Discussion THE A C A D E M I C PROFESSION A N D

C O N T E M P O R A R Y POLITICS

HOSTILITY to the policy of apartheid practised by the South African government has given rise to activities on the part of university teachers, mainly in the United States and Europe--but not only there--to try to weaken the government of South Africa. Various means to this end have been employed. "Divestment" is one; this is not exclusively or even primarily an academic undertaking? Declarations of disapproval of the prevailing policy in South Africa through learned societies have been another. 2 Specifically academic has been a policy of boycotting South African universities and members of their teaching staffs. One particular form of the academic boycott has been the refusal of the right of South African university teachers to participate in the meetings of international learned societies. Others are the refusal to publish the writings of South African academics in European and American scientific and scholarly journals.

The boycott reached a high point of publicity on the occasion of the World Archaeological Congress in 1986. It is our intention in this and subsequent issues of Minerva to publish a variety of materials---articles and documents--bearing on the boycott. We present below three contributions to this discussion by Professor Phillip Tobias. Professor Tobias is head of the department of anatomy at the Medical School of the University of Witwatersrand. He was awarded the Inter- national Balzan Prize in 1987 for his achievements in physical anthropology.

E.S.

I

THOUGHTS ON ACADEMIC BOYCOTTS P H I L L I P V. T O B I A S

THE CONCEPT of an academic boycott means different things to different persons. There is no single, concerted p rogramme which has been approved internationally; nor do those South African bodies which have declared themselves in favour of a boycott have a single unified concept of what they mean by this.

The following are among the kinds of action which have already occurred, or which have been propagated by those who favour a boycott:

Direct Personal Contact between South African Scholars--or Foreign Scholars who are Resident in South Africa---and the Outside Worm

(i) A ban on participation in a congress, meeting, round table, sym- posium: this may be at the behest of the organisers of the meeting, of the

Rottenberg, Simon, "The Universities and South Africa: The Campaign for Divestment", Minerva, XXIV (Summer-Autumn 1986), pp. 223-241; "The Policy of American Universities Towards Divestment in South Africa", Reports and Documents, ibid, pp. 246-343.

2 Washburn, Wilcomb E., "The Academic Profession and Contemporary Politics", Dis- cussion, Minerva, XXVI (Autumn 1988), pp. 392-415.

576 Phillip Tobias

university or other institution on whose premises the meeting is to be held, of the sponsoring organisation under which the meeting falls, or of the country in which the meeting is to take place.

(ii) A ban on entry to a country for academic purposes such as attendance at a meeting, visit to an academic institution, delivery of a lecture.

(iii) Even where no ban is imposed by any of the bodies named in (i), there may be threats by anti-apartheid organisations and other bodies if persons from South Africa appear at the meeting in question. These may take the form of threats of disruption, demonstrations and picketing, refusal of facilities (e.g. by the local authority or university), and withdrawal of financial and other support from the organisers. These threats may be directed aainst the organisers of the meeting, the sponsoring organisation or the persons from South Africa themselves. The threats may take this form: the boycotting organisations may threaten that delegates from certain countries would stay away if the South Africans were present--and part of the campaign would be to organise such an abstention.

(iv) Some institutions may debar persons from South Africa from visiting their laboratories or departments. In the Netherlands, for instance, the government has advised all universities in the country that they are "to minimize contact with South Africa and South African scholars". In terms of this, for example, a doctoral student was denied access to a particular university department, although permission had previously been given for him to visit and learn some new procedures in the field of biochemistry. The Government of the Netherlands is acting in accordance with a decision of the Europan Economic Community. Under the same sort of governmental pressure on universities, a university which is the host to an international congress may prohibit persons from South Africa to attend such Congress on their premises.

Indirect Contact between South African Scholars and the Outside World

(i) Pressure is being brought to bear on editors of periodicals not to accept articles emanating from scholars resident in South Africa. Such pressures may be applied by one or more boycott-minded scholars, or by outside organisations, or by the organisation which "owns" the periodical.

(ii) Certain countries, or academies, or publishing houses, or univer- sities, may refuse to allow any of their scholarly publications (books or journals) to go from their country, academy, publishing house or university respectively, to persons, libraries or other institutions in South Africa.

(iii) The designer of a computer program may refuse to allow the program to be sent or sold to any person or institution in South Africa. (The case in point, here, was a human genetical program devised by two American colleagues; one was willing, but the other insisted that the program be advertised as being available "in all countries of the world except South Africa".)

(iv) Where the constitution of an international scientific union precludes the denial of scholars on the grounds of their political persuasion or place of domicile, attempts may be made to change the constitution of such a

The Academic Profession and Contemporary Politics 577

union, so as to enable such a union "legitimately" to exclude persons from South Africa.

Visits by Overseas Scholars to South Africa

(i) Some countries (e.g. India) have long refused to allow their nationals to use that country's passport to visit South Africa to attend a conference.

(ii) Some universities have pressed their own staff-members not to visit South Africa, or even forbidden such visits.

(iii) Where no institutional pressure is applied, in many places student bodies or outside anti-apartheid organisations have brought pressure to bear on individuals not to visit South Africa. In some cases, there has been a threat of "action" against an academic who has defied such pressure, on his return to his home institution.

(iii) In some instances, where an overseas visitor has come to South Africa in spite of pressures at home, attempts have been made by local bodies which support the boycott to prevent the visitor speaking, or otherwise to exert pressure on him. A number of recent visitors have requested that their visit be kept at a "low key", without publicity, so that reprisals at home may be averted.

Effects of an Academic Boycott

It is manifest that any or all of the above actions make inroads upon the freedom of the exchange of information, the freedom of movement of scholars and the freedom of a university to decide whom it will admit to its campus. The longstanding principle underlying international scholarly intercourse has been that there should be freedom of access to knowledge irrespective of race, colour, creed, sex, political or religious persuasion, or national origin. This principle is infringed on by an academic boycott.

