Mark Oppenheimer, a lawyer in South Africa whom readers may know as the co-host of the popular Brain in a Vat philosophy podcast, is facing removal from his position as a member of the Council (the governing body) of the University of Cape Town (UCT) because of remarks he made while being interviewed on someone else’s podcast. An open letter defending Oppenheimer’s right to free speech is currently accepting signatures.

On the UCT Council website, it’s noted that Oppenheimer “has appeared in the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court in a series of cases that seek to determine the boundary between freedom of expression and genuine hate speech.” His role was as a lawyer in those cases, but perhaps the current situation will end up with him in the role of plaintiff.

While being interviewed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on her podcast in March 2025, Oppenheimer made some remarks about the UCT, criticizing its boycott of Israeli academics [it is apparently a boycott of academics associated with the Israeli Defense Force], referring to “Islamist elements” that have “take[n] control” of the university, and describing some violent episodes of anti-Semitic behavior. See around the 32 minute mark of this video.

Now, says the Mail & Guardian, “The University of Cape Town is considering sanctions against two council members [Oppenheimer and David Ansara, who reposted on social media another person’s praise of Oppenheimer’s interview] after retired judge Mahomed Navsa found that claims of Islamist control at the institution, and their endorsement, breached its governing body’s code of conduct.”

Oppenheimer faces removal from the Council, and Ansara faces a six-month suspension.

The Mail & Guardian reports:

Council adopted the investigation reports [of Oppenheimer and Ansara] at a special meeting on 18 October and appointed a five-member subcommittee to hear representations before deciding on sanctions, if any…

Navsa’s report [excerpts here] places the complaints within an increasingly bitter struggle over UCT’s Gaza resolutions, describing efforts to reverse them, challenges to individual council members and retaliatory complaints that consumed university resources. The findings against Oppenheimer arose from his March 2025 interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. He identified himself as a council member and alleged that Islamist elements had taken control of UCT, terrorised those seeking a reasonable position and trampled on academic freedom. Navsa found no evidence that council members were Islamists or were being influenced by Islamists. Although Oppenheimer had not named individuals, the judge concluded that his statements implicated council and senate members who supported the Gaza resolutions...

Oppenheimer rejected the proposed removal in a statement published by the Daily Friend [here] on 18 October, calling it “an egregious attack on freedom of expression”. He maintained that his interview raised legitimate concerns about antisemitic intimidation and UCT’s protection of Jewish students. In submissions to the inquiry, he denied describing every supporter of the Gaza resolutions as an Islamist or identifying council or senate members as terrorists. He argued that criticism of Islamism as a political ideology did not amount to an attack on Muslims and that his reference to people being terrorised concerned intimidation on campus.

It’s worth noting that South African Constitution does protect Freedom of Expression, stating:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ­
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to ­
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

I listened to the podcast and it does not appear that Oppenheimer engaged in propaganda for war, incitement to imminent violence, or advocacy of harm-inciting hatred. In other words, his speech is protected speech.

Further, UCT is a public university and is bound to respect the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Additionally, the Code of Conduct for UCT Council Members states, among other things, that “Council members should be respectful of every individual’s right to express their opinions, whether those opinions are complimentary or critical of Council and UCT.”

An “open letter in defence of free expression at the University of Cape Town,” in support of Oppenheimer, is now circulating. Some excerpts:

Our support for Oppenheimer’s freedom of expression does not require agreement with his political views, his assessment of events at UCT, or his choice of words. These matters are open to vigorous disagreement. The principle we defend is that members of a university community must be free to question institutional policies and prevailing orthodoxies, including on subjects that provoke deep political and religious disagreement.

Criticism of political movements, religious ideas, or university decisions falls within the scope of free inquiry. Claims made in such criticism should be examined through evidence and reasoned argument. The fact that an argument causes offence, attracts accusations of prejudice, or damages an institution’s preferred public image cannot, by itself, justify punishment…

Judge Navsa writes that this case concerns good faith and respect for Council, not free speech. We disagree. The report finds against Oppenheimer because it judges his claims false and insulting: that UCT’s resolution amounts to a boycott of Israeli academics, and that Islamist elements have gained influence at the university. These are contested claims about a live public dispute. UCT received legal advice in 2019 that an academic boycott of Israel would breach the constitutional right to academic freedom, and the resolution has been challenged in court. When a governing body removes a member because it finds his public account of such a dispute untrue, it punishes speech, whatever it calls the offence. The case against Ansara is weaker still: he faces suspension for sharing another person’s praise of the interview.

Some of Oppenheimer’s claims in the interview may be overstated, and some may be wrong. Colleagues who felt maligned had every right to answer him, in public and at length. That is how a university should settle such disputes. It is no reason to remove an elected member from the body that oversees the university.

The full letter is here.