Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
30 May 2018 | Story Rulanzen Martin | Photo Rulanzen Martin
Future of MT Steyn statue discussed-Prof Johann Rossouw and Dr Luvuyo Dondolo
Prof Johann Rossouw and Dr Luvuyo Dondolo were also on the panel.

The Faculty of the Humanities hosted a panel discussion on the future of the MT Steyn statue on the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS). Panellists who came from diverse backgrounds with opposing viewpoints discussed the current position of the statue in front of the Main Building on the campus.

Panellists included academics, student leaders and activists as well as government representatives. They were, Prof Johann Rossouw from the UFS Department of Philosophy; Asive Dlanjwa, SRC president; Mohama Dipolo and Jani Swart, both UFS postgraduate students; Prof Matie Hoffman from the Department of Physics; Mr Ben Mazinga from the South African Heritage Resource Agency(SAHRA); Kelebohile Palane, a UFS student; and Dr Luvuyo Dondolo.

A special task team made a submission to the Free State Heritage Resources Authority (FSHRA). They proposed three options   to cover the statue, fence it, as well use it as a point of engagement. The FSHRA proposed that the statue become a point of engagement. “That is why the Faculty of Humanities decided to host the panel discussion. We are Humanities and we have to talk about it,” said Prof Heidi Hudson, Dean of the faculty. 

The panel discussion took place on 29 May 2018 and was facilitated by Mr Willem Ellis, research fellow at the Centre for Gender and Africa Studies.


An old conversation on future of the Steyn statue

The first speaker, Dr Dondolo, said MT Steyn was a symbol of Afrikaner nationalism. “The values Steyn represents and the values of the UFS and South Africa do not correlate,” he said. Prof Rossouw added that the Steyn statue stood in the way of healing and transformation. 

SRC president Dlanjwa said conversations regarding the statue had started back in 2015 and it was not a new discussion on its future.  

“We are covering the statue because it is a subject under discussion but we have unfortunately lost that battle,” he said. He added: “The removal of the statue has nothing to do with purging a particular section of society. It has everything to do with recognising the existence and humanity of the people that share the space of the UFS.” 

Dipolo said: “We must move away from historical figures to something non-offensive.” This was a step to transform public spaces. 

Mr Mazinga said there had to be an alternative perspective regarding the debate. “It shouldn’t necessarily be about removing, but to also speak to an alternative past.” It was important to transform public spaces as there was an over-representation of one group from the past, he said.

News Archive

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept