Academic freedom under threat after MP targets Rhodes professor for opinion piece

Academic freedom occupies a central place in the mission and purpose of universities. It accords members of the academic community the right to teach, study, conduct research, publish their findings, and participate in public debate without undue interference, censorship, intimidation or fear of institutional or political reprisal.

This freedom is exercised within a framework of rigorous scholarly standards, intellectual honesty and professional ethics. In this sense, academic freedom is inseparable from intellectual independence, scholarly integrity and broader democratic values that underpin an open and democratic society. Section 16(1)(d) of SA’s Constitution affirms that freedom of expression explicitly includes academic freedom.

In an opinion piece published in Daily Maverick on 5 March 2026, Professor Sioux McKenna, the Director of the Centre for Postgraduate Studies at Rhodes University, contributed to public debate on the issue of internationalisation within the public higher education sector. She argued that parliamentary suspicion and underlying Afrophobia were putting SA’s universities at risk, discouraging international academics and students. This threatened the country’s higher education goals, undermined diversity, and narrowed the intellectual horizons of future graduates, she said.

As a scholar and a citizen, she is fully entitled, indeed encouraged within a democratic society, to engage in public discourse on matters of societal and national importance. Such engagement forms an essential part of the role of universities and scholars in contributing evidence-based perspectives to public policy debates, and must be protected from intimidation or retaliation.

‘We will find something’

It is therefore deeply concerning that a member of Parliament has suggested that the exercise of this constitutional right could lead to Rhodes University being scrutinised. In his Newsroom Afrika TV interview on 7 March 2026, the member of Parliament states: “When you see people write about us, saying this and that, you know, they interest us. What is it that they don’t want us to go to? Already we have our eyes on Rhodes University because of this opinion piece by Prof McKenna. I can tell you, there, we will find something.”

Such statements are deeply troubling because they may be interpreted as implying institutional consequences for the expression of scholarly opinion. Any suggestion that a university might be targeted for scrutiny or investigation solely because one of its academics has exercised their right to freedom of expression constitutes a serious concern and a frontal attack on academic freedom. It risks creating a chilling effect on the academic community, discouraging scholars from participating in public discourse on matters of national importance.

It is profoundly concerning that the member of Parliament, apparently on the basis of his reading of the opinion piece alone, has concluded that they “will find something” at Rhodes University. One is left with an inescapable impression that the institution has already been prejudged, and that scrutiny may be pursued with the predetermined objective of “confirming” wrongdoing. This approach runs counter to the principles of fairness, due process and institutional respect that should guide the work of parliamentary oversight bodies.

It is both perplexing and somewhat curious that an opinion piece that purportedly responds to a “very wrong question” should nevertheless serve as a basis for scrutiny of the university.

Opinion pieces, by their very nature, represent the personal views of their authors, rather than any institutional stance of the university. To subject the institution to examination on the basis of such commentary risks conflating individual academic expression with official policy or practice.

Differing viewpoints both inevitable and desirable

Whether one agrees with the views expressed by Prof McKenna in her opinion piece or not is not the central issue. In a democratic society that values open inquiry and unfettered debate, differing viewpoints are both inevitable and desirable.

Individuals who disagree with the arguments advanced by Prof McKenna are fully entitled, and indeed encouraged, to engage critically with her ideas by presenting alternative perspectives, evidence and arguments in the same public forums. Constructive intellectual engagement of this nature is the very essence of scholarly discourse, and a hallmark of a vibrant and democratic culture.

What is of concern, however, is when disagreement with an argument shifts away from reasoned engagement with ideas, and instead takes the form of casting aspersions on the author and/or institution with which she is affiliated. Such responses do not contribute meaningfully to the substance of the debate. Rather, they risk undermining the principles of academic freedom and open dialogue that are protected under the Constitution.

The appropriate response

The appropriate response to ideas with which one disagrees is not intimidation or insinuation, but reasoned counter-argument. Universities and scholars must remain spaces where robust, sometimes uncomfortable, debates can take place without fear of personal or institutional reprisal or political persecution. It is through such principled engagement that knowledge advances and that democratic societies are strengthened.

Academic freedom is not merely an individual privilege; it is a public good that enables universities to fulfil their societal role of advancing knowledge, fostering critical inquiry, and contributing to democratic debate. Actions or statements that appear to target an institution because one of its scholars has expressed an opinion on a matter of public interest risk undermining this constitutional principle.

Safeguarding academic freedom is therefore essential not only for the integrity of universities, but for the strengthening of democratic governance and the continued flourishing of an open society and informed citizenry.

In sum, any threat to freedom of expression in general, and to academic freedom in particular, constitutes a threat to the very foundations of a democratic society and the integrity of institutions of higher learning. DM

Professor Sizwe Mabizela is Vice-Chancellor at Rhodes University. The views expressed in this article are solely my own and do not represent those of my employer or any organisation with which I am associated. These views are articulated in the exercise of my constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of expression and academic freedom. Neither my employer nor any organisation with which I am associated should be subjected to threats or reprisals on account of opinions that are entirely my own.