The time has come for the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town to go.
He is someone I have known and liked for years, but the situation he has allowed to develop cannot continue.
Max has presided over an administration which has allowed a small group of student activists to believe they have a right to intimidate lecturers, burn works of art and vandalise the campus.
When I met Max Price in London earlier this month we discussed the issues for over half an hour.
I pointed out that this trend began with the Rhodes must fall campaign and has spiralled out of control.
He told me he supported the removal of the Rhodes statue. I suggested this was a mistake, which has unleashed the current train of events.
The right not to be offended
What the student activist believe is that they have a right not to be offended. And Max agrees.
That is not a position I recognise or accept. Students come to university to debate, discuss and above all to learn.
Students receive no guarantee that they will not be offended at some time during their education.
Conservative Christians might not like the teachings of Darwin. Conservative Muslims might object to seeing photographs or paintings of people. That is the price you pay for studying at a liberal University.
By allowing the myth to develop that students can have any lecturer or art work removed because they are offended by them, Max Price has abandoned a central tenet of higher education: tolerance of difference.
How long will it be before offending books are removed from the library or defaced? Once such a suggestion would have seemed fanciful; absurd. But no longer.
For these reasons I believe the Vice-Chancellor should resign or be removed. He has outstayed his welcome at my university.
Martin
Martin Plaut 
Martin,
Your blog has just been brought to my attention and I feel I must reply as it attributes views to me which I do not hold. Your brief summary of our discussion has misrepresented my position.
I do NOT believe that students have a right not to be offended. Yes, I supported the removal of the Rhodes statue as did the overwhelming majority of campus staff and an almost unanimous Senate. The reasons have nothing to do with causing offence to particular individuals. Hence I would not support the removal of the Rhodes statue from the Company Gardens or from Rhodes Memorial above UCT campus. The reasons have everything to do with what a statue of Rhodes represents and says about the University of Cape Town when presented in an iconic way in pride of place with connotations of a hero that embodies the values of the university and someone the students should look up to.
I reject your view that the Rhodes statue decision inevitably leads to an expectation amongst protestors that any objection to a name, statue or artwork must similarly result in its removal. Many US campuses have removed statues and symbols (e.g. University of Texas, Austin, Harvard Law School rejecting its crest and its slave owning founder), after questioning the veneration of these individuals as symbols of the university’s values, particularly when being challenged to make the institution more inclusive. These institutions too, do not avoid such actions out of fear that this will lead to wholesale removal of other works that might offend.
Your claim that “Max has presided over an administration which has allowed a small group of student activists to believe they have a right to intimidate lecturers, burn works of art and vandalise the campus” is contradicted by the fact that all students who have been identified as having participated in the burning of artworks or vandalism, or in intimidating individuals, are being subjected to disciplinary processes. Nine cases have been heard – we are awaiting the judgements and if found guilty the University will seek their expulsion; three more will be heard in the coming weeks.
To clarify what I said about causing offence, I do believe we need to be concerned about and listen to those who say they take offence at an artwork or the cumulative effects of a display of works. That does not mean I concede a right not to be offended. But an artwork that is racist will cause offence that I don’t think we should tolerate – at least not in public spaces where the public cannot avoid seeing it and where it cannot be contextualised, balanced, moderated or be part of an educational process – as one might be able to do in a gallery. Some artwork may not be racist when understood in context, with knowledge of the intention of the artist or of the context in which it was created, but to the passer-by and out of context, may be seen as racist. As curators of these works, we have a duty to ensure that those works are made sense of in ways that make clear we are not endorsing or reproducing racist or other discriminatory stereotypes and attitudes.
Regarding the withdrawal of some art works at UCT, I have emphasised elsewhere that the artworks have been taken down temporarily for two reasons. First, we have a duty of care to ensure the paintings are not damaged. Recent actions of a small group of protestors who were trying to make a point by resorting to vandalism indicates that we cannot leave controversial artworks unprotected at the present moment.
Secondly, this gives us time to develop a policy not to censor what art should be displayed, but to guide how it should be displayed – a policy on curation, which might include decisions to display some works in galleries rather than in public places. In curating works of art, context, history, accumulated impact, balance are all important.
Our goal is that after a process of discussion and education, policy development and re-curation, we will create an environment which is vibrant, challenging, provocative, but also inclusive, and an audience that feels respected and is also more informed, understanding and tolerant. I believe that all the art will once again be on display.
Wow wow wow! I must be honest, I for one have read many stupid articles about the effects of coffee on the brain and how all vegans get sick a die from not consuming enough protein but these are usually by people of minimal education, especially in the field of which they write. This on the otherhand should display at least a modicum of intelect, It does not, not at all.
1) Title of the article, ” why Max Price must fall” is a blatant appropriation of the culture and lived exeriences of so many disempovrished and marginalised of South Africa who have given, in some cases their lives for the good of the country. Your use of this “Buzz word” is an ostentatious attck on those who seek the good of all.
2) For someone who has written so much on South African History, you see to be competely ignorant of the the symbolic references that statues have and the pervading racism that they encourage.
3) The assumption that the results of Mr Prices decisons are as you have stated is one of the most basic logical fallices. You have no right to make inferences on the pervading circumstances at universities in South Africa while you sit upon your seat of white privilege in England, 1000s of kilometers away.
4) As someone who seems to have documented much of apartheid, you of all people should know that past decisions in no way take precident over present societal instutions. Apartheid no longer exsists because it was objectively wrong. The statue no longer exsists because it glorified a man who was objectively evil and reprehensible even at the time of his exsistence. If we were to apply your view of the statue to apartheid then surely we should assume that the status qou of apartheid should preside? No of course not, Universities are always the leaders in societal reform why should we bow down to antiquated ideals of an equally antiquated person.
5) On the right to be offended.
I can assure you that there are always things that go past what is moraly accpeted as acceptible enough to public offend people. For example, no one would passivley stand by a statue glorify Hitler, and while im not comparing the two I would encourage you not to do the same. The vast majority of black people are offended by the rape, pillage and torture that was caused by such a vile man for you to say that the statue must stay is for you to decide that your moral compass is better than the ‘Natives’ and they must just accept your decision. this extremly arrogant and boarderline racist.
6) I generally disagree with Max Price mainly becuase i trust little of what he says but i would strongly urge you to remove this drivvelish piece of nonsense you call an article becuase it is its very essence unworthy of the internet ( I know, thats saying a lot, thats why I said it)
Kind Regards
A frustrated Commerce student, from the University Of Cape Town