Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
12 May 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Francis Petersen.

In a rapidly changing, uncertain and complex world, the role that universities are playing as the engines of social mobility, as drivers of the economy and as generators of new ideas, is now more critical than ever.  Due to the universal nature of knowledge, universities are global in scope – a space that encourages new ideas, controversy, inquiry, and argument and challenges orthodox views, but they are also deeply entrenched in their local environment, influenced by socio-economic and political dynamics.  There is an expectation that universities should exhibit great levels of responsiveness and public accountability, with higher levels of trust in higher education, and between higher education and government, and higher education and the public.  The challenge for both higher education and government is to allow institutional autonomy without oppressive accountability.  

Over the past few years, the purpose of universities has been challenged in relation to their role in society, their advocacy for speaking truth to power, their continuous strive to be great universities without being elitist, and their ability to function in an age of populism. The Trump administration and, more recently, Brexit have demonstrated that there is a decline in the respect for evidence and advice from subject-specific experts.  It seems (as in the case of the Trump administration) as if empirical reality does not matter, nor does empirical reasoning form the basis of public policy – a political place that is becoming increasingly anti-intellectual.  Emotion and personal belief have been shown to carry more weight than objective facts and evidence in terms of influencing public opinion.  Fake news and ‘the alternative truth’ have also challenged the fundamental principles of a university – academic freedom and the generation of new knowledge in the pursuit of truth.

A digitally unequal society
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown deep fault lines in our society – stark poverty and inequality – that universities should engage with (and they do); however, they cannot eliminate it on their own, but can be part of the solution.  South Africa is the most unequal society in the world.  Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African economy was already in deep trouble, with sovereign downgrades by all the rating agencies and with an unemployment rate close to 30%.   The national lockdown, in an attempt to ‘flatten the infection curve’ and hence manage the response of the national health system to COVID-19 cases, has added to the pressure on the economy.  It is envisaged that a large number of people (estimated between 3 and 7 million South Africans) will lose their jobs after the national lockdown period, adding to poverty and an already high unemployment rate.  Even during the lockdown period, there are many South Africans living in crowded spaces, hence finding it difficult to practise social distancing, may not have running water and proper sanitation, and possibly do not have regular access to food.  

As schools and the post-school education and training sectors move online with their learning, it further shows how digitally unequal our society really is – access to connectivity, data, and an appropriate digital device is a challenge, and electricity is not evenly distributed or is non-existent in our society.  These institutions, within the environment of digital inequality, are ensuring that digital equity is maintained as far as possible.  Many churches, business leaders, and certain politicians have called for a different social pact between business, labour, and government to address the state of the economy – any such action, however, must be supplemented by concrete measures for social reform.

Regaining trust in universities
But perhaps this pandemic has also created an opportunity for science and evidence to regain credibility in informing government decisions and public trust, and for universities to demonstrate respect for evidence. During the initial stages (early March) of COVID-19 in South Africa, the epidemiologists and virologists have shown through confirmed data from the National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) that South Africa was in the early phase of the infection curve – also interpreted to be the relatively low-risk phase of the curve; this would be the right time to apply the principle of social distancing.  It allowed certain organisations (such as universities) to pro-actively suspend part of their activities so as to minimise the number of people in their operational environment, well before the national lockdown was announced on 26 March – a decision based on science.

Through data and proper analyses, the NICD, other scientific bodies and the Ministerial Advisory Committee on COVID-19 provided evidence-based information to government and the public, from which meaningful decisions could be taken.  The South African government has made it perfectly clear that decisions around COVID-19 will be made based on the science associated with this pandemic – a stance to be applauded.  Hence, the risk-adjusted approach of ‘opening up’ the economy through easing the lockdown measures but constantly monitoring the infection curve is an excellent example of risk management while continuously assessing the risks.

Universities, science laboratories, and pharmaceutical companies around the globe are hard at work to develop an effective vaccine for COVID-19, which is another opportunity to demonstrate how science can assist in protecting people from this terrible virus. Universities are making advances in personal protective equipment (PPE), the development of new technologies for non-ICU provision of oxygen to COVID-19 patients, more advanced methods of testing (for the virus) to reduce turnaround times, and various other scientific studies.  

This platform is giving universities a renewed impetus to use science and scientific developments to advance societal agendas such as climate change, poverty and inequality, public health and social justice (ethics of care) – and more immediate – assisting in re-building a strong South African economy.  It is an opportunity for the public and politicians to regain trust in universities, but it is also an opportunity for universities to profile their public intellectuals so that the value of science and evidence-based output is part of policy debates and informed decision-making.  However, in doing so, universities must strengthen their relationship with society at large, be inquiry-driven, and at the same time be learning and co-creating.

Prof Francis Petersen is Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.

News Archive

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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