Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 March 2019 | Story Mamosa Makaya
Human Rights

Human Rights Month is a time to reflect on the nation’s journey to democracy, the attainment of change, and the building of awareness and education about human rights in academic institutions and society at large.
  
Human Rights Day in South Africa is historically linked to 21 March 1960, and the events of the Sharpeville Massacre where 69 people died and 180 were wounded when police fired on a crowd that had gathered in peaceful protest against the pass laws. In observing this important time, Prof Francis Petersen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor said: “As a university community, let us join the rest of the country and celebrate the rights of all people to be protected from violation, irrespective of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Let us observe this day and stand together to promote respect for human rights.”

Human rights in action

At the University of the Free State (UFS), Human Rights Month is marked with celebratory events, awareness campaigns and fund-raising for social justice causes in faculties and departments by staff and students alike throughout the month of March, and is seen as an important time to show support for human rights in our society. The Student Representative Council (SRC) recently launched the #UFSWalkToUhuru project that aims to raise R2 million by soliciting academic and financial support from the public, stakeholders affiliated with the UFS, staff and students, to enable their fellow students to register for and continue with their studies across all three UFS campuses in 2020.

The Dean of Student Affairs, Pura Mgolombane said “Education is a fundamental human right which all citizens of a country should have an opportunity to access. Due to the legacy of slavery, colonialism and apartheid, most of the majority of our people could not be educated or educate their children.  The Walk to Uhuru campaign that has been initiated by the SRC becomes not only a social justice issue but a human rights response to the poor and impoverished. When the nation responds as we hope it will, it will be humanising not only the lived experiences of the students who will be beneficiaries of the fund, but to their families, society and to the nation. So, we call upon everyone to demonstrate their humanity (Ubuntu) by donating whatever they can.”

The first tier involves a 350 km walk from the Bloemfontein Campus to the UFS Qwaqwa Campus from 17 to 22 March 2019. On the second tier, the group continues the journey by road through four countries for 5411 km to Uhuru Peak on Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, from 20 June to 20 July 2019. 

The fundraising walk is a student-led initiative that seeks to promote and advocate educational rights to less privileged students, mitigating the exclusion of the financially disadvantaged and promoting their right to education.

Students, staff, and the public can make contributions/donations to the initiative by visiting the UFS Walk to Uhuru #givengain account page

Support, promotion and advocacy for human rights

The UFS through its various structures has adopted policies that recognise the rights of its students and staff with policies such as the anti-discrimination, promotion of equality and social justice policy and procedures, which is a demonstration of its commitment to providing opportunities for staff and students to pursue excellence and satisfaction in their academic and social lives.
   
The Free State Centre for Human Rights (FSCHR) was established in 2016, with a focus on the relationship between human rights and transformation at UFS and runs a research division which runs postgraduate teaching programme, while its advocacy division presents human rights training and awareness courses to staff and students, coordinates the resolution of human rights-related disputes, and assists management on an ad hoc basis in human rights-related policy development. The centre’s advocacy office held a human rights awareness campaign at the Thakaneng Bridge on the Bloemfontein Campus, from Thursday, 14 March to Wednesday 20 March with lucky draws and prizes. 

South Africa has included indivisible human rights in our own Bill of Rights, in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The Bill of Rights also comprehensively addresses South Africa’s history of oppression, colonialism, slavery, racism and sexism and other forms of human violations. The Bill of Rights embeds the rights of all people in our country in an enduring affirmation of the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.

Prof Danie Brand, Director of the FSCHR said “at the UFS I like to think that we have a different understanding of rights: we see human rights as regulating relationships between us, as mechanisms that require us to enter into conversation with one another when we have disputes and reach solutions in which all of our human rights are, even if not vindicated, then at least taken account of. The rigorous process of engagement and consultation about what to do with the statue of MT Steyn illustrates this; as does the current process in which we are considering together what is and what is not acceptable as protest action on campus. Human rights require us to think and to talk, before we act.”

The field of human rights touches on a myriad of areas at higher education institutions. It is therefore an opportunity for staff and students to become aware of the immense contribution they make in their daily work, especially in academic areas such as gender studies, law, health sciences, and in support services structures such as staff and student wellness, LGBTIQ+ advocacy, protection services and with the work of the Centre for Universal Access and Disabilities, amongst others.

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