Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
03 July 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen and Motsaathebe Serekoane
Motsaathebe Serekoane,left, and Prof Francis Petersen.
The South African statue debate is back in the spotlight again, as statues deemed controversial or offensive are coming down in America and Europe during demonstrations against racism and police violence that have renewed attention on the legacy of injustices. This follows the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes. 

The world has witnessed the toppling of Confederate statues in San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Raleigh, North Carolina in the US, as well as a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol and the statue of slave holder Robert Milligan, which was removed from outside the Museum of London Docklands in the UK.  The statue of Paul Kruger on Church Square in Pretoria was again vandalised with red paint during a #BlackLivesMatter protest, as was the statues of Voltaire, a leading thinker and writer in France, and Hubert Lyautey, a French general and colonial administrator.

The attacks/hostilities against statues started in 2015 when the statue of Cecil John Rhodes at the University of Cape Town was torn down by students during the height of the #RhodesMustFall protest, which subsequently led to the #FeesMustFall protest that saw the statue of CR Swart at the University of the Free State being toppled a year later. 

The challenge in the South African context
The traditional definition and meaning of spaces inhabited by people (including temporarily) still renders some of the public spaces unwelcoming and excluding by virtue of their names, presence of symbols, and inscriptions. These spatial markers have a historical significance link with certain social identities or representation, and there is an increasing call for the reconfiguration of public spaces. It is argued that the symbolic landscape also requires change if a city/metro is to incorporate all its citizens and their histories into the fabric of an ‘imagined’ inclusive and just city.

The politics of symbolic representation has been at the heart of decolonisation and post-apartheid transformation. At stake in South Africa – with the historical legacy of segregation policies – is the competing and often conflicting notion of space, and the ideological notion of commemoration or memorialisation, coupled with the lack of shared collective memory and meaning of public representation. 

This calls for a pro-active approach towards the preservation and conservation of heritage resources material. In line with the National Developmental Plan 2030 (NDP 2030) – as a transforming country (with the baggage of both colonial and apartheid legacies) – the state is striving to cultivate an environment that is inclusive and socially just. The transformation of spatial milieu presupposes collective ownership and management of space, founded on the permanent and temporary participation of the 'interested and affected parties' with their multiple, varied, and even contradictory political interests. In the review of the current symbolic landscape for inclusion, it is suggested that spatial identity transformation be negotiated; the process must develop from a nexus that understands the interrelationship between space and spatial inscription through the form of street names, symbols, public art, and other forms of spatial markers.

Important to note is that symbolic power is inherent in these processes of change and includes, among other things, erasure and recognition and competing notions of spatial inscription or re-inscription. Notwithstanding the progress made to date, the following remains a challenge: reflecting on the definition and meaning of spaces that have become public; critical reflection on the role of memorabilia in the post-embedded-conflict society; the notion of preservation and conservation in the post-embedded-conflict society; reflecting on the role of memorabilia for documentation and educational ends; and finally, broadening the heritage landscape.

The politics of recognition
Five years since the #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements, different forms of memorabilia still remain at the centre of discontent. The observation is that contemplative conversations on these diverse commemorative markers, sites, and symbols established during the colonial, apartheid, and democracy eras are becoming a threat to the country’s NDP 2030, and in particular the social cohesion project. South Africa and the rest of the world continue to struggle to situate/re-appropriate historical text in the contemporary politics of recognition. The demand for recognition in the post-conflict society is given urgency/traction by the hypothetical links between recognition, identity, and public representation. Recent literature postulates that non-recognition or misrecognition in the metros or city spatial landscape can inflict harm, be a form of oppression, or imprison someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being and belonging. Despite the Ministry of Arts and Culture’s investment in transforming the heritage landscape across South Africa – from the level of policy and legislation, the establishment of new commemorative markers, and heritage institutions – the question on what to do with symbols of South African histories and how to deal with them against the backdrop of preservation and conservation in the post-embedded conflict society, remains unclear.

