University leaders reflect on the academic freedom discourse
The discussion that followed the address by Dr Naledi Pandor, a politician and the former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, at the recent 3rd Higher Education Conference, revealed the complexities surrounding higher education’s role in addressing global socio-political issues. It underscored the delicate balance that universities must strike between academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and moral agency. According to her, these are essential factors to consider in the discourse about the university of the future.
Her address in the context of The University, its Future and Academic Freedom – A Global Conversation can be summed up as having been a call to universities to re-position themselves as proactive agents of change in a world characterised by growing geopolitical tensions, human rights challenges, and societal transformations. She suggested that the sustainability of universities would depend on their ability to navigate and influence the ethical and moral questions that define global society.
Timidity in higher education
Commending Dr Pandor for her inspirational address, Dr Aldo Stroebel (right), Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Internationalisation at the University of Mpumalanga, went on to say: “Allow me to be diplomatically critical. It often feels like we only comment when our position aligns with public opinion on global conflicts. The Israel-Palestine situation is currently at the forefront, and your extraordinary leadership in acknowledging this is commendable. However, I noticed a silence regarding other pressing issues, like the Russian conundrum, the criminalisation of homosexuality in Africa, or the implications of research collaborations with China. It seems that sometimes higher education waits for a public statement or consensus before making its own comments on these matters.
“… It appears that there is a growing apathy in higher education when it comes to taking a stand. In South Africa, academic freedom is widely recognised, but there seems to be a lack of incentive to actively comment or make bold statements. It feels like our system does not inspire students and academics to contribute meaningfully to debates on important issues. I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.”
Dr Pandor (left) offered a multifaceted response. “I think it’s quite clear why South Africa’s government reacts differently to the Russia-Ukraine conflict compared to the issue of Palestine. Palestine represents a struggle against colonisation, occupation, and oppressive laws that echo our own apartheid experience. It’s rooted in a long-established relationship of solidarity between liberation movements and the Palestinian freedom struggle. This creates a very different context…
“In contrast, the Russia-Ukraine war is much more complex, but we have not been neutral. We’ve stated that we support a negotiated resolution because we believe this is a conflict that cannot be won by either side….”
However, on the issue of homophobic laws in Africa, Pandor advocated for a different approach, of leading by example. “Through promoting human rights in our own context, we can demonstrate that there are no threats in accommodating all communities,” she argued, pointing out that public statements could sometimes backfire, hardening opposition rather than advancing progressive policies. “This is a slow process, but we remain committed to it…” she said, summing up government’s stance on Africa’s homophobic policies and practices.
Universities as social agents
“Today, I’m calling on universities to be more active and visible in upholding the values they espouse. In South Africa, we often have the misconception that government should be the sole actor in addressing social issues. This is a very flawed idea. By placing all responsibility on government, we diminish the ability of other institutions and organisations to influence society… We need to recognise our own social agency and take responsibility for driving societal change. That is what I’m calling for.”
Leadership void in social justice response
Dr Ruby-Anne Levendal (right), Director: Transformation at Nelson Mandela University, commented on the decision of Universities South Africa (USAf) to not issue a statement on Israel-Palestine. “USAf, as an organisation, indicated, quite paradoxically, I think, that while they share a commitment to principles of justice and humanity, no collective statement could be issued due to a lack of consensus. This was the response of USAf’s leadership to a situation that is urgent and dire, yet our university chancellors were unable to come to a consensus.
“For me, this raises a critical question: Does this not also reflect the level of commitment from our public universities to provide purposeful, intentional initiatives and make meaningful contributions to social justice — not only within South Africa, but globally — especially considering the vital role international pressure played in our own history, with the apartheid regime?”
The absence of academic freedom is a threat to democracy
Pandor acknowledged this, noting that while some universities had been commendably vocal (and naming them in the process), “there’s also a culture of fear,” she said.
“Some private sector funders have withdrawn their support from universities, but we’ve said nothing, allowing these companies to get away with using their financial leverage to intimidate higher education. We should be highlighting the critical role higher education plays in society. As the scholar I quoted from Florida noted, the absence of academic freedom is a threat to democracy. If we allow these interventions to diminish academic freedom, the next target will likely be democratic practices themselves.”
Science detachment from political engagement

Professor Nomalanga Mkhize (above), Associate Professor of History & Political Science at Nelson Mandela University, lamented what she described as the “de-intellectualisation of science” – a tendency of natural scientists to distance themselves from political and social discourse.