In the case of the denial of scholars living and working in South Africa, it should be clear that a total boycott means that their political persuasions are not being taken into consideration: they are excluded solely because they happen to be living in South Africa. In these cases, the individuals' nationality was not considered (British and American nationals living in South Africa are excluded); the individuals' political persuasion was not considered. The sole criterion of exclusion is residence in South Africa.

In the case of a selective boycott, several versions or aspects have been suggested by those bodies and individuals who support such a policy:

(a) A ban should not be applied to persons who have a good record of opposition to apartheid and racism, but only to those who do not have such a record of opposition.

(b) Another version of the selective boycott is that persons who belong to certain political organisations, or to certain "acceptable" professional bodies (e.g. NAMDA), would be excluded from the provisions of the ban.

(c) Yet another aspect is that the ban should be applied automatically to persons who work directly for the government or for governmental institutions, but not for those who work for institutions which have a reasonable record in opposing apartheid. Related to the last-mentioned is the view that persons who hold posts in universities which do not

578 Phillip Tobias

discriminate racially should be favourably considered, but that persons who hold posts in universities which support (or have until very recently supported) racial discrimination, i.e. apartheid in higher education, should be automatically excluded from an international congress (no matter what the individual's personal record or beliefs might be).

Those who have espoused or considered the idea of supporting a selective academic boycott appear to think that this would be a less serious inroad upon the principles of scientific freedom. Yet, it must be pointed out that, by accepting a selective boycott, one is in fact accepting that political criteria, personal or institutional, are a valid basis for deciding who may attend a scholarly meeting, and who may be permitted to make visits or to receive academic visitors.

A selective boycott, no less than a total boycott, abrogates the principles of freedom of access to knowledge and freedom of movement of scholars.

Criteria and Application of a Selective Boycott

It seems to be the case that a total l~oycott has been embraced by many persons and organisations initially, on the political argument that every conceivable kind of pressure must be brought to bear on the regime.

When it was pointed out how many principles of freedom would be sacrificed or irreparably harmed thereby, and how many staunch fighters against apartheid would be affected, some bodies began contemplating the alternative of a selective boycott. This movement has so far been beset by such problems as: who is the appropriate body to decide in each individual case, whether a particular scholar is "acceptable" or "unacceptable"? International bodies (such as the African National Congress committee or the Anti-Apartheid Movement in London), would probably not be sufficiently acquainted with the individual's political standpoint, or institu- tional affiliation, and so would be obliged to rely on the advice and recommendations of local bodies within the country to be boycotted. Already there is some evidence to suggest that this system has been operating. In a case where South Africans were at first granted visas to attend a meeting in India, it was apparently pointed out by local or international bodies that the persons concerned worked for a South African government department and the Indian government thereupon withdrew the visas.

The alternative of a selective boycott (a compromise between the more radical total boycott and the upholding of academic and scientific freedom) seems to have been espoused more by bodies within South Africa than by overseas proponents of the boycott. The question of who is a fit and competent person or body to decide on the issue is still very much at issue: the scholarly bodies would insist on being judged by fellow-scholars; the boycott-supporting bodies appear to maintain that their own political attitude gives them the right to adjudge the issue.

Scholarly bodies and true scholars appear to judge this issue by the standards applicable to scholarship and the freedom of access to knowledge, freedom of science and freedom of movement of scholars. These persons and bodies who are striving for a boycott clearly place political consider-

The Academic Profession and Contemporary Politics 579

ations above scholarly ones. They imply or openly state that if the South African universities are reduced in the process to third-rate institutions, this is a not unreasonable price to pay for liberation. The former group are deeply concerned that the educational legacy to the post-apartheid society will be a series of run-down, third-rate universities whose standards of excellence will have vanished, whose ablest young staff-members will have departed from South Africa and whose contribution to the new society will be negligible. The latter group have been heard to say that if all of the universities have to be destroyed in the process of liberation, it will be a small price to pay for victory in the struggle for freedom.

We as scholars must uphold the freedoms of the scholarly world. Without these freedoms we believe that standards will fall, the emigration of outstanding young scientists will be increased, the role of the universities in the building of a new future society in South Africa will dwindle--and inevitably standards of physical, psychological and spiritual well-being will decline, health will deteriorate, and the entire fabric of South African society will deteriorate. Since it seems to us that academic boycotts, whether total or selective, will lead inevitably to such evil consequences, we cannot lend our support to this particular political tactic. It is a tactic which is potentially profoundly destructive of one of the most potent forces working for a better future in South Africa, namely the universities, which are the training centres for education, scholarship and science. It is moreover a tactic the efficacy of which is unproven. Its chances of success seem dubious.

3 August, 1987

I I

T H E A T T R I T I O N O F S O U T H A F R I C A ' S U N I V E R S I T I E S U N D E R S I E G E : P O S I T I V E A I D A

R A Y O F H O P E 1

South Africa's Universities under the State of Emergency

FREEDOM is the very lifeblood of a university. Without it, the university's special role in society suffers. Today, under the present state of emergency, freedom is under siege as never before. Yet, it is essential that we see this latest phase in an historical context. It is nothing new for the university to be beleaguered. For over 38 years the University of Witwatersrand has struggled from one crisis to another, to survive one attack on our autonomy after another. Although at times these pressures have threatened to undermine the very basis of higher education, we have never admitted defeat. We have fought back and maintained our belief in freedom as the foundation stone of our university. We have consistently repudiated two of the greatest challenges to the university's freedomhnamely racial

1 A slightly abridged version of the address by Professor Phillip V. Tobias to the Foreign Correspondents' Association in Johannesburg, on 5 November, 1986.