Legislative framework
Whereas the NDP 2030 is advancing a social cohesion vision, section 37 of the South African Heritage Act, No 25 of 1999, protects public monuments and memorials from any form of altering, damaging, or relocation and prescribes a minimum requirement before any form of action is taken. Although the Act is advancing the protection of heritage resources, an interpretation of the Act is that it makes provision for the re-imagination, creative, and responsible review of heritage in a post-embedded conflict society, thus broadening the heritage landscape through reconfiguration discourse of re-interpretation, re-appropriation, relocation, and removal. It is a balancing act with embedded and enmeshed complexities. 

Emancipatory claim-making in the quest for spatial parity
The statue debates continue to be characterised by a polarised disposition. At the one end of the continuum are individuals who hold a strong view and advocate for the ‘cleaning’ of what is deemed painful reminders of past atrocities in the public, which is now accessible to all. On the other end of the continuum are individuals arguing for the juxtaposition model. The process of striving towards a space for equity (cf. socio-spatial justice) and inclusion – needless to say – requires the asking of some difficult questions. 

Towards the inclusion end, the argument is for spatial re-imagination that will have the courage to disrupt homogeneity and advance heterogeneity in pursuit of a spatial landscape where differences intersect, influence each other, and hybridise in pursuit of dialogic engagements and transformative output. 

The UFS and the MT Steyn statue – a transparent and consultative approach
True to the ideals of a contemporary university, which is an intellectual space that encourages new ideas, controversy, inquiry, and argument, and which challenges orthodox views, the UFS has approached the call to remove the MT Steyn statue from the Bloemfontein Campus of the university in a transparent and consultative manner, respecting the different views and perspectives. In fact, the UFS adopted an Integrated Transformation Plan (ITP) in late 2017, aiming at an institution ‘where its diverse people feel a sense of common purpose and where symbols and spaces, systems and daily practices all reflect commitment to inclusivity, openness and engagement’ – the ITP, which embodies social justice, was used as the framework for engagement on the MT Steyn statue.

The South African Constitution, which celebrates the diversity of our nation, upholds the rights of all people to freedom of speech, and specifically protects academic freedom. To shut down the right to speak or ask questions in the context of a public debate is unacceptable in a democratic society. Rude or violent behaviour rarely serves to change how people think about any particular issue – on the contrary, it polarises views and makes it harder to listen to one another. 
In this engagement process on the statue, it was important for members of the UFS community to exercise tolerance to listen, to engage with strongly divergent views, and to do so in a manner that is respectful, so that it expands the space for debate. This indeed happened through seminars, public lectures, panel discussions, radio and television interviews, and public opinion pieces. Through these engagements, four options were put forward in relation to the MT Steyn
statue:
• The statue remains as it is,
• The statue remains as it is, and the space around the statue is reconceptualised,
• The statue is relocated to another position on campus, and
• The statue is relocated off campus

Part of the engagement was a heritage impact assessment (HIA) with a public participation process. The public participation process (60 days) included the exhibition of a reflective triangular column erected in front of the statue, primarily to keep the statue topical, but it also edited the statue out of its power position if viewed from the east along the main axis from the city of Bloemfontein. Public notices and advertisements were placed in both local and national newspapers, while the family of President Steyn was kept informed of developments.

Although the call to remove the statue has challenged and re-energised a critical engagement around the purpose of a university in an unequal society – both as a site of complicity and as a potential agent for social change – the call should never be interpreted as an attack on President Steyn (the person), but rather what a 2 m tall statue represents for a changing student and staff demographic on the UFS campuses.

Honouring the legislative processes through the Free State Provincial Heritage Resources Authority, the UFS Council approved the relocation of the MT Steyn statue from the university campus to the War Museum in Bloemfontein – the ‘dignified’ dismantling of the MT Steyn statue took place on 27 June 2020. With the statue at the War Museum, Steyn’s contribution as an anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist will be fully understood by all South Africans in the context of the South African War, as portrayed by the museum.

