It is worth recalling that on 4 December 2025 the Convocation of UCT met. This is made up of graduates and all holders of diplomas and credit-bearing certificates; the vice-chancellor, deputy vice-chancellors, and academic staff; and former professors and associate professors elected by Senate as emeritus professors or emeritus associate professors.

The meeting had before it an apparently uncontentious resolution on academic freedom and study, which is enshrined in the South African Constitution. In a scandalous development the resolution was defeated.

Martin

Convocation had before it for its consideration the following motion moved Henry Shields and seconded by Kumesheran Moodley.

Henry Shields put his motion, which he framed as less of a motion than an affirmation of the Constitution of South Africa, as follows:

Whereas:

  1. Section 16(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees “academic freedom and freedom of scientific research”; and
  2. Section 18 of the Constitution guarantees the “right to freedom of association”; and
  3. These rights form the foundation of a globally connected academic community; and
  4. The advancement of knowledge depends upon the free exchange of ideas, international collaboration, and the autonomy of scholars and academic research; and
  5. Restrictions on scholarly association, or limitations on institutional collaboration may infringe upon the rights protected in Sections 16 and 18; and
  6. Universities have a duty to uphold constitutional rights.

Therefore, Convocation resolves that:

  1. This University affirms its commitment to the constitutional rights of academic freedom, freedom of scientific research, and freedom of association.
  2. Individual academics, departments, and research entities shall remain free to determine their own scholarly partnerships and networks, free from coercion or institutionalized restrictions.
  3. The University commits to fostering open dialogue, respectful debate, and broad international engagement as central components of its academic mission.
  4. Nothing in this resolution prevents academic critique, ethical reflection, or voluntary decisions by individual scholars regarding their research collaborations.

The Chair opened the floor for debate.

A member present in person sought clarification of the practical meaning of point two of the motion asking what the intent behind the motion was.

A member present online questioned how the University will ensure that academics understand they have responsibility alongside their constitutional freedoms.

Mr Shields replied that point 2 of the proposal stated that: “individual academics, departments, and research entities shall remain free to determine their own scholarly partnerships and networks”.  He clarified that this implied that there will be no restrictions on academic interaction, meaning academics would be free from coercion or institutionalized restrictions.

The Chair then put the motion to a vote, the outcome of which was as follows:

Support:  356      

Do not support: 485    

Abstain: 45