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

Middle East activists speak about peace on the Bloemfontein Campus
2012-03-15

 

Bassem Eid (left) and Benjamin Pogrund discuss the situation in the Middle East.
Photo: Johan Roux
15 March 2012

Peace is a big word in the Middle East, particularly amongst Israelis and Palestinians. After years of conflict, people yearn for peace; they want an end to the killings and the uncertainty. The problem is that both sides are actively doing things that undermine the prospect of peace. There is also double talk, lies and evasion with each side pointing fingers. This was the word from Benjamin Pogrund, an Israeli peace activist, addressing staff and students on the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State. He and fellow peace activist Bassem Eid, a Palestinian, visited the campus to speak about the situation in the Middle East.

Both men agreed that peace efforts were hindered by the Israeli and the Palestinian leaders. According to Pogrund, neither the Palestinians, nor the Israelis are leading the way in accepting that the conflict must end.
 
“Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders say let us get together with no pre-conditions. Then the Israeli leaders say, Jerusalem we cannot share, that is not for negotiation. And, they say to the Palestinians you must recognise Israel as a Jewish state. So, what they say is unless you agree to these pre-conditions there can be no talks without pre-conditions.
 
“And the Palestinians in turn say the settlement construction must cease immediately, and unless that happened, there is no point in meeting. And they say we will never acknowledge you as a Jewish state so do not even bother talking about it. And we insist on the right of return of Palestinian refugees. So they also say unless you acknowledge these pre-conditions there is no point in meeting with our pre-conditions. So as you can gather each side blames the other side, each side points the finger and says you are responsible for the lack of progress.”
 
Pogrund said both the Israelis and the Palestinians could demand legitimacy in that part of the world.
 
“Both Jewish and Arabs can say we have history on our side. We have religion on our side, culture.”
 
To compare Israel to Apartheid South Africa is wrong, he said.
 
“It is an occupation, it is repression, but it is not Apartheid.”
 
Eid, who is the director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, said the Palestinians were close to having a complete independent Palestinian state from 1994 to 1999.
 
“But in one rocket former Israeli Prime minister Ariel Sharon destroyed it.”
 
He said Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did not bring political unity.
 
“We, the Palestinians, were supposed to start building the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip but unfortunately Hamas started dancing on that Israeli disengagement and considered it as their own success because of their military resistance against the occupation.” He also said Hamas is satisfied with its hold in the Gaza Strip and Fatah is also very satisfied with its hold in the West Bank. According to Eid, it is convenient for the Israelis that the Palestinians are separated.

 

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