Reimaging an inclusive public space faces many obstacles and challenges in engaging with existing spatial markers, differences, diversity, and cultural heterogeneity in creative and productive ways.  However, the path followed by the UFS to relocate the MT Steyn statue creates a unique opportunity for a discussion on how spatial re-interpretation can promote inclusivity and meaning of space in a sustainable manner that balances the intricacies of the past, the present, and the future. All considered, it is a difficult process; but change cannot just be for the sake of change, there should be an emancipatory claim in the quest for a just society, advancing reasoning over rage.

Opinion article by Motsaathebe Serekoane, Lecturer: Anthropology, and Prof Francis Petersen: Rector and Vice-Chancellor, University of the Free State
 

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Bullying in schools: Everyone’s problem
2005-06-03

Bullebakkery in skole: Almal se probleem
Bullying in schools: Everyone’s problem
Intreerede, 1 Junie 2005
Inaugural lecture, 1 June 2005
Corene de Wet


1.  Inleiding
Leerders hoor dikwels dat hul ouers en opvoeders opmerkings soos die volgende maak:
Might is right. It is good to be able to dominate others. To be dominated by others is shameful. You should never complain about ill-treatment by others. You should learn to take it. You should never sympathise with wimps. To be gentle and compassionate is to be weak (Rigby 1996: 80).

Dié opmerkings, wat impliseer dat bullebakkery deel van die grootwordproses is, word deur volwassenes vir wie leerders lief is en respekteer, geuiter. Dit het tot gevolg dat bullebakkery as aanvaarbare gedrag voorgehou word. Bullebakkery maak egter inbreuk op die kind se reg tot menswaardigheid, privaatheid, vryheid en sekuriteit. Bullebakkery het ’n invloed op die slagoffer se fisieke, emosionele, sosiale en opvoedkundige welstand. Fisieke gevolge sluit die volgende in: hoofpyne, bednatmaak, verlies aan eetlus, swak liggaamshouding en maagprobleme. Bullebakkery kan tot die volgende emosionele probleme by slagoffers lei: depressie, selfmoordneigings en selfmoord, gespannenheid, vrees, asook gevoelens wat geassosieer word met Post Traumatiese Stres – verwardheid, angstigheid, woede en hartseer. Sosiale gevolge van bullebakkery is onder andere sosiale isolasie en eensaamheid, slagoffers het probleme om met ander kinders en volwassenes te meng, en is/word baie skaam. Opvoedkundige gevolge sluit die volgende in: slagoffers is baie afwesig, onttrek hulle van sosiale aktiwiteite by die skool, hulle is bang om vrae in die klas te vra, verlies aan konsentrasie, steek dit weg as hulle nie werk verstaan nie as gevolg van die vrees dat hulle gespot sal word en onderprestasie sodat hulle nie as té slim voorkom nie.

Bullying has various short- and long-term consequences for the bully. Although bullies are often popular in their peer group, they are seldom able to conclude real friendships. They rarely do well at school. Educators do not like them. Bullying is sometimes the first stepping stone to juvenile crime and criminal activities. The bully abuses alcohol and drugs more readily than other children. Some of them come to school armed. Bullies are often anti-social adults; some of them abuse their children, marriage or life partners. Roland (2002:62-65) found that not only victims but also bullies have suicide thoughts and symptoms of depression more regularly than learners who are not involved in bullying. Zeelie (2002:280) writes that bullying is a “loss experience”, a “loss of safety, loss of self-esteem (they bully you, then you bully yourself). Bullies experience a loss of belonging and lose control over their own life.”

 The aim of this lecture is to report, against the background of a literature study on data from two studies on bullying in Free State secondary schools. In both of these, questionnaires were answered anonymously and the data treated confidentially. The first study involved an investigation into a group of Free State learners’ perceptions and experiences of bullying in their respective schools. The second study concentrated on Free State educators’ experiences, observations and perceptions with regard to bullying.

2.  What is bullying?
Research on bullying in schools was conducted for the first time more than thirty years ago by Dan Olweus in Norway. From the literature review, it seems that bullying is a problem not only in Nordic countries, but also in among others the USA, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan. Although research on bullying since the 1980s has led to various international publications, little has been published on the subject in South Africa.

Olweus (1994:9), the leading figure in research on bullying, defines bullying as follows: “a student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative action on the part of one or more students.” Olweus (1994:9) explains the term “negative action” as follows: “a negative action is when someone intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict injury or discomfort upon another”. A Dutch psychologist, Van der Meer (quoted by Limper 1998:1), gives the following definition: “Bullying is a systematic, psychological, physical or sexual act of violence by a pupil or a group of pupils with respect to one or more classmates, who are not (any longer) in a position to defend themselves.”

From the aforementioned definitions it is clear that bullying always includes the following three elements: the intentional use of aggression, an unbalanced relationship of power between the bully and the victim, and the causing of physical pain and/or emotional misery.

Although there are considerable similarities between bullying and other forms of aggression, bullying, according to De Haan (1997:1), has the following characteristics: the bully acts purposefully rather than accidentally. The aim of bullying is to get control over another person by means of physical or verbal aggression. Bullies attack without reason, except that they see victims as easy targets. Bullies are usually more popular among their peer group than children who are merely aggressive.

  The following common examples of bullying can be identified:
• Physical bullying includes punching, poking, strangling, hair pulling, beating, biting, excessive tickling and direct vandalism.
• Verbal bullying includes such acts as hurtful name-calling, persistent teasing, gossiping and racist remarks.
• Relational bullying occurs when the victim is deliberately excluded from activities.
• Emotional bullying includes terrorising, extorting, defaming, blackmailing, rating/ranking of personal characteristics such as race, disability or ethnicity, manipulating friendships, ostracising and peer pressure.
• Sexual bullying includes many of the above as well as exhibitionism, sexual positioning, sexual harassment and abuse involving actual physical contact and sexual assault.

3.   Die aard en omvang van leerderbullebakkery

   Die persepsie dat bullebakkery deel van die grootwordproses is, lei daartoe dat slagoffers onwillig is om hulle ouers en opvoeders te vertel dat hulle afgeknou word. Voorts blyk dit dat slagoffers weerwraak van die bullebak of selfs klasmaats, wat die onthulling as storieaandraery sal sien, vrees. Indien die afknouery erg is of oor ’n lang tydperk plaasvind, is die slagoffers bang dat dit hulle ouers sal ontstel, veral as hulle dink dat hulle ouers nie in staat sal wees om die situasie te verander nie. Kinders is soms onwillig om te erken dat hulle duur items of geld aan bullebakke gegee het. Ouers stel nie net akademiese nie, maar ook sosiale verwagtinge aan hulle kinders, gevolglik is geviktimiseerde kinders, wat verworpe en ongewild voel, onwillig om te erken dat hulle afgeknou word. Adolessente voel dikwels, in hulle strewe na groter onafhanklikheid, dat hulle in staat behoort te wees om die probleem self te hanteer. Voorts is die kind-ouer-/ leerder-opvoederverhouding gedurende adolessensie dikwels gespanne en is kommunikasiekanale nie na wense nie. Bullebakkery is soms so subtiel dat dit moeilik is om dit te verwoord. Daar bestaan voorts die siening by leerders dat opvoeders nie betrokke wil raak by bullebakkery nie.

Voorafvermelde faktore het tot gevolg dat baie ouers en opvoeders onbewus is van die vlakke van bullebakkery waaraan hulle kinders en/of leerders blootgestel word. Die volgende navorsingsresultate toon egter aan dat bullebakkery ‘n redelik algemene verskynsel in Vrystaatse skole is.

Vrystaatse leerders word die meeste aan direkte en die tweede meeste aan indirekte verbale teistering blootgestel. Slegs 29.2% van die leerders wat aan die navorsingsprojek deelgeneem het, was nog nooit aan direkte en 32.15% aan indirekte verbale teistering blootgestel nie. Byna die helfte van die leerders het aangedui dat hulle ten minste een keer per maand die slagoffers van direkte verbale teistering was. ‘n Relatief groot persentasie van die leerders (32.45%) is al deur mede-leerders te lyf gegaan; 11.21% van hulle is ten minste een keer per week deur mede-leerders geslaan en/of geskop, gestamp en/of op ’n ander wyse fisiek seergemaak. Direkte, fisieke aggressie is dan ook die derde mees algemene vorm van bullebakery waaraan die leerders blootgestel is.

Die plek waar die Vrystaatse leerders besonder weerloos teenoor bullebakke staan, is taxi’s. Hoewel slegs 31.86% van die respondente aangetoon het dat hulle met ’n taxi skool toe en terug pendel, beleef 29.64% van hierdié leerders taxi’s as óf baie onveilig óf redelik onveilig met betrekking tot bullebakkery. Die area op die skoolterrein waar die leerders die meeste aan bullebakkery blootgestel word, is die badkamers/toilette. Die area waar die meerderheid Vrystaatse leerders geborge voel, is hulle klaskamers – slegs 0.61% het aangetoon dat hulle “baie onveilig en bang” in hulle klaskamers voel; 59.55% het aangetoon dat hulle “baie veilig” daar voel.

From the research it is apparent that learners are usually bullied by members of the same gender. However, not only boys are guilty of physical harassment: several boys indicated that one or more girls injured them physically, a number of girls were injured by members of the same gender.  Some of the boys described in the open-ended question how they were kicked and beaten by other boys on a regular basis. One of them was kicked in the face regularly by his hostel roommate, he was too afraid to do something about it, because “his family was known for assaulting people”. Another boy mentions that the bullies regularly put sand in his mouth.

According to a grade 12 girl, learners are verbally bullied on a regular basis not only individually, but also as a group. She writes:

At our school there are these boys who are racists. They act mean against black people in our school. There is this particular group of boys in our Maths class. When the teacher is out they take a red pen and write on the projector and spray it with spirits. It looks like blood and they would say it is AIDS and my friends and I have it.

By contrast with the opinions of Banks (1997:1) and Olweus (1994:19, 23-25) that racial composition in schools does not influence bullying, it seems to play a role in some Free State schools, as is apparent from the above description. Besides this grade 12 girl, 25 respondents described explicitly racist incidents.

Slegs 4.91% van die opvoeder- en 16.22% van die leerderrespondente het aangetoon dat bullebakkery “glad nie” ‘n probleem by hulle onderskeie skole was nie. Dit moet gevolglik beklemtoon word dat opvoeders regsgeldig en moreel verplig is om dissipline te handhaaf en om te sien na die veiligheid van leerders wat aan hulle sorg toevertrou is. Volgens die Gedragskode van die Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Opvoeders (SACE s.a.:1) moet opvoeders alle redelike stappe neem om die veiligheid van leerders te verseker. Opvoeders moet ook kennis neem van Squelch (2000:53) se waarskuwing, naamlik dat skole bullebakkery nie as onbelangrik moet afmaak nie. Skoolhoofde of opvoeders kan aan nalatigheid skuldig bevind word indien bevind sou word dat hulle nie die nodige stappe geneem het om bullebakkery te voorkom en dissipline te handhaaf nie.
 
If victims of bullying are faced with school inaction, the criminal justice system should be considered. Police action should be seen as a last resort. It is therefore important for educators to honour their ‘in loco parentis’ obligations. It is thus encouraging to take note of the fact that 88.29% of the educator respondents indicated that they would intervene in cases of verbal bullying, while 89.71% of them would intervene if they saw learners being physically bullied. However, only 19.97% of the learners who were victims of bullying indicated that they were helped by educators or other adults from their respective schools.

Consistent with previous research, it was found in the present study that learners are reluctant to tell others, especially educators, that they are being victimised by bullies. Educators therefore need to acknowledge that they may have a credibility problem with many children when it comes to dealing satisfactorily with bully/victim problems. This can be remedied by demonstrating that educator intervention is much more likely to result in satisfactory outcomes for those learners they seek to help.  It is important that educator intervention does not make matters worse. This may require some educators to change their strategies. One promising strategy is to work closely with the learners who are prepared to cooperate with educators in countering bullying, for example by working with an anti-bullying committee of learners, who give support and credibility to the efforts of educators and counsellors.

Die bevindinge van die studie, wat lig werp op die gebrek aan vertroue by leerders in hulle opvoeders se vermoëns en/of bereidwilligheid om hulle by te staan in die stryd teen bullebakkery, het belangrike implikasies vir onderwyseropleidinginstellinge. Die belangrikheid van opleiding, hetsy aanvanklike of indiensopleiding, om opvoeders te bemagtig om bullebakkery te beveg, moet beklemtoon word. Opvoeders sukkel dikwels om te besluit of kinders besig is om mekaar af te knou, en of hulle slegs besig is om te speel en/of mekaar te terg. Die onvermoë van opvoeders om binne ‘n breukdeel van ‘n sekonde ‘n oordeel te vel, is een van die belangrikste redes waarom opvoeders dikwels nie bullebaksituasies in die kiem smoor nie. Voorts is daar ‘n persepsie onder sommige leerders dat opvoederintervensie die posisie van die slagoffer sal vererger. Opleiding is dus belangrik om opvoeders te help om ingeligte besluite te neem wanneer hulle konfliksituasies waarneem. Opleidingskursusse moet voornemende opvoeders met basiese beradingsvaardighede toerus sodat hulle in staat sal wees om die praktiese en emosionele aspekte van viktimisasie te hanteer.

 Attention will now be given to a topic that receives scant attention by researchers, namely, the fact that some learners bully their educators.

4.   Educator-targeted bullying

According to Pervin and Turner (1998:4) it could be argued that educator-targeted bullying and disruptive learner behaviour is the same thing. Fontana (1995:354) defines disruptive behaviour as “behaviour that proves unacceptable to the teacher”. Educator-targeted bullying can include the following: }

• Persistent, intentional, vigorous abuse of the educator.
• Swearing and/or mocking the educator.
• Knowingly ignoring the educator.
• Making personal comments about the educator.
• Damaging the educator’s property.

 Learners who indulge in educator-targeted bullying aim to undermine the educator’s confidence. In a study on educator-targeted bullying in Free State schools it was found that 24.85% of the respondents were physically abused by their learners, 33.44% were the victims of indirect verbal bullying, and 18.1% were at one time or another sexually harassed by their learners. These bullying actions should be seen as infringements of educators’ human rights (RSA 1996, art. 9-12), and in contravention of the Guidelines for the consideration of governing bodies in adopting of a code of conduct for learners (RSA, 1998: 11, 14). The aforementioned guidelines list the bullying of learners as one of the learner offences that may lead to either suspension or expulsion. Although these guidelines do not mention educator-targeted bullying, it could be argued that the forbidding of this, could mutatis mutandis be made applicable to educator-targeted bullying.
 
