We are responding to an article in the Mail & Guardian by Edwin Naidu (21 October 2022), suggesting that there was something untoward about how Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC) Lis Lange was appointed in 2017, and making defamatory statements about us – more specifically, that as Vice-Chancellor (Price) and Chair of Council (Pityana), we manipulated the appointment process to secure her appointment.
We point out that the journalist, Edwin Naidu, failed to contact either of us before the article was published. He clearly should have done so, both to check the accuracy of the information that had been provided to him and to solicit our response to the criticisms levelled at us by his other source or sources. It is extremely disappointing to see the Mail & Guardian publish material of this kind, prepared without compliance with even the most rudimentary standards of ethical and competent journalism.
[related_posts_sc article_id=”530075″]
We need to say clearly that we have no involvement in, nor do we comment on the current controversies surrounding Vice-Chancellor Mamokgethi Phakeng or the chair of Council, Ms Babalwa Ngonyama. We also have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the departure of DVC Lis Lange earlier this year. Our concern is solely with the allegations regarding the appointment of DVC Lange in 2017.
There are six allegations that concern us (among many other tendentious and plainly false statements which we shall leave to others to address since they do not relate to us directly.)
First, it is alleged that the professorial status of Lange was relevant to her eligibility for the position, and moreover that she misrepresented her professorial status in order to deceive the Committee into thinking she was eligible. Fact: the advert and job description say nothing about candidates’ needing to be full professors or associate professors in order to apply. Fact: Lange had been promoted in a peer review process to the rank of Adjunct Professor at the University of the Free State. Naidu’s assertion that “this is not an academic title but an administrative one given to individuals with technical skills” is simply wrong. Adjunct professors are academics, part of the professoriate, at the same level as Associate Professors. Space does not permit a detailed explanation of how the balance of criteria differ between the two tracks. Fact: Price asked Lange in the interview about her academic credentials and she made it clear that she was an Adjunct Professor not a full professor so the selection committee was fully aware of this. Lange therefore did not misrepresent her professorial status. But either way, this is irrelevant since professorial rank was not a requirement.
Second, it is implied that professorial status should be relevant to such an appointment and that “former Vice-Chancellor Max Price and the university council had ensured that the requirements for the role were “made to fit” for Lange; rendering the process flawed because they had a candidate in mind.” Later in the article, Naidu says “She [Lange] was Price’s chosen nominee for the role.”
We deny that the requirements of the job were modified so that Lange would be eligible – allegations we regard as defamatory. Fact: We can produce the advert for the same position (DVC Teaching and Learning) when it was previously advertised in 2011, which similarly has no requirement relating to professorial rank.
[related_posts_sc article_id=”529342″]
We also deny that either of us had a chosen nominee. Fact: It is common practice for a search committee for a senior post to identify potential candidates at other institutions in the country, and by convention at UCT, the search committee asks the VC to approach those candidates usually by phone, to draw the advert to their attention and invite them to apply. Price did this with Lange as well as with four other candidates that the search committee identified. (Neither of us was part of the search committee.)
Once candidates submit their applications, eligibility is determined by a grading subcommittee of the selection committee – and applicants who do not have the required qualifications and experience are not shortlisted for interview. The grading committee was chaired by Prof Phakeng who was at that time a DVC. Neither of us was on the grading committee. The grading committee decided that Lis Lange and four others met the eligibility criteria and recommended to the selection committee that they should be interviewed.
Third, Naidu implies that Pityana and Price unduly influenced the selection committee in favour of Lange. The selection committee comprised some 21 people from all parts of the university including the SRC and unions. It was chaired by Pityana. It is an insult to all the members of the selection committee to suggest that they could be dictated to by one or two individuals against their better judgement – whether on eligibility criteria or on who was the best candidate. 85% supported offering the position to Lange. We therefore reject the suggestions that we did or could have manipulated the outcome.
Fourth, Naidu states, correctly, that when the recommendation to appoint Lange was put to Senate it did not reach the threshold of a 2/3 majority and concludes that “the Council appointed her regardless … .” But he fails to report the fact that Lange’s nomination did get the support of over 50%, and that this is catered for in the procedures which require the selection committee to reconvene to consider the diverse views in Senate and decide whether to proceed or to start a new selection process. This was done and the Selection Committee confirmed Lange’s recommendation to Council. There is nothing untoward about this.
Fifth, Naidu states that “it has emerged that Lange was made associate professor after her appointment as DVC … [by] a small team of academics” as if this was an unusual, secretive and underhand procedure. (Our emphasis) Fact: This is the norm for people who are appointed from outside the university since they do not already hold a UCT academic rank and the criteria for each rank (adjunct, associate or full professor) are different at different universities. The current Vice-Chancellor, for example, when she was appointed as DVC Research, coming from UNISA was also considered by a special promotions committee after the decision to appoint her, to determine her academic rank and was awarded the rank of full professor.
Sixth, Naidu says “The university council under chairperson Sipho Pityana possibly also breached governance procedures during [Lange’s] appointment.” Possibly? This is vexatious. Why are these issues relating to the appointment of former DVC Lis Lange in 2017 being dredged up now? Fact: These allegations were fully tested in the Western Cape High Court in a case brought by one of the unsuccessful candidates. The court found that the university had considered all the issues and that the process and the appointment of Lis Lange, tested objectively, was rational and reasonable. An application to the High Court for leave to appeal was refused with costs, and following a further application, the Supreme Court of Appeal found no reason to reconsider that decision and also dismissed the application with costs. The fact that the complainants applied further for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court and then withdrew that application does not change the findings of the other courts.
Moreover, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the informal contact Price has had with deans and senior academics over the last few years, and the formal performance assessments of Lange that Pityana reviewed as Chair of Council for the first 3 years of Lange’s term, there was widespread agreement that Lange was an outstanding appointment.