Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
19 November 2018 Photo Sonia Small
On Statues and Statutes MT Steyn statue creates a vital precedent
Prof Francis Petersen, UFS Rector and Vice-Chancellor

Opinion article by Prof Francis Petersen

Every morning on my way to the office, I pass this imposing figure. Elevated on a granite plinth in front of the Main Building of the University of the Free State’s Bloemfontein Campus, cast in bronze, more than twice the size of a normal person, the statue of President Marthinus Theunis Steyn is by all accounts an impressive work of art.
  
Why such a contentious figure?

Unlike Cecil John Rhodes, who has become the embodiment of colonialism in South Africa, history paints the last president of the independent Orange Free State a little more amicably: MT Steyn was an outspoken anti-imperialist, a pacifist who tried until the very end to avoid war with Britain, a humanitarian who did a lot for Boer women and children after the war.
  
However, he was also the leader of a republic that didn’t acknowledge the rights of all its ethnic groups. From a modern-day human rights perspective, his Free State was decidedly unequal and unjust.
  
In its recent report, the ministerial task team on the transformation of the heritage landscape points out that statues are never just “innocent pieces of architecture.”  They embody a strong “symbolic power” and project “the foundational values of the state and those in power.” It’s never about the persona alone, but about the totality of values he/she represents.

Situated where it is – in front of the building housing the university’s executive – the question is whether we, as the leadership of this institution, align ourselves with these values.

And if there’s any doubt, how should we go about to consider changing the status quo?

Removal of statues in the past

As South Africans, we are acutely aware of how unhappiness about statues and what they represent have been dealt with on our university campuses in the past.

Statues have been defaced, damaged, and toppled by protestors – not only in South Africa, but around the world. At the University of the Free State (UFS), it also happened with the statue of CR Swart on the Bloemfontein Campus; the same as with the statue of Cecil John Rhodes at the University of Cape Town.

There is of course a legitimate driving force behind students’ conduct: frustration about the perceived slow pace of transformation.
  
However, what should also be considered, is the heritage legislation that is in place to protect symbols that hold historical value and significance – specifically aimed at preserving our country’s cultural heritage for all its citizens.

Process followed

At the UFS, discussions regarding the possible repositioning of the MT Steyn statue date as far back as 2003. In January this year, our Integrated Transformation Plan (ITP) was launched, and the statue was identified as a priority within the work stream dealing with ‘Names, Symbols and Spaces.’

At a student engagement earlier this year, the student community, through the Student Representative Council (SRC), once again asked for the statue to be removed. It was clear that it made certain students feel unwelcome because it represented a period in history that they did not feel part of.

I realised the urgency of the matter and appointed a Special Task Team to fast-track the review of the statue’s position. Four options had to be considered during the review process: (i) retention of the statue in its current position; (ii) reinterpretation; (iii) relocation on campus; (iv) relocation to a site off campus.

The task team, made up of representatives of various campus communities, appointed an independent heritage consultant to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) as prescribed by the heritage legislation, consulted widely, and gathered qualitative data. This encompassed a two-month-long public participation process.

Great effort went into inviting people to comment on the position of the statue, like erecting a giant reflective column in front of the statue, effectively erasing it out from a frontal view of the Main Building. Seven questions in English, Afrikaans, and Sesotho about the statue and the person it represents, cement benches to invite reflection, and a suggestion box for comments completed the picture. In addition, I also had various individual meetings with relevant role players, including members of the Afrikaans community on campus, the SRC, and alumni.
  
Robust discussion sessions were facilitated on campus, and various opinion articles were carried widely in the media.

As there is no precedent for such a process under current South African legislation, the task team was guided at all times by principles of fairness, inclusivity, and objectivity.

The Special Task Team has now presented the university’s executive with a report, and a final decision on the position of the statue will be made during a meeting of the University Council on 23 November 2018.

What we learned

I have repeatedly been asked whether the time, effort, and resources we’ve poured into the process around deciding the statue’s future have been worth it. My answer is consistently a resounding “yes”. 

Through this process, everyone involved with our university were given the opportunity to express their opinions on this aspect of its future. It was a chance to really listen to one another.

Where discussions sometimes became one-sided and overbearing, we could use it as an opportunity to lay down the rules for respectful debating as a quid pro quo for future discussions on any matter.

In short: The two-month public participation period was a fruitful time of discussion, reflection, and communication. 

A time of deliberate stocktaking on the values which are important for all our communities.
  
Road ahead

Whatever the final decision on the Steyn statue, it is bound to dissatisfy some. That much is unavoidable. 

However, I believe that this should not inevitably lead to division on our campuses. I see the wake of the statue journey as an opportunity to foster a new university citizenship based on the value of caring – a value that we all treasure.

The past few months have given us a chance to think deeply about what it truly means to care; also, to reflect on how we should apply this value in order to be a university where equality, social justice, tolerance, and forward-looking is actively lived out every day. 

A place where everyone truly feels welcome – and involved.

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

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