Brenda Gourley
RIGHT to REPLY
Last week the Mail & Guardian carried another article covering the case of Caroline White, a former professor at the University of Natal (“Am I actually emigrating?”). I can no longer remain silent while inaccurate and untrue statements are made and the University of Natal is brought into disrepute. I am also no longer required to remain silent by virtue of the matter being sub judice.
For months the University of Natal (and many of its staff) has had to endure a stream of insults from Professor White, insults given much prominence in the media and elsewhere.
Far from reflecting the actual facts of the case, the burden of these has been to portray the university as an institution that has no respect for the principles of academic freedom, freedom of speech, honest criticism and the like.
The origins of Professor White’s dispute with the university were, in fact, nothing to do with such lofty ideals. They were rooted in two sources of complaints. One came from students, the other from staff.
These complaints resulted eventually in the university setting up a committee of enquiry. This committee was chaired by an outsider, advocate Gardner van Niekerk, SC, and two senior members of the university senate.
For Professor White to claim that “none of the charges were [sic] upheld” is simply not true as even a cursory examination of the committee’s report would show. Indeed, the committee recommended her dismissal.
With respect to the students’ complaints about her teaching and marking, Professor White took issue with how these complaints had been handled by the dean. She maintained that the students should not have approached the dean at all.
After taking all the evidence and testimony into account, the committee ruled that her position was “indefensible” and that “there is no doubt” that the dean was justified in accepting the letter of complaint from the students’ representative.
Indeed I would argue that the dean would have been failing in his duty had he done anything else. This is hardly an issue of academic freedom.
With respect to the staff complaints, again the matters were hardly to do with academic freedom. Essentially, staff members complained that they found Professor White extremely difficult, if not impossible, to work with. These were not staff in “vertical” relationships but rather “horizontal” ones.
If persons in positions of responsibility had failed to respond to staff literally pleading that the matters they raised be dealt with, they would have been failing in the discharge of their duties.
The duty to maintain employment relationships is a duty in law and rested as much with Professor White as with other members of staff. The committee found she had failed in this respect. Not only had she failed but the committee ruled that her behaviour constituted “misconduct”.
The committee also ruled on White’s “publishing and disseminating misleading information to third parties so as to bring the university into disrepute”. Professor White in her article last week seems to suggest that this is somehow ludicrous. The committee, after considering the evidence and hearing testimony, thought otherwise. Its report reads as follows: “In view of the extensive publicity and the extent of the misrepresentation, we are satisfied that not only is this a valid complaint, but that it also constitutes misconduct.”
The report goes on explicitly to make the point that “Professor White’s efforts to keep people informed led to the perception that her case involved a threat to academic freedom. We do not consider that this case involved such a threat.”
The committee’s report is in the public domain and it is time that those who wish to pass opinions on the matter actually take the time to read the conclusions of those who have heard the evidence.
The University of Natal has nothing to hide. It certainly has made no assaults at all on academic freedom.
Brenda Gourley is vice-chancellor and principal of the University of Natal