Pervin and Turner (1998:7) have found that victims of educator-targeted bullying have lowered their expectations (in terms of behaviour, co-operation and academic output) of learners who bully them. They warn that this lowered expectation may rub off on other learners who happen to be in the same class as the bullies. As a result of lowered educator expectations, classes containing learners who carry out educator-targeted bullying are less likely to be exposed to a variety of teaching methods, thereby reducing the scope for educators to carry out interesting lessons. Educators are reluctant to tell their colleagues that they are the targets of learner bullies. Educators who suffer from educator-targeted bullying should therefore be supported with some kind of mentoring system by their colleagues and principals. There should be an awareness among all role players – educators, principals, parents, learners and the Department of Education – that educator-targeted bullying does, in fact, take place. By raising awareness, it will be possible to improve morale in schools and reduce educator-targeted bullying. In their anti-bullying policies, schools should include a section on educator-targeted bullying, which may help to solve the problem.
 
However, educators are not the only victims of bullying; some of them are the bullies.

5.   Opvoeders wat leerders viktimiseer

Elke kind het die reg om onderwys in ‘n veilige skoolmilieu te ontvang. Hoewel dit opvoeders se verantwoordelikheid is om dié reg van leerders in stand te hou, blyk dit dat sommige opvoeders direk verantwoordelik gehou kan word vir die skending van kinderregte. Terwyl seksuele wangedrag deur diegene in gesagsposisies nog altyd ten sterkste afgekeur is, is dit nie altyd die geval met ander vorme van verbale en fisieke bullebakkery nie. Die geringskatting van dié vorm van opvoederwangedrag blyk uit die feit dat min bewyse in die literatuur gevind kon word oor navorsing wat handel oor opvoeders wat leerders treiter. Yoon (2004:38), Smith (2004:98) asook Parada, Marsh en Craven (2003:8) wys kripties daarop dat opvoeders wel hulle leerders kan afknou. Die feit dat geen verwysing na navorsing oor dié tipe bullebakkery in ‘n Suid-Afrikaanse konteks gevind kon word nie, beteken nie dat die Suid-Afrikaanse onderwysowerhede die tipe opvoederwangedrag goedkeur nie. Volgens die Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Opvoeders se Gedragskode (SACE s.a.:2) moet opvoeders

• Gesag met empatie uitoefen;
• Enige vorm van vernedering vermy, en hulleself van enige fisieke en psigologiese misbruike weerhou; en
• Hulle van seksuele teistering, hetsy fisiek of emosioneel, van leerders weerhou.

 Indien voorafgaande met die voorbeelde van wat bullebakkery is, vergelyk word, is die ooreenkomste duidelik. Daar kan dus gekonkludeer word dat die Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Opvoeders bullebakkery deur opvoeders verbied.
 
Individue is dikwels die beste bron van inligting oor hulle eie gedrag, want hulle weet waarom hulle sekere dade gepleeg het. Tog blyk dit dat selfevaluering, veral met betrekking tot aggressiewe gedrag, onderworpe is aan verskeie vooroordele – soos byvoorbeeld om ‘n sosiaal aanvaarbare antwoord te gee (Pakaslahti & Kelikangas-Järvinen 2000:178). Dit is dus kommerwekkend dat 55.83% van die opvoeders wat aan die navorsingsprojek deelgeneem het, aangedui het dat hulle al leerders verbaal geviktimiseer het; 50.31% van die respondente het aangedui dat hulle al leerders te lyf gegaan het. ‘n Klein persentasie van dié opvoeders, naamlik 6.13%, het genoem dat hulle ten minste een keer per maand skuldig was aan dade van seksuele teistering.

Sommige opvoeders is nie net direk nie, maar ook indirek verantwoordelik vir die teistering van leerders. Opvoeders sien dikwels sensitiwiteit en die negatiewe houding wat sommige leerders teenoor bullebakkery toon, as negatiewe karaktereienskappe. Opvoeders wat onverdraagsaamheid teenoor leerderslagoffers van bullebakkery se onvermoë om hulle situasie self te besleg toon, is instrumenteel in die vestiging van ‘n geweldskultuur in skole. Eerder as om sensitiwiteit en die vermoë om jouself van gewelddadige teenoptrede te weerhou as positiewe karaktereienskappe te beskou, word dit as die optrede van ‘n swakkeling afgemaak. Dié houding dra eerstens daartoe by dat leerders onwillig is om opvoeders in hulle vertroue te neem as hulle slagoffers van bullebakkery is. Tweedens kan dit gesien word as ‘n bevestiging van die wanpersepsie dat bullebakkery ‘n integrale deel van die grootwordproses  is.

