On 14 May, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee of UP (PSC-UP) staged a peaceful demonstration to protest against US Ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III’s visit to the University of Pretoria. The purpose of his visit was to engage with the university’s African Centre for the Study of the United States (ACSUS-UP) and Arizona State University. The protest, held in the form of a sit-in, took place around the Humanities Building – the primary location of the ambassador’s visit. Students congregated near the building’s main entrance, with many being strategically placed at various other access points. Ultimately, the sit-in was attended by over 100 people, including PSC-UP members, unaffiliated detractors, and university lecturers.
In an open letter that was sent to the Dean and Executive of the university prior to the protest, the PSC-UP detailed the problematic nature of hosting the ambassador in his then upcoming visit. The letter states that since taking office, Bozell has presented ideals that are antithetical to South African interests, ultimately aiming to undermine the country’s national sovereignty. This is evident in his demands calling for the South African government to adjust its expropriation and Black Economic Empowerment policies to suit US interests, refusing to denounce US President Donald Trump’s claims of a white genocide, his disregard for the Constitutional Court’s “Kill the Boer” ruling, and his desire to have the South African government drop its International Court of Justice case against Israel. The memorandum further details Bozell’s tumultuous history with democracy within South Africa, placing a spotlight on his role as the president of the National Conservative Political Action Committee back in 1987, in which he said that his organisation was “proud to become a member of the Coalition Against ANC Terrorism”. The letter concludes with a call to the Dean, Vice-Chancellor, and Executive to refuse a meeting with the ambassador.
In a subsequent Instagram post, the PSC-UP reiterated Bozell’s undesirable propositions for South African national policy and his questionable political past, while adding that during his tenure as president of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, Bozell rallied against the US Government meeting with anti-apartheid activists. The post also provides that Bozell has deemed persuading the South African government to drop its genocide case against Israel a “top priority”, and resolutely calls on students to refuse any photos with the ambassador during his visit in order to curb his attempts to cleanse his public image with positive publicity. The university, in its response to the open letter, justified hosting the ambassador as an expression of academic freedom.
During the protest, PDBY spoke to PSC-UP Chairperson Ayesha Essop who emphasised the peaceful nature of the demonstration, explaining that the sit-in was meant to act as a “walk of shame” for the ambassador as opposed to barring him from entering the building. Essop further highlighted how Bozell’s views starkly contrast the university’s position as a space for robust debate, academic freedom, and controversial conversations as discussions brought forward by the ambassador ultimately disrespect South Africa’s sovereignty. Essop provided that although topics such as national economic policy should be discussed freely, foreign powers should not be the ones to decide how said issues are handled. She concluded by saying that with regard to university decision making, she is aware that there are considerations that, as a student, she is not privy to. However, she ultimately feels that certain student concerns have not been adequately addressed, such as the open letter regarding Palestine sent out in October 2025. Despite garnering support from over ten student structures, it saw no response from the university. This mirrors the university’s alleged disregard for issues such as student hunger, financial exclusion, and the institution’s failure to directly address the concerns surrounding Bozell’s visit. Finally, Essop spoke out against the distortion of academic freedom, explaining that the concept cannot be compromised by someone who has clearly expressed such violent views.
In addition to the students in attendance, the demonstration saw the presence of History lecturer Prof. Nisa Paleker. She highlighted the importance of students criticising the ambassador’s visit, especially in light of the university’s failure to critically engage with the US’s global interventions. Prof. Paleker further goes on to emphasise the hypocrisy of the institution, citing its numerous delays in providing a public statement regarding the Palestinian genocide under the guise of bureaucracy while justifying the ambassador’s visit by promoting the need for robust engagement. She concluded by highlighting the institution’s failure to take students’ political grievances seriously, especially against the backdrop of UP’s history of stifling descent and critical student voices.
Another university staff member in attendance was Development Studies professor Dr Marc Wegerif. Dr Wegerif stressed the importance of students speaking out against US imperialism, particularly within Palestine, Iran, and Jordan, dubbing it “old-style brutal colonialism”. He further explained that students must speak out against representatives of the US, such as the ambassador. Additionally, Dr Wegerif spoke on Bozell’s problematic beliefs as an individual, highlighting his role in contesting the anti-apartheid struggle, undermining South African sovereignty, and his staunch support of Israel, citing his values as another reason to protest his meeting with the Vice-Chancellor. He also emphasised that the US does not support ventures that do not advance their own interests, citing the US abruptly pulling funding from HIV/AIDS programmes within South Africa as an example.
With this in mind, Dr Wegerif questioned if the meeting with ambassador Bozell and the university would result in any critical studies of the US as opposed to the institution simply acting as a vehicle for propaganda for the US. He echoes Prof. Paleker’s assertion of hypocrisy stemming from the university, noting that its official stance of neutrality regarding the Palestinian genocide contrasts its “cosying up” to the US, a large contributor to the continued violence in Gaza. Additionally, Dr Wegerif argues that the university is not as human-centred and transformative as it claims to be, as it continuously ignores humanitarian crises while collaborating with an imperialist US regime.
As the sit-in continued, the ambassador’s arrival was constantly delayed. Communication between Essop and Bozell’s security detail revealed that the presence of the protesters gave rise to security concerns and subsequent hesitation from the guards. As the evening continued, Bozell’s security reiterated that he would be arriving promptly. Students began to speculate that ambassador Bozell had taken a discrete entrance into the Humanities Building, but students placed at the structure’s other entrances reported that they had not seen him arrive. By 18:00, the sit-in was ultimately concluded without an appearance from the ambassador, who most likely took an unknown entrance into the building. It should be noted that a UP security guard within the Humanities Building reported seeing ambassador Bozell within the building before the sit-in concluded.
Despite the ambassador’s non-appearance, Essop does not regard the sit-in as a failure. She points out the cowardice and hypocrisy of the ambassador who, despite preaching co-operation and a supposed willingness to engage with students, refused to engage with the students who participated in the sit-in. Additionally, she expressed disappointment in the executive who assisted the ambassador in entering the building without facing the protesters. Ultimately, Essop is satisfied with the number of demonstrators that appeared, saying, “The fact that so many people showed [up] says a lot.”
The presence of the ambassador, coupled with the university’s refusal to take a public stance on the Palestinian genocide, raises concerns regarding the institution’s willingness to uphold a system of morality as opposed to pleasing investors with deep pockets and widespread influence. It is clear that only certain “robust” debates are worthy of promotion while certain conversations are continually silenced.
