Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
25 November 2019 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Francis Petersen
Prof Francis Petersen.

The international awareness campaign on 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence which is taking place from 25 November to 10 December 2019 provides an appropriate opportunity for higher-education institutions to reflect on a crucial issue that is touching the lives of so many women – including students and staff members – across the country, and the world. 

2019 has certainly been another challenging year when it comes to violence in general, and then specifically, gender-based violence in higher education.

It was marked by two traumatic incidents: The rape and murder of Media and Film Studies student at the University of Cape Town (UCT), Uyinene Mrwetyana; and the murder of University of the Western Cape (UWC) student, Jesse Hess. 

These horrific happenings were painful reminders of the pervasive nature of misogyny and patriarchal violence that impedes the freedom of women in South Africa.

As in the rest of the country, students, staff members, and stakeholders of the University of the Free State (UFS) showed up en masse in response, dressed in black to demonstrate their outrage at gender-based violence during a silent march on our Bloemfontein Campus in September. The sincerity and fervour of the marchers – women and men – was inspiring. 

More than symbolism needed

But the question is: Are these symbolic gestures enough? Should we not be doing more?

Abuse is a very physical act – often with dire, physical consequences.

Apart from all the discussions, demonstrations, and denouncements, is there not something we can do to physically fight this scourge? 

It is significant that demonstrators across the country were wearing black. Traditionally, this is the colour of mourning and loss. It symbolises not only the loss of life and opportunity that these incidents have caused, but also the loss of trust, innocence, and carefreeness for the wider community and potential victims everywhere.

There was a sad irony in seeing so many young people in mourning mode. After all, one’s study years are supposed to be some of your happiest years. It is a heart-breaking reality that gender-based violence can turn it into your most traumatic.

Powerful influencers: Good and bad

The post-school years is traditionally the time when young people often resolve not only what they want to become – in terms of career options – but also who they want to become. It is a time to sort out your approach to life and to other people and finding your own place in it. A time to determine your own values – the things that form the bedrock of who you are. Too often they fall back on the imperfect role models found in their communities and in celebrity circles, where violence and selfish interests are elevated.

How can we break this cycle of bad influences resulting in violence and abuse? How can we interrupt the process of elevating patriarchal and misogynistic role models?

I have often said that a university or any other institution of higher learning should be a microcosm of what our society should look like. Not because it is perfect and never makes mistakes, but because it is founded on principles of equality, tolerance, excellence, diversity, community upliftment, and forward-thinking – striving for social justice in everything that it does.

While students are on our campuses, we have a unique window of opportunity to influence and guide these young people at a time when they make crucial decisions about the rest of their lives. 

And to really play our part as positive influencers, we should give them more than just theory, rhetoric, abstract ideas, and symbolism. We should give them deliberate acts of caring.

Deliberate acts of caring

Two stories transpired at the UFS this year that reminded me of the powerful effect these deliberate acts of caring can have.  

Story 1: A second-year BA Journalism student, Precious Lesupi, decided to use her 21st birthday celebrations as an opportunity to give back to the communities around her. Not only did she spend the day with children at the Sunflower Children’s Hospice in Bloemfontein who are afflicted with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions. She also encouraged friends and relatives not to buy her gifts, but to rather make donations towards children battling terminal and chronic illnesses.

Story 2: A lecturer in our Department of Architecture, Hein Raubenheimer, reached out to a colleague who had just acquired a plot of land in an informal settlement. He got other lecturers and students involved by initiating an interdisciplinary research project and a building-supplies donation drive, in order to build a beautiful, eco-friendly home for his grateful colleague.   

These two Kovsies did not stop at just talking about solutions. They got physically involved – through deliberate acts of caring, and in the process, they powerfully counter-acted the devastating impact of abuse and neglect we have become so used to. 

Getting involved

It is an approach that can extend so much further than just interpersonal relationships.
On a community level, it can culminate in an attitude of looking out for one another’s interests. The practical outflow of this is that people will get involved when they see someone caught up in an unhealthy relationship, venturing into a dangerous area or being harmed in some way. Because they truly care about one another. It is about reaching out and arming one another – not only with information and encouragement, but also with physical support.

The power of caring communities

In the words of American author and organisational behaviour expert, Margaret J. Wheatley: “There is no power for change greater than a community discovering what it cares about.”

I believe that our response to the flood of violence and indifference that threatens to engulf our higher-education campuses, should be to fight it with a renewed sense of ubuntu – transpiring into real, deliberate acts of caring and kindness.


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