/ 3 December 2008

Outspoken UKZN professor quits

Top UKZN physicist Professor Nithaya Chetty, facing a disciplinary tribunal for criticising vice-chancellor Malegapuru Makgoba in the media, has quit.

Top University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) physicist Professor Nithaya Chetty, facing a disciplinary tribunal for criticising vice-chancellor Malegapuru Makgoba in the media, has quit.

His fellow-accused, mathematics Professor John van den Berg, signed a settlement agreement last week allowing him to keep his job and terminating disciplinary proceedings. Chetty refused to sign the settlement, which involved an apology and partial admission of guilt.

The academics have been embattled since March over a submission by the science and agriculture faculty criticising the university’s academic freedom record.

Makgoba allegedly wanted the document referred to a senate sub-committee rather than directly to senate. On the university’s online discussion forum and in the media, the academics suggested he wanted to suppress the document.

In September they were charged with “failing to take due care in communicating with the media breaching confidentiality and dishonest and/or gross negligence”. A disciplinary tribunal was set for December 8.

Chetty, who declined to speak to the Mail & Guardian, said on the university’s intranet last week: “I have taken the advice of my attorney Dunstan Farrell and my union representative … Alan Rycroft very seriously when they advised me to submit my letter of resignation from the UKZN today [last Wednesday], which I have just done.”

He said the issue had taken a toll on his family. He would be taking an academic job at another university.

Farrell told the M&G that “in terms of Chetty’s and Van den Berg’s long-term careers and personal circumstances it would not have been wise to proceed with the disciplinary tribunal”.

But the M&G understands that the university’s use of a heavyweight external prosecuting team was a factor in Chetty’s decision.

Chetty, president of the South African Institute of Physics, remarked on “the outpouring of public support” for him, adding that “the open dissenting space that emerged because of our case should continue to be nurtured through discourse on the roles and responsibilities of academics in a free and democratic society”.

Meanwhile, 35 academics from Oxford, Cambridge, Berkeley and Stanford universities have submitted a document to the university council chairperson, Mac Mia, expressing deep concern that the disciplinary process flew in the face of “globally recognised standards regarding the rights of academic staff to speak and act on policies of their institutions”.

The National Tertiary Education Staff Union is circulating a petition calling on the university to remove outside legal representatives from disciplinary inquiries and allow academics and students to meet freely and voice concerns about academic ­freedom.

Comparing the disciplinary process to “killing a fly with a hammer”, head of the Freedom of Expression Institute Jane Duncan said academics should set up a self-­regulatory structure similar to the press ombudsman to hear cases of violation of academic freedom.

Mia said of the resignation: “It’s Chetty’s call. There are governance procedures and rules of the university. We have to make sure things are carried out in the correct fashion. This case relates to more than freedom of expression.”