The University of Cape Town (UCT) has embroiled itself in another scandal over freedom of expression. An inquiry report recommends that advocate Mark Oppenheimer be disqualified from its Council and that fellow Council member David Ansara be suspended for six months. This Sunday the Council will be called upon to vote on whether Oppenheimer should be removed and Ansara sanctioned.

The complaints arose from Oppenheimer’s appearance on a podcast hosted by author and human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, where he criticised UCT’s restrictions on collaboration with Israeli academics and spoke about antisemitic intimidation on South African campuses. Ansara faces punishment for reposting praise of the interview and continuing to defend it.

The Council is being asked to endorse a process that turns a legitimate form of public dissent into an act of misconduct. It should refuse to do so.

Oppenheimer’s intervention was an attempt at whistleblowing about antisemitism and the erosion of academic freedom on campus. His critics were entitled to challenge his account. Instead, complaints about his language and alleged disloyalty to the university have produced a recommendation that he lose his seat on the Council. The proposed punishment is a serious infringement of free speech and an unmistakable example of cancel culture.

The evidence described in the report makes that outcome particularly disturbing. It records a video showing a woman snatching a yarmulke from a Jewish student putting on tefillin and throwing it to the ground. It also describes people shouting “We are Hamas” while Jewish students held posters of hostages, and a banner declaring that South Africa is Hamas. Hezbollah flags were also present on campus.

These incidents demand a serious response. Seizing a person’s religious head covering is an attack on the public expression of Jewish identity. Invoking Hamas in a confrontation with Jewish students holding hostage posters gives those students ample reason to feel threatened. UCT should welcome scrutiny of the conditions in which such conduct occurs.

The report calls the yarmulke incident deplorable but suggests that it was probably immature rather than terrorist activity. Antisemitic intimidation does not have to amount to terrorism before a Council member may raise the alarm. The report itself describes conduct that gives substance to Oppenheimer’s concern.

Oppenheimer described these events as an Islamist takeover at UCT. However, he was accused of referring to members of the university’s Senate and Council as Islamists. While he was forthright in denouncing the anti-Israel boycott adopted by UCT he denied accusing every supporter of the so-called Gaza resolutions of being an Islamist or terrorist. He makes the distinction between criticism of Islamism as a political ideology and hostility towards Muslims. That distinction is essential to public debate. Muslims are entitled to equal dignity and protection from prejudice. Political movements invoking Islam remain open to criticism, just as movements invoking Christianity or Judaism do.

The dispute over the academic boycott also deserves an honest account. UCT’s resolution prohibits collaboration with academics affiliated to the Israel Defense Forces or the Israeli military establishment. It does not expressly prohibit collaboration with every Israeli academic. Oppenheimer’s opponents rely heavily on that qualification, but in practice Israeli academics have been barred from UCT’s campus. This has been confirmed by Judge Dennis Davis.

The scope and implementation of the boycott are legitimate subjects of scrutiny. The Council cannot settle that debate by removing an opponent of the policy. Members of a governing body must retain the freedom to argue that a decision is wrong, even after the majority has adopted it.

The report insists that this is not a question of free speech, presenting it instead as a matter of good faith, respect, and institutional reputation. Those duties deserve proper consideration, but invoking them does not dispose of the constitutional issue. Punishing someone for a public interview plainly engages freedom of expression.

Section 16 of the Constitution protects the communication of information and ideas, and expressly protects academic freedom. Restrictions on protected expression require justification. A university’s embarrassment at criticism cannot be sufficient. If protecting reputation becomes a duty to withhold damaging criticism, whistleblowing will routinely be treated as disloyalty.

Ansara’s situation is even more troubling. He did not conduct the interview or make its statements. He reposted a comment by lawyer and mediator John Brand on the social media site X (formerly Twitter) where Brand praised Oppenheimer’s courage. The report finds Ansara culpable because he endorsed the interview and continues to support it. A six-month suspension would punish a Council member for publicly defending a colleague’s contested political speech. It would also warn every other member that supporting a dissenter carries a personal cost.

A separate letter from UCT Alumni for Palestine, submitted to the university yesterday, reveals another attempt to secure the pair’s exclusion. Addressed to Council chair Norman Arendse and Vice-Chancellor Mosa Moshabela, it calls for Oppenheimer and Ansara’s suspension over their participation in the White Cross Project conference in Washington DC.

That conference and its associated memorial drew attention to farm attacks and the people murdered in them. Survivors and bereaved relatives gave testimony. Thousands of crosses commemorated victims. Oppenheimer’s participation in drawing international attention to the scourge of farm murders deserves praise. The suffering of these victims merits attention regardless of their race or the political discomfort their stories cause.

The alumni letter links the campaign to a racist, white supremacist movement, invokes the presence of antisemites within that movement, and accuses the two men of potentially seditious behaviour. It cites objections to the organisers’ political programme, but identifies no racist or antisemitic statement made by Oppenheimer or Ansara at the event.

Participation in a conference does not establish agreement with every organiser, speaker, or policy proposal. The letter’s authors are free to dispute the project’s constitutional proposals, its account of discrimination, or its approach to international advocacy. They must establish the misconduct of the people whose suspension they demand.

Smearing participation in a memorial for murder victims through associations with racism and antisemitism is beyond the pale. The leap from attending the event to demanding suspension, without identifying either man’s supposedly hateful words, is evidence of political bad faith. The letter uses grave accusations to seek the removal of opponents whose views its authors reject.

UCT Alumni for Palestine is entitled to campaign for its cause and criticise Council members. That freedom must extend equally to Oppenheimer and Ansara. A commitment to inclusion becomes meaningless if it permits organised pressure to exclude those who challenge prevailing political opinions.

The report and the alumni letter are separate documents, but both seek institutional penalties for public expression. Together they show how readily arguments about university values can become demands to silence inconvenient voices. Council should recognise the damage that endorsing those demands would do to its credibility.

On Sunday, the UCT Council should reject Oppenheimer’s removal and Ansara’s suspension. It should address the evidence of antisemitic intimidation and permit open scrutiny of the boycott. Punishing the person who raised those concerns would deepen the scandal and leave every future critic with good reason to remain silent.