“Of course, I’m not saying science should become overtly political, but I do believe that many of the “big” questions science should be asking are inherently social. Even the most abstract, blue-sky research ultimately touches on questions of human intellectual freedom.”
This, according to Mkhize, had led to a system where “the most brilliant minds are the least likely to ask pointed questions, driven by fear that it might hinder their careers”— another indication of a decline in academic freedom.
Pandor partially disagreed, asserting that South Africa has a healthy mix of “blue skies” and “utilitarian” research. She cited benefits that the nation were deriving today from the National Research Foundation – funded Centres of Excellence, that conduct infectious disease modeling research which “ultimately enabled us to identify the CoViD-19 Omicron variant….
“So, I’m not sure the issues stem from political causes, as you suggest. It may be that certain individuals have been affected in particular ways. However, I don’t believe this is due to fear. I think it’s more about a lack of intellectual appreciation for the humanities. We can’t all be experts in everything, so as academics, you can help make us all more intelligent and better appreciate the value of these fields.”
At this juncture, the former minister challenged Professor Sizwe Mabizela — a mathematician by discipline — to defend natural scientists against Mkhize’s observation. To that, Professor Mabizela (right), Vice-Chancellor and Principal of Rhodes University, who was moderating the discussions in that plenary session, responded that it may be an over-generalisation to suggest that some of these matters are widespread.
“Since you invited me to share my views, Dr. Pandor, I’ll be clear and unequivocal about my own position on certain contentious issues. For instance, I have a particular perspective on the conflict in Palestine, shaped by my experiences in Israel. These personal encounters are important in shaping one’s views, but I don’t think we can generalise that scientists, as a group, are timid when it comes to addressing political issues.”
The Rhodes VC then referred to the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) – a project that was incepted many years ago under Dr Pandor’s stewardship of the Ministry of Science and Technology, as another example where science has responded to socio-political challenges. “At a time when many might have thought it was far-fetched for this country to engage in such an ambitious endeavor, it was under your leadership that we pursued it. In fact, the technology that came out of that initiative proved incredibly useful during the pandemic.”
In defense of higher education leaders: a call for principles
Professor Thandwa Mthembu (left), Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the Durban University of Technology, submitted a nuanced argument in defense of his fellow vice-chancellors,highlighting the need for research-informed, principle-based positions when addressing geopolitical crises.
“For instance, it was the sixth government that led the charge in supporting Palestine in this country, but we’re not entirely sure what the current government’s position is. If our university were to blindly follow what the government says…wouldn’t that contradict the very essence of academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and integrity? Universities are not meant to simply follow government positions.
“We also understand the importance of having principles for taking positions, whether on global geopolitical matters, national issues, or even local ones.” With reference to the KwaZulu-Natal riots that claimed 350 lives in July 2021, Professor Mthembu admitted that his institution was notably quiet, adding: “We should treat violence in our local context with the same seriousness as violence occurring globally – which raises the question: what kind of principles do we have for addressing violence locally, nationally, or globally?”
While Pandor agreed that “compelling anyone to take up a position is wrong,” she reminded the audience of the benefit that the South African society reaped from international solidarity with the struggle against apartheid.
“You may choose to support Israel’s actions. As an academic with academic freedom, you have the right to hold that position. However, I suspect much of the world would be aghast and offended by such a stance. At least, I would hope they would be, because I would expect a higher standard when it comes to how we regard human rights and the oppression of others.”
As Pandor surmised that “we, the beneficiaries of international solidarity, cannot now sit on the edges,” she urged higher education institutions to engage with global human rights issues actively. “But I absolutely respect your right to be different and to hold a different position,” she added.
In addressing a “whataboutism” question posed by Professor Mabizela “as a deflection tactic” that some peers had used to “sidestep profound moral and human rights issues,” Dr Pandor argued that when someone says ‘what about another issue’, it suggests that the other offenses are more valid and deserve attention. “For example, we often hear, ‘what about Ukraine and Russia? What about Sudan?’ ”
She recommended establishing a comprehensive framework “from where we can address and combat all offenses collectively and protect humanity together. Whataboutism does not assist us in this effort; what we need is action and commitment.”
Mduduzi Mbiza is a writer contracted to Universities South Africa.