Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
18 November 2020 | Story Eugene Seegers
Prof Daniel Green - Guest speaker at UICSJ webinar
Prof Daniel Green is the guest speaker at the UICSJ webinar.

Signs, symbolism, and statues at universities often recall colonial and apartheid legacies. In South Africa – since students at the University of Cape Town marched to topple a statue of Cecil John Rhodes – a so-called ‘Fallist Movement’ emerged that aims to decolonise universities. In 2020, catalysed by the death of George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter Movement has emerged, with a strong emphasis on removing symbols and practices that perpetuate segregationist legacies and harms of slavery, apartheid, and colonialism. Fallist and Black Lives Matter protests are against injustice and for dignity, equality, freedom, peace, and justice in society. As with other South African and global universities, the University of the Free State is a site of slow, complicated, and often conflict-ridden struggles for transformation. 

The Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice (UICSJ) will be hosting a webinar with the theme (Re)moving, (Re)naming, (Re)forming, and (Re)presenting: Towards Dignity, Care, and Social Cohesion in Higher Education, on 24 November 2020.

This webinar will ask pluriversal questions with the aim of restoring dignity within new, dense notions of communities that are capable of the kinds of care that grant dignity and worth to all. In particular, this virtual conference will speak to experiences and struggles related to changing how spaces, symbols, artefacts and other oppressive accoutrements endure at universities, conveying meanings, narratives, and cultures that must be overcome. The webinar will (re)centre critical and creative voices. Local and international participants will present multiple dimensions on the struggles involving naming and renaming, as well as the removal, recontextualisation, or replacement of statues and memorabilia, within a broader effort towards social justice.  

What the webinar seeks to address

  1. How do we address signs, symbolism, and statues in public spaces that misrepresent or degrade an individual/group with a view to restoring (collective) dignity?
  2. How do we address signs, symbolism, and statues that memorialise/celebrate people or representations of history that are controversial?
  3. How do we deal with the strong emotive/affective aspects of history and heritage, culture, and the loss thereof, in a way that enhances dignity and justice?
  4. What are the best processes for reconstructing public spaces and who should be involved in broad-based consultations?

Speakers and panel experts

Speaker: Prof Daniel Green (University of Wisconsin-La Crosse)

For an interesting background, please feel free to access and watch Prof Green’s YouTube video titled Racism and Native American Statuary, which you can find at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k70-xc811Po.

Panellists:

Facilitated by Dr Dionne van Reenen (Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, UFS).

 

Hosted by: The Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State

24 November 2020 at 16:00 (CAT; UTC + 02:00)

Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to RSVP
Learn More | Meeting options
Enquiries to: SizepheXK@ufs.ac.za

 

Format of webinar

  • Facilitators and speakers sign on at 15:45; participants to join.
  • Dr Dionne van Reenen (from the Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice) opens the session and introduces the guest speaker and panellists (five minutes).
  • Prof Green presents (for 20 minutes).
  • The four panel members respond to the theme for five minutes each (for a total of 20 minutes) in the following order: Dr Tumubweinee, Prof Legêne, Mr Magume, Prof Steyn.
  • Facilitated questions and comments will be fielded from the live chat (about 30 minutes).
  • Closure at 17:20.

A student gazes up at the statue of President MT Steyn during the Vryfees
held on the UFS Bloemfontein Campus in 2014, during which this and other
statues on campus and in the city were wrapped in plastic.
Photo: Image sourced from Cigdem Aydemir (Plastic Histories)

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.

 

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