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
30 November 2021 | Story Dr Claire Westman | Photo Supplied
 Dr Claire Westman is a Postdoctoral Researcher at The Free State Centre for Human Rights, University of the Free State (UFS)
The 25th of November marked the beginning of 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence (GBV), in South Africa and the world. This is a global, annual campaign that began on November 25 as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and runs until 10 December, International Human Rights Day. In South Africa this campaign is referred to as 16 Days of Activism for No Violence Against Women and Children. The theme for this year’s campaign is “The Year of Charlotte Mannya Maxeke – 16 Days of Activism – Moving from awareness to accountability”. 

According to the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa (2021), “The campaign aims to raise awareness of the negative impact that violence and abuse have on women and children and to rid society of abuse permanently.” It suggests that GBV “continues to cripple our society, depriving women and children of their right to be safe and continue with their daily lives without fear of being murdered or raped, if not both”. The 16 Days of Activism campaign thus calls on South Africans to be aware of GBV, call out those who commit such violence, and no longer protect those (primarily men) who benefit from the abuse and subordination of women and children. While GBV includes various forms of violence, such as emotional, psychological and physical, a pervasive form of such violence is sexual violence. 

Sexual violence continues to increase unabated

In contrast to the campaign’s calls for an end to violence against women, South Africa’s most recent crime statistics reveal that instead of decreasing, sexual violence continues to increase unabated. These statistics show that during the three-month period of 1 July to 30 September 2021, nearly 10 000 people (primarily women) were raped, and of a sample of 6 144 of these cases, 3 951 were committed in the victims’ homes. According to these statistics, there has been a 7.1% increase in the number of rapes committed during this period compared to the previous reporting period. It is well-known, however, that the number of rapes and incidences of GBV that are reported are only a fraction of those that take place. This prevalence of sexual violence has also been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. As an example of this, the South African Police Service (SAPS) received over 2 300 calls during the first week of South Africa’s strict lockdown, alone, related to GBV, and between March and June of 2020, 21 women and children had been killed by intimate partners in South Africa.

While the government has implemented some measures to address issues around sexual and GBV, clearly not enough is being done to deal with the endemic levels of violence against women. Pumla Gqola (2015: 3) refers to the constant threat of violence women in South Africa experience as the ‘female fear factory’. She argues that sexual violence is used to police women’s behaviour in an attempt to ensure that they adhere to the hetero-patriarchal norms that pervade the nation. Within this hetero-patriarchal logic the gains women have made socially, economically, and legally are seen as a threat to the patriarchal foundation and the power it affords men. Consequently, Gqola (2015: 15) asserts that “it is no coincidence that South African women, who, on paper are so empowered and have won so many freedoms, are living with the constant fear of violence”. She further adds that “an effective backlash always does much more than neutralise gains, though, it reverses the gains we see everywhere and it reminds those who might benefit from such gains that they are not quite free”. In other words, sexual and gender-based violence are seen as effective means through which to keep women in positions of subordination and maintain the patriarchal status quo.

So, while it is vital that government create measures that punish perpetrators, and allow for women to leave abusive settings, it is also imperative that the discourse around sexual violence be addressed. Toxic discourse is often used as a means to justify violence, and in patriarchal societies, it is often this kind of discourse that positions women as inferior to men, and women as unworthy of respect. Rape myths and rape culture underlie much of the discourse that allows for rape to be as prevalent as it is in South Africa. Lankster (2019) claims that “these myths include that females are to be blamed for their own rape, that victims ‘ask for it’, and that victims enjoy being raped”. Similarly, much discourse perpetuates the notion that women cannot be raped by their husbands. That is, because they are married, the man is entitled to sex, and therefore, any sex within the marriage is consensual. Clearly then the endemic nature of sexual violence stems from the socio-symbolic positionings of men and women within hetero-patriarchal cultures and their corresponding discourses and ideologies. If sexual violence is to be effectively addressed, then these pervasive and toxic notions need to be challenged and dismantled. 

Discourse around sexual violence ignores the perpetrators 

Additionally, most of the discourse around sexual violence focuses on the victims / survivors, while ignoring the perpetrators of the violence. The burden is placed on women to avoid situations that might be dangerous, leave abusive relationships, and “break the silence” (Gqola, 2015: 15) around sexual violence. The responsibility for preventing and combating sexual violence is thus removed from men, who are the primary perpetrators, and women are impelled to ‘protect themselves’ from these seemingly abstract figures who commit such violence. As such, a shift to a discourse that places the onus on men to call out other men, reflect on their own attitudes and behaviours towards women and to actively work to put an end to sexual violence needs to occur. President Cyril Ramaphosa (2021), asserted that “this year’s 16 Days of Activism campaign aims to shift from awareness to accountability and create an environment for men to play a greater role in GBV prevention.” However, while the government impels the members of the nation to move towards accountability, the government itself perhaps needs to take heed of its own advice. 

As recently as the 16 November 2021, Icosa leader, Jeffrey Donson, a man convicted of rape, was elected to the position of mayor within the Kannaland Municipality. This was done with the support of the ANC. After outcries around Donson being elected mayor, the ANC has now claimed it will “review its decision to form a coalition with Icosa”, however, this has not led to Donson’s removal from the mayoral post or seemingly led to much concern from the government as to how such a person is eligible for this position to begin with. The government claims it is against sexual and GBV, and urges us to hold men accountable, and yet, they have endorsed the placement of a man charged with rape into a powerful governmental position (something that is not altogether unfamiliar with many positions of authority in South Africa). 

Greater accountability is needed from the government

In order to address GBV, greater accountability is needed from the government, along with a much stronger stance on gender-based and sexual violence. As Gqola (2015: 15) so succinctly states, we need “to pressure the government to create a criminal justice system that works to bring the possibility of justice to rape survivors” – a government that holds itself accountable, a justice system that holds rapists accountable, and a society that holds itself and the men within it accountable. 

