​​​​In celebration of Freedom Day later this week, the Stellenbosch University Transformation Office recently hosted a panel discussion on “Freedom of Expression in South Africa" at the Stellenbosch University Museum, with Professor Pierre de Vos, the Claude Leon Foundation Chair in Constitutional Governance at the University of Cape Town, and Associate Professor Nuraan Davids from Stellenbosch University's Faculty of Education along with two student leaders, Carli van Wyk and Fanele Ndebele. 

Freedom of expression is enshrined in the South African Constitution and is a topic of great interest in the public domain. Just think of the South African Human Rights Commission's recent findings linked to utterances by the Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema and the Steve Hofmeyr controversy in relation to the Afrikaans is Groot festival and the Ghoema Music Awards. Within academia, the right to freedom of expression is not only a matter of interest but is held sacred, with academic freedom considered one of the cornerstones of the academic project. Recent debates within universities have, however, complicated this 'freedom'. At Stellenbosch University, for example, there was the decision of Israeli academics to withdraw from the Recognition, Reparation and Reconciliation conference hosted last year after an outcry about their participation; there was also the condemnation of the participation of David Bullard at a student event. These examples raise questions about the role and responsibility that universities have in relation to freedom of expression and, specifically, academic freedom. Should universities take ethical and moral stands, or is this a suppression of intellectual autonomy? Are there limits to the right to freedom of expression in a constitutional democracy, and if so, how do academic institutions navigate these?

As guest, Professor Pierre de Vos opened the debate with a cliché that one often hears when freedom of expression is discussed: “I might not agree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it." Not so, argued De Vos in his rebuttal, questioning whether the ordinary person at a university such as Maties would, for example, die for the right of a paedophilia defender to speak at a graduation ceremony. Next to speak was Associate Professor Nuraan Davids who argued that the door should not be closed on dissenting or dangerous voices as those voices needed to be engaged and challenged; otherwise, they would just be left alone. Davids brought up the example of students who had put up Nazi posters on the Stellenbosch University campus in the not-so-distant past. Why did they do it? Did they learn anything from what happened, or were they just at the receiving end of condemnation? 

What does one do, however, if someone says dangerous and hateful things just for the sake of it, using freedom of expression only as a fig leaf? De Vos believes that the assumption that everyone wants to be intellectually engaged is false – when people say hateful things in an echo chamber of likeminded individuals, do they really want to be challenged? For example, what if someone is queerphobic or racist and just wants to say racist or queerphobic things? Does this person deserve to be engaged? Should it fall on black or queer individuals to educate and inform such individuals? No, self-preservation is paramount, argued LLB student Fanele Ndebele, explaining that you should not put your own mental health at risk to engage in such instances. An audience member put up his hand and said that when he was at school, blackface was considered simply 'dressing up' but upon growing older and coming to university, he realised the implications of this act and what it meant. This, according to Ndebele, is key: that one educates oneself and that one seeks to learn. During her response, Student Representative Council President Carli van Wyk brought the topic back to her daily experience as a Student Representative Council leader at an institution of higher learning in South Africa. She believes that universities should be platforms for different voices but wonders when universities should step in and when should they remain quiet, ultimately acknowledging this space as a grey area. According to Van Wyk, whichever action a university ultimately takes in situations where freedom of expression is up for debate, it must contribute to creating a better and just society, as per the spirit of the Constitution.

For those who missed the event, there is a montage of the introductions by each of the panellists as well as a photo album of the event on the Stellenbosch University Transformation Office's Facebook page, of which the handle is @sutransform. ​