Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
16 July 2021 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Supplied
According to Prof Gerhard Bosman (bottom left), the biggest advantage of the COIL exchange for Architecture students was their cultural and online collaboration development while addressing urban diversity, multiplicity, and complexity in the built environment. During an online engagement between academics, were from the left: Prof Mark DeBoer and Prof Chiara De Santi; and bottom, right: Prof Carlo Citter.

In South Africa, student exchange programmes – especially at undergraduate level – remain extremely limited. The national Policy Framework for Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Africa, however, makes internationalisation of the curriculum mandatory and directs that it ‘must not negate curriculum transformation imperatives which higher education institutions in South Africa have an obligation to fulfil'.

The University of the Free State (UFS), through its Office for International Affairs, coordinates the iKudu project, which seeks to transform curricula through internationalisation and virtual exchanges. iKudu, a Capacity Building for Higher Education (CBHE) project, is funded by the European Union’s Erasmus+ programme with EUR999 881 (approximately R20 million) and is implemented over a three-year period. Partner universities in the project are the South African Central University of Technology, Durban University of Technology, University of Limpopo, and University of Venda, with the University of Antwerp, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Coventry University, and the University of Siena the European partners in the project.

The dream

According to Cornelius Hagenmeier, Director of the UFS Office for International Affairs, at least 50 academics and 5 250 students from South Africa and Europe will participate in the project through the collaborative online international learning (COIL) exchange model. Academics are receiving training on accredited courses in a virtual setting where the classrooms (each located in a different country or cultural setting) of two or more higher education institutions are linked, working with colleagues from partner universities to implement COIL virtual exchanges for the benefit of their students. 

He says: “Students with different cultural and geographical perspectives and experiences have the opportunity to learn from each other through cross-cultural dialogue, bringing a global dimension to the course content. Apart from developing the intercultural competence, technological skills, and the ability to work in groups, students also enhance their employability.”

Another major advantage of this model is that it gives effect to the South African Policy Framework by contributing to internationalisation at home through purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal curriculum. 

Hagenmeier believes that, besides a transformed curriculum at all partner universities, this process will also influence policy development at national and regional level.  

The opportunity

BArchHons students from the History of Urban Settlement module in the UFS Department of Architecture are but one example of a group of students who benefited from the exchange programme. UFS associate professor and researcher in Earth Architecture, Prof Gerhard Bosman, collaborated with academics from Italy, Japan, and the USA to engage with 85 students across four continents. 

From the University of Siena, Italy, Prof Carlo Citter, an associate professor in Medieval Archaeology, participated in the programme. He was joined by Prof Mark deBoer, a lecturer from the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programme at the Akita University in Japan, and Prof Chiara De Santi, an assistant professor of Modern Languages, teaching film and cultural courses in English and Italian at the Farmingdale State College in the USA.

Prof Bosman says the COIL exchange programme, which started on 12 April 2021, was executed in three parts. He shares his account of the nine-week journey: “After students introduced themselves on Padlet, they were divided into twelve teams to collaborate in groups of seven to eight students (while creating a digital presence on Google Drive) to discuss, explore, and reflect on the urban environment and the portrayal of society during war/the aftermath of a war as depicted in a selected main steam film. Six weeks later, the groups had to submit final video and slide presentations on these topics. In the last part of the exchange programme – where students benefited from the perspectives of academics in four different cultures – a group and individual assessment reflecting the course discipline of the four student groups had to be accommodated. 

Overcoming challenges

The process unfortunately also had its challenges. Due to the time difference at most of the institutions, students found it difficult to meet. They also had to overcome the language differences, since not all students at the four institutions were English first-language speakers. However, the use of Google Meet (an online tool) with its English caption function helped individuals to follow the text from English voices.

As academics and students worked through the challenges, Prof Bosman confirmed that the COIL exchange programme has significant advantages. He states that the biggest advantage of the COIL exchange for Architecture students was their cultural and online collaboration development while addressing urban diversity, multiplicity, and complexity in the built environment. 

A follow-up COIL exchange between the four new partner universities in 2022 is well underway in the development and planning phases.

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered
2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.  

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply.  What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations.  You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?) 

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

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