definition of Antisemitism Narrowed
Another troubling Council resolution, framed as addressing “the destruction of scholarship and education in Gaza,” narrows the definition of antisemitism. This opens the door for the abuse of Jewish students and, as detailed in legal papers by Professor Adam Mendelsohn of the Department of Historical Studies, it could cost UCT millions in essential funding by violating anti-discrimination donor clauses.
Additionally, the Gaza resolution commits UCT to providing financial support for the rebuilding of Gaza universities at a time when all South African universities are grappling with financial difficulties, and many students face financial exclusion due to unpaid fees.
Financial & Legal Risks
Trevor Norwitz, former chair of the UCT Fund in New York — which has raised over $60 million for the university — has made it clear in his affidavit: these resolutions will severely damage UCT’s fundraising efforts, particularly among its US Jewish alumni. Norwitz’s resignation in December, in protest against the Council’s anti-Israel stance, should have been a wake-up call for UCT’s leadership.
There is also the matter of legal risks. Several US states have laws prohibiting government agencies, including universities, from collaborating with entities that engage in boycotts of Israel. As a result, many American institutions may be forced to cut ties with UCT, cancel student exchange programs, or reduce funding. If UCT continues down this path, it risks not only its financial support but also its ability to collaborate with American institutions and scholars.
Academic Freedom Under Threat
What will follow? Will the Council begin dictating which countries UCT researchers can collaborate with, based purely on political considerations? This is the question raised by Economics Professor Nicoli Nattrass in her affidavit, where she asks if UCT researchers will now be barred from working with scholars from countries like Ethiopia or Rwanda, where democratic governance is challenged.
This legal challenge is not merely about overturning ill-conceived decisions; it is about defending the principles of academic freedom, preserving UCT’s global reputation, and ensuring that education remains above the fray of political bias. The future of UCT — and indeed the integrity of South African academia — depends on it.
Rowan Polovin is the national chairperson of the South African Zionist Federation.
