On June 13, you carried reports on pages 1 and 4 and a centre-page article by Lebogang Hoveka about the appointment of Dr Max Price as UCT vice-chancellor in 2007.
Hoveka says we met in 2007 and I wore “a ruby pink lambswool jersey with a matching shirt”. Sadly, I have never owned either a jersey or a shirt of the kind he describes. His memory must be playing tricks with him. It is true that I was “unshaven”, as he says. That is because I have a beard and have not shaved for the past 30 years.
More seriously, I agree with much of what Hoveka says about the nature of white power and how it is often exercised. However, he is factually wrong about the appointment of Price. I know that because I was the chairperson of the selection committee.
For example: It is not true that there was originally a shortlist of three candidates which excluded professors Cheryl de la Rey and Martin Hall. There was never such a shortlist.
It is not true that the selection process was rigged. There was a highly representative selection committee which met frequently, studied documents produced by the candidates, interviewed the candidates (some of them three times), vigorously debated their merits, and ultimately voted overwhelmingly in favour of Price.
It would not be fair to other candidates for me to say why Price was selected in preference to them. What I can say is that in the early stages of the process, Price did not have majority support. The members of the selection committee were persuaded by what they saw and heard, and voted accordingly. I, myself, changed my view as to who was the best candidate, as a result of what we learned in an intensive and extensive process.
It is not true that there were secret reports about the candidates which were not made available to the whole of the selection committee. Any adverse report about a candidate was disclosed to the whole selection committee. It was raised with the candidate in front of the selection committee, and put to him or her for a response, but without disclosing the source.
The selection committee raised with Price the fact that he did not have a PhD.
He explained that after he had completed his medical degree, he had studied at Oxford. He said he had considered studying for a PhD in the medical field, but had wanted to broaden his learning and not enter into a narrow specialisation. He therefore took a degree in politics, philosophy and economics.
Price’s experience included heading a highly respected research and policy centre at Wits University and serving very successfully as Dean of the Wits Medical Faculty.
The selection committee recognised that appointing a vice-chancellor without a PhD would be unusual. However, far from concluding that he was unqualified, it concluded that he was well qualified for the position of vice-chancellor. Qualifications do not exist only on paper.
Price’s lack of a PhD was also raised at the special meeting of the University Senate at which his candidacy was discussed. The senate consists mainly of the professors - for the most part, the best-qualified academics.
They debated the issue and then voted very strongly in favour of his appointment. They would not have done so if they had not thought he was well qualified for the job.
It is not true that Hall or De la Rey was put on the shortlist because of a threat of legal action by Hoveka or anyone else. The selection committee debated the candidates and voted for the three whom they considered the best.
Of course, there were some bruised feelings on the part of
some of those who were not appointed. And certainly, anyone is entitled to contend that the selection committee, the senate and the council made the wrong choice. I was convinced that we had made the right choice.
The experience of the past 10 years has confirmed that view. In my opinion, Price has led the university with great skill, intelligence, courage and integrity through very difficult times.
Budlender is Senior Counsel