Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
08 March 2019 | Story Opinion article by Prof Puleng LenkaBula | Photo Sonia Small
Prof LenkaBula
Prof Puleng LenkaBula believes that the roles of women become important and productive when the environment within which they exercise their voice, dreams, talents, and knowledge, is supportive.

On the global community calendar, 8 March is marked as the day on which we commemorate International Women’s Day, which evolved as a result of women’s pursuit of equality in the workplace and the associated human rights, civic citizenship, and dignity in the private and public spheres while calling for gender equality.

It is an annual celebration of women’s diverse contributions and accomplishments in the socio-political, economic, environmental, and other spheres.  It emerged from the context where women did not have the right to vote, to participate in elections, and in many societies to own property.  This meant, among others, that women could not shape their lives as they wanted or envisaged, due to the institutionalisation of patriarchy, which is understood as the authority of men over women, and exploitative economic-system arrangements and associated policies. Equally important is that, while the quest for liberty, equality, and human rights were seen as important for democratic societies, it was not seen as important to extend it to women. It was in this context of agitating for equality and the recognition of women as fully human and to therefore be endowed with the cognitive aptitude and abilities to frame their lives, that women organised and protested against these inhibitions.

It was therefore fitting that on, 8 March 2019, we commemorate International Women’s Day with the celebration of 25 years of democratic dispensation in South Africa, where equality, women’s rights, and full participation in political, economic, social, and other rights are generally available, yet still remains contested. It is equally important that we should ask in this year, when the UFS is celebrating 115 years of transforming lives and inspiring excellence through knowledge construction, intellectual formation and dissemination, what we have done or are doing to ensure that gender equality is affirmed in our institution and in our society. How do we promote women’s rights and gender equality at the UFS and in South Africa and what are the challenges we face?  

Do we allow gender equality and women’s talents, knowledge, and voice in all spheres to support the Academic Project in our universities? What are the challenges in transforming systems or exclusion and marginalisation within our own structuring and how do we plan to overcome these? It seems to me that while women’s rights, talents, dignity, and agency are now acknowledged in many of our communities and our society in general, there are still many challenges to transform and fully overcome so that women can constructively contribute knowledge locally, regionally, and globally. How do we create conditions that will enable women and gender-non-conforming people to perform optimally in the core Academic Project, namely teaching and learning, engaged scholarship and research, and to hence thrive as academics or professionals and administrative staff within our universities on the African continent and the global community? What measures do we put in place to facilitate women’s productive outputs and celebrate them through recognition in a world that often negate these contributions?

It may be surprising to the reader that I pose so many questions instead of describing what International Women’s Day is, but it is important to ponder on what systems, institutions, policies, and praxes our societies will need to affirm the dignity of women.

As the UFS community and the broader society, engaging these questions are an important academic and social exercise.  I need to assert that there are many initiatives which the UFS are putting in place to support women’s rights, gender equality, and social justice within the institution. We have recognised the imperative for creating an enabling academic and professional environment that facilitates access and excellence for all staff and students, taking cognisance of the importance of gender equality. We have also recognised that gender equality does not only frame the equality between men and women, but also takes cognisance of the rights of gender-non-conforming individuals as well as individuals who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, asexual, etc. Equally, we have emphasised universal access and support for staff and students living with disabilities in order to ensure that they have access and succeed in their pursuit of education, notwithstanding the continuing requirements to improve our systems and policies in this regard. The portfolio on Institutional Change, Student Affairs, and Engaged Scholarship, for instance, has started to put measures in place that facilitate institutional policy frameworks, advance gender equality, and address impediments to their success, which is often limited by challenges such as sexual harassment.

In 2018, for instance, Council approved the policies on Sexual Harassment and Anti-discrimination, which promotes gender equality and discourages all conduct to denigrate or violate women and men in our context. A high-impact and agile resolution process and team referred to as SART, operates within the implementation framework of the Sexual Harassment and Anti-Discrimination policies. It is an immediate mechanism to address complaints, queries, and submissions on gender-based violence in ways that are attentive to the many calls which women locally and internationally have asserted as important in facilitating gender equality for all staff, students, and stakeholders of the UFS.  We have also decided to provide the University Council with a Social Cohesion and Social Justice Report, which will enable us to evaluate all efforts to promote social justice, social capital, and excellence through co-curricular work in the university.

I must state that these efforts are in line with some of the aspirations and commitments of the International Women’s Day commemorations. It seems to me that the roles of women become important and productive when the environment within which they exercise their voice, dreams, talents, and knowledge, is supportive. I wish all the women of the UFS and in our society a wonderful International Women’s Day. I hope it will inspire all of us in our different work responsibilities to be and do the best we were created for. I further hope that all institutional efforts to facilitate gender equality will come to fruition.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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