Overall, while the 16 Days of Activism campaign has admirable intentions (and is used by many rights organisations and NGOs as a means through which to actively create awareness and address violence), one wonders whether this campaign is merely used by the government as a form of political lip service, a way to make it seem as though they care about GBV, when in reality little is being done to combat the war on women’s bodies and the effects this violence has on women’s lived realities, as well as the ways in which violence impacts upon women’s abilities to effectively participate and thrive in the democratic nation.

 

News Archive

Position statement: Recent reporting in newspapers
2014-10-03

 

You may have read reports in two Afrikaans newspapers, regarding recent events at the University of the Free State (UFS). Sadly, those reports are inaccurate, one-sided, exaggerated and based not on facts, but on rumour, gossip and unusually personal attacks on members of the university management.

Anyone who spends 10 minutes on our Bloemfontein Campus would wonder what the so-called ‘crisis’ is about.

We are left with no choice other than to consider legal action, as well as the intervention of the South African Press Ombudsman, among other steps, to protect the good name of the institution and the reputation of its staff. No journalist has the right to launch personal and damaging attacks on a university and its personnel, whatever his or her motives, without being fair and factual. In this respect, the newspapers have a case to answer.

But here are the facts in relation to the reports:

  1. No staff member, whether junior or senior, is ever suspended without hard evidence in hand. Such actions are rare, and when done, are preceded by careful reviews of our Human Resource Policies, labour legislation and both internal and external legal advice. Then, and only then, is a suspension affected. A suspension, moreover, does not mean you are guilty and is a precautionary action to allow for the disciplinary investigation and process to be conducted, especially where there is a serious case to answer.
  2. At no stage was the Registrar instructed to leave the university; this is patently false and yet reported as fact. We specifically responded to the media that the Registrar does outstanding work for the university and that it is our intention for him to remain as our Registrar through the end of his contract in 2016.
  3. The Rector does not make decisions by himself. Senior persons, from the position of Dean, upwards, are appointed by statutory and other senior committees of the university and finally approved by Council. No rector can override the decision of a senior committee, and this has not happened at the UFS even in cases where the Rector serves as Chair of that committee. The impression of heavy-handed management at the top insults all our committee structures, including the Institutional Forum – the widest and most inclusive of stakeholder bodies at a university – which reports directly to Council on fairness and compliance of selection processes.
  4. In the case of senior appointments, Council makes the final decision. Council fully supports the actions taken on senior appointments, including a recent senior suspension. The fact that one Council member resigns just before the end of his term, whatever the real reason for this action, does not deter from the fact that the full Council in its last sitting approved the major staffing decisions brought before it. The image therefore that the two newspapers try to create of great turmoil and distress at the university, is completely unfounded.

Even if we wanted to, the university obviously cannot provide details about staffing decisions, especially disciplinary actions in process, since the rights of individuals should be protected in terms of the Human Resource Policies and procedures of the UFS. But that does not give any newspaper the right to speculate or state as fact that which is based on rumour or gossip, or to slander senior personnel of the university. For these reasons, we have been forced to seek legal remedy and correction as a matter of urgency.

Make no mistake, underlying much of the criticism of the university has been a distress about transformation at the UFS; in particular, the perception is created that white colleagues are losing their jobs. The evidence points in the opposite direction. Our progress with equity has been slow and we lag far behind most of the former white universities; that is a fact. More than 90% of our professors are white; most of our senior appointments at professorial level and as heads of department are still overwhelmingly white. Reasonable South Africans would agree that our transformation still has a long way to go and only the mean-spirited would contend otherwise. But based on the two Afrikaans newspaper reports, an impression is left of the aggressive rooting out of white colleagues.

In the past few years the academic standard of the university has significantly improved. We now have the highest academic pass rates in years, in part because we raised the academic standards for admission four years ago. We now have the highest rate of research publications, and among the highest national publication rate of scholarly books, in the history of the UFS. We have one of the most stable financial situations of any university in South Africa, with a strong balance sheet and growing financial reserves way beyond what we had before. We now attract top professors from around the country and other parts of the world, and we have the highest number of rated researchers, through the National Research Foundation, than ever before. And after the constant turmoil of a number of years ago, we now have one of the most stable campuses in South Africa. Those are the facts.

The UFS is also regarded around the world as a university that has become a model of transformation and reconciliation in the student body. The elections of our Student Representative Council are only the most visible example of how far we have come in our leadership diversity. Not a week goes by in which other universities, nationally and abroad, do not come to Kovsies to consult with us on how they can learn from us and deepen their own transformations, especially among students.

Rather than focus on what more than one senior journalist, in reference to the article in Rapport of 21 September 2014, rightly called ‘a hatchet job’ on persons and the university, here are the objective findings of a recent survey of UFS stakeholders: 92% endorse our values; 77% agree with our transformation; 78% believe we are inclusive; and 78% applaud our overall reputation index.  Those are very different numbers from a few years ago when the institution was in crisis.

This is our commitment to all our stakeholders: we will continue our model of inclusive transformation which provides opportunities for study and for employment for all South Africans, including international students and colleagues. We remain committed to our parallel-medium instruction in which Afrikaans remains a language of instruction; we are in fact the only medical school in the country that offers dual education and training in both Afrikaans and English for our students - not only English. We provide bursaries and overseas study opportunities to all our students, irrespective of race. And our ‘future professors’ programme is richly diverse as we seek the academic stars of the future.

We are not perfect as a university management or community. Where we make mistakes, we acknowledge them and try to do better the next time round. But we remain steadfast in our goal of making the UFS a top world university in its academic ambitions and its human commitments.

END

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