Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Universities unite to discuss fragility and resilience in higher education

04 February 2020 | Story Michelle Nöthling | Photo Johan Roux

Fragility read more — The colloquium brought together students, staff and administration to work together on resolving ongoing problems within the higher education sector.

Where does resilience – or the lack thereof – in higher education come from? What does resilience and fragility even mean? These were some of the core issues examined during a recent symposium titled ‘Fragility and Resilience: Facets, Features and (Trans) Formations in Higher Education’. The Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice hosted the event from 28 to 31 January 2020 on the University of the Free State (UFS) Bloemfontein Campus. The symposium – now in its seventh year – is a collaborative endeavour between the UFS, the University of California, Los Angeless (UCLA), and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VUA) to learn and share knowledge. “The real aim of the symposium is to address diversity and transformation issues from different contexts so that we can compare and contrast and learn best practices,” said Dr Dionne van Reenen, Senior Researcher in the Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, and convener of the event.

Against the Psychologisation of Resilience

In a keynote address, Prof Michalinos Zembylas from the Open University of Cyprus argued against the potential psychologisation of resilience. According to Prof Zembylas, the concept of resilience is often framed as the psychological capacity of the individual to thrive through vulnerability and change. Such a view inevitably places the responsibility for success or failure on the shoulders of the individual and ignores the collusion between systems of oppression and structural inequalities. “The concept of resilience has become part and parcel of neoliberal governmentality – a growing emphasis on autonomous and reflexive individuals who have the capacity to conduct their own risk assessments and pursue their own life opportunities,” Prof Zembylas said. Therefore, within this neoliberalist ideology with its emphasis on the individual, people are led to believe that they need to continually adapt to threats that are essentially out of their control. A resilient person is, in other words, someone who permanently transforms themselves to accommodate the world without the possibility of actually changing that world.

What impact does this have on higher education? Prof Zembylas noted that a neoliberalist perception of resilience discourages students “from imagining themselves as political agents who could collectively work to challenge harmful or unjust working and life practices”. Although universities use a great variety of tools and interventions to address students’ fragility, these approaches often focus on the vulnerability of the individual. Instead, Prof Zembylas proposed a shift towards an ontology that regards vulnerability as produced by conditions of oppression. A pedagogy of oppression is different from a pedagogy of vulnerability, since “instead of focusing on vulnerabilities, you would rather instil confidence in subjects to say no to abuse of power”.

The nature and role of student hope and meaning in goal setting and life satisfaction

Prof Itumeleng Khumalo, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the UFS, delivered the following day’s keynote address. “Many studies concerned with youth have focused on their fears, worries and anxieties, instead of positive functioning and satisfaction with life,” Prof Khumalo remarked. In contrast, he opted to look at how hope and meaning shape students’ goals for higher education. Focusing on hope and meaning, however, does not deny the fact that South African students, in particular, are faced with substantial challenges. The majority of students enrolling in higher education in South Africa are first-generation entrants. Seventy percent of students do not have a graduate parent, and 45% do not have any family members who graduated. Most of these students are burdened with fears of failing, financial problems, difficulties with accommodation, worries about family members, inadequate knowledge regarding digital technology, and lack of support.

Despite the above, a study by Prof Khumalo and Dr Angelina Wilson Fadiji showed that 85% of their student sample expected life would get better as a result of their education. The vast majority of students indicated that their main goal was to attain employment and build a career as a result of tertiary education. Students believe that getting an education will afford them opportunities to get ahead in life and enable them to become financially independent. “The perceived linear pathway from education to a better and successful life remains the dominant belief among these students, rendering education an undisputed panacea,” Prof Khumalo said. Ultimately, hope and meaning are sources of direction and motivation, and institutions of higher learning play a crucial role in human capacity development.

The colloquium was a platform to share and collaborate on complex issues in higher education.

Prof Ruad Ganzevoort, Diversity Officer and Dean of Theology and Religion at VUA

Prof Cindy Fan, Vice-Provost: International Studies and Global Engagement and Dr Gene Block, UCLA Chancellor

Prof Michalinos Zembylas, delivered the Keynote address on Tuesday 28 January 2020.

Prof Abel Valenzuela, director of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

Fragility and Resilience Colloquium meet-and-greet on Tuesday 28 January 2020

At the meet-and-greet on Monday are from left; Prof Ruad Ganzevoort, Prof Francis Pietersen and Dr Gene Block

Prof Puleng LenkaBula, Vice-Rector: Institutional Change, Student Affairs and Community Engagement opened the colloquium on Tuesday 28 January 2020.

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points

2004-07-29

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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