On the evening of 4 December 2025, I logged into the University of Cape Town Convocation annual general meeting from my desk, a very long way from its campus in Rondebosch. It was my first attendance, and I was there only because an enthusiastic friend had asked me to join.

It was not glamorous. There was a personal login email to dig out, an unfamiliar electronic platform to wrestle with and hours of procedure. Even the voting was tricky: voting windows were too short and had to be reopened. But I was there to cast my vote.

I also watched a motion affirming academic freedom, drawing on South Africa’s Bill of Rights, fail by 485 votes to 356. Motions that, in my view, had almost nothing to do with improving the lives of students or academics passed.

The new President of Convocation was elected with 428 votes. Candidates for executive and council positions received between 330 and 393 votes each.

Read those numbers again. UCT has 193,636 alumni. The academic freedom motion was defeated by 129 votes. Fewer than 1,000 participants helped determine who would represent a worldwide community through Convocation.

For graduates elsewhere, those numbers should sound familiar. A university’s representative bodies do not require mass participation to make decisions. When most people disengage, the people who remain acquire influence far beyond their numbers.

Walking Away Has a Cost

I understand the reluctance to participate. When I asked fellow alumni whether they would register this year, the replies were blunt.

“I am not interested,” one told me. “I broke contact with them and told them not to send me any stuff, because I was very disappointed with my old alma mater about their open antisemitic and anti-Zionist policies.”

Another was just as direct:

“No, and I’m not going to register after the total waste of time and effort last year.”

These are their assessments, but the alienation behind them is real. Many Jewish graduates feel that the institution that shaped them has turned its back on them. Others sat through last year’s long meeting and came away disillusioned.

Walking away is understandable. It also has consequences. Convocation does not fall silent when we leave. It just hears fewer of us. Decisions at its meetings are made by those who turn up, not by those who once cared deeply but have stopped opening its emails.

That is the uncomfortable choice facing disaffected alumni: withdraw from an institution that has disappointed you, or remain involved precisely because you disagree with its direction.

Change the Rules, Widen Participation

Here is what may surprise the sceptics. The motions I am asking alumni to support this year say nothing about Israel, Gaza or boycotts. They concern how Convocation runs itself.

The first asks the Convocation Executive Committee to adopt a conflict-of-interest policy. Members would declare their interests and step back from decisions in which those interests are at stake. This is basic governance, not an ideological demand.

The concern is practical. At the special general meeting in August, a fellow alumna submitted a written conflict-of-interest concern to the President of Convocation and the secretariat. The matter concerned the president’s own conduct. Rather than recusing herself from considering it, she dismissed the point on the procedural ground that it was not on the agenda.

A clear policy would give everyone a standard to follow. It would protect the integrity of decisions and the confidence of members, regardless of who holds office.

The second and third motions seek a process for electronic voting that remains open over several days. This would begin with votes on AGM motions and, in time, extend to elections for the president and executive.

There are precedents. Wits University provides for electronic or postal ballots in its Convocation elections. The University of Johannesburg’s 2025 Convocation elections used a secure online platform with voting open for ten days.

At UCT, participants must register by a fixed deadline and then be present on the night, either in person or online, to vote. These motions aim to make participation less dependent on the ability to attend one lengthy meeting.

The problem has been raised before. At the 2024 AGM, a resolution passed by 86 votes to 28. One alumna warned that around 100 voting members could not speak for tens of thousands. In August this year, the special general meeting reached its quorum with just 151 people present.

These meetings may satisfy their procedural requirements. The question is whether the arrangements encourage meaningful participation from the community they represent.

A Worldwide Community, a Single Voting Window

UCT’s 2026 Alumni News Magazine counts 193,636 alumni worldwide. Of these, 39,846 are listed as living outside South Africa: about one in five. Another 10,517 have not declared a location.

An 18:00 meeting in Cape Town suits Cape Town. A graduate in Sydney must participate at three in the morning. Someone in Toronto must step away from work in the middle of the day.

A vote open for several days would change that. Alumni could participate between hospital shifts, after the children are in bed or whenever their working lives allow. Geography would become less of a barrier to having a voice.

This matters beyond one university. Institutions often describe themselves as global communities while organising participation around the convenience of those closest to them. Members abroad may remain welcome as donors, supporters and ambassadors. They should also have a realistic opportunity to vote.

Disagreement Is a Reason to Participate

This year’s UCT Convocation AGM takes place on Thursday 3 December 2026 at 18:00 South African time. Alumni wishing to participate must register by Friday 13 November, whether attending online or in person.

The practical deadline is local. The principle is much wider. Academic freedom and fair governance need people willing to defend them through the unglamorous work of reading agendas, questioning procedures and casting votes. Disagreement with an institution’s leadership is a reason to do that work.

You do not have to forgive your university to participate. You do not have to endorse its policies or donate a cent. You can remain involved because you believe it should do better.

Last year, I was there, and we were outvoted by people who organised, registered and turned up. This year, I would like some company.