The new threats to freedom don’t come from government

December 4th, 2008

How rude can you be about your boss? In exchange for paying you a salary, can you employer expect you to give up your right to criticise them?

That’s the question being raised as the fight for freedom of expression moves from the lofty corridors of power to the places of everyday life, such as the factory floor and the academy.

It is becoming clear that some of the most immediate threats to the right to say what one thinks is coming from companies, institutions and – most worrying of all – universities, which one expects to be havens of free expression.

Two stories hit the media this week: the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research’s (CSIR) gagging of their own fellow, a respected academic named Anthony Turton, who was suspended after writing a paper drawing attention to the country’s deteriorating water situation and the possibility of this leading to conflict; and Llewellyn Kriel, an eTV staffer who slagged off his bosses for both their managerial and dressing styles.

The latter case is petty, and centres around a man who makes a habit of testing the tolerance of his employers. The CSIR case is of grave significance, because it goes to the space which academics and scientists have to send out important warning signals, no matter how uncomfortable they might be. In the wake of the electricity crisis earlier this year, one would think that a science establishment would welcome those who spark discussion about rising problems in such an important area, in the hope that this time we can head it off before it becomes a crisis. The CSIR have made complete fools of themselves in this case, and they will have to work hard to re-establish their intellectual reputation.

There have been high-profile cases of employees disciplined for expressing themselves. In the presidency (under Thabo Mbeki), Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva was fired for blowing the whistle on alleged sexual harassment. At the SABC, the case of John Perlman, disciplined for bringing the SABC into disrepute because he confirmed the notorious “blacklist” on air, drew national attention. The health department has had more than its fair share of dismissing staff who took issue with policy and practice.

But the Freedom of Expression Institute has been documenting a spate of lower-profile cases for some time which points to a pattern. Many of these are at universities where academics are being systematically pursued for, among other things, criticising the institutions or its leaders, notably at the universities of KwaZulu-Natal and Fort Hare. “Turton is the latest academic to fall victim to the growing trend of internal censorship in our academic institutions,” the FXI’s Jane Duncan says. Turton’s case is of special significance because he was attacked for the content of his work, not for criticising the institution, as is most often the case. But, Duncan says, “it vindicates recent arguments that the greatest threats to academic free speech lie within academic institutions.”

That is a most disturbing thought.

There is also a spate of ordinary workers in nondescript companies being called to order for speaking out critically. Duncan writes of “the rise of workplace censorship” where “a growing number of employers are using apartheid-style tactics to silence their employee’s critical voice in a bid to protect their public reputation”.

Alongside Turton, remember Vusi Sebeko. He was a Royal Ascot Superspar worker who criticised his company’s labour practices in a leftwing journal. He was dismissed, but this was overturned in the CCMA with a landmark judgement for workers’ freedom of expression rights. “Historically,” Commissioner Soewyba (checked) Flowers said in her ruling, “this country’s democracy was born, among others, such as our schools, in the workplace. It was the workers who fought discrimination, authoritarianism and oppression … Why now would the freedom of expression in the workplace be denied after democracy may have been obtained?”

Almost every organisation has a clause in its rules and employment agreements to the effect that employees should not bring the organisation into disrepute. Companies naturally want their employees to be loyal and to protect their brand identities. Institutions are often worried about their funding, whether it comes from the state or the private sector. But can they do this by silencing criticism? What are the limits of the right of an employee to speak out against company practices? Under our new constitution, those limits must be wider than they were under apartheid, but it is clear that there are many institutions which have not taken this on board.

*This column first appeared in Business Day, November 2008

Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism, Print, TV