Letter to the UCT vice-chancellor

Dear Dr Price,

As a UCT alumni, it has come as an utter shock to learn that a UCT SRC vice-president was suspended from her position on the basis of her Facebook post, “We are institutionalising and normalizing sin. May God have mercy on us...”. This is without mentioning the alleged drive to have her expelled from the university.

Her Facebook post is understood to be associated with the US Supreme Court's ruling, which redefined the meaning of marriage across all of its states.

The presumption is that the forced resignation is on the basis of a construal of her statement as constituting “hate speech”.

I want to state this categorically, I see absolutely no basis for these actions by the university. If anything they are a clear violation of at least two of Ms Pae’s constitutional rights. 

1) The freedom to receive or impart information or ideas (section 16 (1) (b))

2) The right to freedom of conscience, religion thought, belief and opinion. (section 15 (1))

According to the same freedom of expression clause in the South African constitution, it is well understood that freedom of expression precludes (section 16):

i) Incitement of imminent violence

ii) Advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. 

It seems utterly preposterous to imply that the post constitutes anything vaguely resembling the “incitement of imminent violence” or “advocacy of hate”. 

It simply expresses an opinion on a court ruling made in the United States, based on her religious beliefs. The post makes absolutely no reference to any groups or individuals, it is a harmless contribution to an ongoing debate.

Furthermore, the court ruling in question was narrowly passed after much contestation. One wonders how the student's own opinion on a matter that continues to be a subject of vigorous debate across the world, could be seen by the University to be so offensive as to warrant suspension from her position on the UCT SRC, let alone expulsion.

Has the university come to see its role as the arbiter of personal opinions and religious beliefs? It would be a tragic day indeed if this has come to be the case.

It is therefore difficult to see these actions as representing anything but intimidation and the abuse of the power conferred to the university, over a defenceless student, of limited financial means.

It is also difficult not to connect these actions with the role that the UCT SRC played vis a vis the recent “Rhodes must fall” campaign.

In the interest of the constitution as well as the University’s own reputation as the unbiased defender of all human rights, I request the immediate reinstatement of Ms Pae to her elected position as the Vice-president of the UCT Student’s representative committee.