6.   Concluding remarks

From this lecture, it has become evident that while some Free State educators and learners are the witnesses of incidences of bullying, others are the victims and/or perpetrators of direct and indirect verbal, as well as emotional, physical and sexual bullying. In a twenty-first century climate of increasing concern for the rights of individuals and groups, be they due to race, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation, the right of the learner to be educated, but also the right of the educator to educate without suffering from victimisation is entrenched in the South African Bill of Rights. Every educator and learner in South Africa has the right to life, equal protection and benefit of the law, of dignity, as well as of freedom and security of the person (RSA, 1996: art. 9-12). These rights will only be realised in a bully-free school milieu.

Om bullebakkery teen te werk is ’n omvattende anti-bullebakprogram, kollektiewe verantwoordelikheid en die vestiging van ’n omgeekultuur by skole en in die gemeenskap noodsaaklik. Onderwysowerhede, wetstoepassers, onderwysersopleidingsinstellings, opvoeders, ouers en leerders – die slagoffer, die bullebak en die klas- en/of skoolmaats (stille meerderheid) – is die belangrikste rolspelers in die stryd teen bullebakkery is. Dié rolspelers moet betrek word om -

• ’n bewustheid te skep oor die aard en omvang van bullebakkery;
• portuurgroepverhoudinge te verbeter;
• tussenbeide te tree om intimidasie te voorkom;
• duidelike reëls te ontwikkel om bullebakkery te voorkom; en
• (mede-)leerders en opvoeders te ondersteun en te beskerm.

Bronnelys

Banks R 1997. What should parents and teachers know about bullying? http://www.focusas.com/Bullying.html.

DeHaan L 1997. Bullies. http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/ fs570w.htm.

Fontana D 1995. Psychology for teachers. Third edition. London: MacMillan Press.

Limper R 1998. The only way to combat bullying is cooperation between all those involved in school. http://ericcass.uncg.edu/virtuallib/bullying/1013.html

Olweus D 1994. Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Pakaslahti L & Kelikangas-Järvinen L 2000. Comparing of peer, teacher and self-assessments on adolescent direct and indirect aggression. Educational Psychology, 20(2):177-190.

Parada  RH, Marsh HW & Craven R  2003. The beyond bullying program: an innovative program empowering teachers to counteract bullying in schools. Paper presented at NZARE AARE, Auckland, New Zealand, November 2003.

Pervin K & Turner A 1998. A study of bullying of teachers by pupils in an Inner London school. Pastoral Care, December: 4-10.

Rigby K 1999. Bullying in schools and what to do about it. Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research.

Roland E 2002. Bulling, depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts. Educational Research, 44(1):55-67.

Republic of South Africa (RSA) 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act 108 of 1996. Available url.: http://www.polity.prg.za/html/govdocs/constitution/saconst.html?rebookmark+1.

RSA (Republic of South Africa) 1998. Guidelines for the consideration of governing bodies in adopting of a code of conduct for learners. Government Gazette 776, 15 May. Pretoria: Government Printer.

SACE (South African Council for Educators) s.a. Code of Conduct of the South African Council of Educators.  http://www.sace.org.za/Sace/code-ethics.jsp.

Smith PK 2004. Bullying: recent developments. Child and adolescent mental health, 9(3):98-103.

Squelch JM 2000. Discipline. Pretoria: CELP.

Yoon JS 2004. Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(1):37-45.

Zeelie DG 2002. Bully proofing your school – policy and programme formulation. In Gauteng Department of Education. Proceedings of the Third Educationally Speaking Conference. Warmbaths, May 2002. Johannesburg: Gauteng Department of Education.

 

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