Why the return of the Rational Standard matters
There is no shortage of radicalism in the academy. What is scarce, and dangerously so, is space for dissent – especially when that dissent originates from the right.
Written by: Ayanda Sakhile Zulu
The relaunch of the Rational Standard (RS) couldn’t come at a better time.
This platform first emerged amidst the chaos of the Fallist uprisings, when lectures were disrupted, statues defaced, and university campuses transformed into one-sided ideological battlegrounds. At that time, a different kind of voice was essential: one that resisted the herd mentality, defended open debate, and refused to conflate activism with intimidation. That same need persists today.
Dr. Pedro Mzileni, recently cleared of hate speech charges by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), has once again captured headlines.
His response?
Predictably, he asserts that universities continue to protect “settler white racism” and penalise those who challenge it. According to him, the academy remains hostile to “decolonial” thought and “transformative” anti-colonial work.
However, there’s a profound irony in this assertion.
Mzileni, like many of his ideological peers, presents himself as subversive – a lone voice in a hostile environment. Yet the reality is quite different. Our universities are not conservative enclaves; they are, in fact, the very institutions where ideas like his flourish. Decoloniality, identity politics, and structural critiques dominate the intellectual mainstream, particularly within the humanities. Far from facing punishment, such ideas are often celebrated and widely published. A cursory glance through journal articles in disciplines such as sociology, history, and literary studies reveals just how embedded anti-colonial discourse has become. The academy isn’t hostile to these views; it is a breeding ground for them.
There is no shortage of radicalism in the academy. What is scarce, and dangerously so, is space for dissent – especially when that dissent originates from the right.
How many academics openly defend free markets, individual liberty, and limited government? How often do we encounter defences of classical liberalism or constitutionalism on campuses, in contrast to the usual lectures on socialism or political education focused on Marxism? The academic terrain isn’t hostile to the left; but to anything that challenges the left’s dominance.
This intolerance of dissent was most vividly illustrated during the Fallist protests of 2015/16. Violence wasn’t merely incidental, but; it was rationalised. When Shaeera Kalla, a leading figure in the movement, defended the vandalism of the statue of Cecil John Rhodes at the University of Cape Town (UCT) during a public debate, she framed it as justice – an act against a racist imperialist whose legacy epitomised colonial oppression. This logic still lingers.
The Issue wasn’t only the defacing of monuments or the disruption of lectures; it was also the emergence of an ideological absolutism that framed disagreement as betrayal and nuance as weakness. To question the dogma of decoloniality was to expose oneself as a guardian of colonialism. In that environment, debate gave way to denunciation, and ideas were policed rather than exchanged.
Mzileni’s recent remarks reflect this same pattern. He doesn’t welcome scrutiny; he dismisses it. Rather than engaging with critics, he positions himself as a victim of a colonial stronghold, all while advocating a worldview that has long taken root in the very institutions he claims to oppose.
That worldview is not only intellectually dominant; it wields considerable power and dictates what is publishable and fundable within the academy. There are academics today who have built careers through it, with some even receiving promotions as a result. Yet its champions continue to posture as radicals who are marginalised in a space that has already embraced them. This paradox lies at the heart of the new orthodoxy. It holds power while pretending to resist it.
This is why the RS is back. It’s not here to trade outrage for outrage but to challenge dogma when it masquerades as scholarship. It will defend reason when it’s unfashionable and speak for those who dare to dissent. In a landscape where classical liberalism is routinely caricatured or ignored, this platform offers not just refuge but resistance. Resistance rooted in the conviction that open inquiry and intellectual diversity matter more than ideological conformity.
Ayanda Sakhile Zulu holds a BSocSci in Political Studies from the University of Pretoria and is an intern at the Free Market Foundation.
 | A guest post by
|