Today Prof Mendelsohn’s legal Council Advocate Fagan will be responding to the oral arguments which were made on behalf of UCT last week in the Cape High Court.

Today Prof Mendelsohn’s legal Council Advocate Fagan will be responding to the oral arguments which were made on behalf of UCT last week in the Cape High Court.

A brief summary of this case and why it is important for SA Jewry is below:

UCT’s Head of the Kaplan Centre is taking UCT to court challenging the Council’s process, lack of consultation and the impact of these resolutions.

In June 2024, UCT’s Council passed 2 resolutions

1.⁠ ⁠To Boycott Israel

2.⁠ ⁠To reject the IHRA definition

According to Mendelsohn, UCT adopted these resolutions without following proper procedures:

- They were not transparent about the financial loss UCT would face as a result of the adoption of these resolutions (R200 million, 288 students funding and the donation of an academic hospital)

- The UCT Executive knew that passing the resolutions could breach agreements with donors — but withheld this from Council members before they voted.

- UCT never consulted Jewish academics, Jewish students, or community bodies before acting on an issue directly affecting them

The SAJBD applied as amicus curiae(a friend of the court)

- The SAJBD is the democratically elected national body which represents the South African Jewish Community (50 000)

- Our mandate is to protect civil rights and combat antisemitism

- We ensure that all South African Jews are able to participate and belong to public institutions in South Africa free of discrimination or prejudice.

SAJBD got involved in the case because

- The resolutions and UCT decision-making affect Jewish students, Jewish academics and the Jewish community at UCT.

-The rejection of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, in favour of a definition that excuses the parameters of anti-Zionism from being Antisemitism

- The boycott policy, creates a problematic campus climate for Jews.

- ⁠The court must be made aware of how UCT’s process harms Jewish rights and academic integrity.

To present to the court what antisemitism is from the perspective of those who it affects and the connection between Judaism and Zionism.

What it means for us:

•⁠ ⁠SAJBD will gave the court expert input on antisemitism and Jewish rights.

•⁠ ⁠The court heard how UCT’s decisions affect real people - not just policies.

•⁠ ⁠This case could set a national and international precedent for how universities must consult, include, and protect minority groups when making political decisions.