Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
01 October 2021 | Story Xolisa Mnukwa

The silence of universities, collectively and individually, regarding the July events (the political turmoil that disrupted different regions in South Africa in July 2021) was noticeable, as well as inexplicable and distressing. 

This was according to Prof Saleem Badat, Research Professor in the College of Humanities at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and former vice-chancellor at Rhodes University, during a webinar hosted by the University of the Free State (UFS).  

The webinar: The impact of political influences on university governance structures, was held on 22 September 2021, with Prof Badat; Prof Francis Petersen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS; Prof Hermann Giliomee, internationally renowned historian; Prof Chitja Twala, Vice-Dean: Faculty of the Humanities at the UFS; and Prof Thulisi Madonsela, Law Trust Chair in Social Justice and a Law professor at Stellenbosch University, as panellists. 

SABC anchor and prominent South African journalist, Vuyo Mvoko, who facilitated the webinar, opened engagement among the esteemed panel by posing the question – how can university communities collectively solve the challenges facing South Africa today?

University governance structures must address and mediate political influences in principled, creative, and strategic ways

“I hope that there is honest and critical reflection on this by individual universities and Universities South Africa (USAf),” said Prof Badat on the silence of universities regarding the July events. He further argued that a ‘renewed focus’ on the responsibilities of universities in society is important. 

He explained this by unpacking the roles of universities in society and how they are shaped by the structural and conjunctural conditions within which they exist and operate. Prof Badat encouraged those roles – institutionally and through scholarship, learning, and community engagement – to intersect effectively with contemporary and long-term economic, social, and political challenges faced by universities at global level. 

You are a participant in South African society before you are a staff member or student

Prof Twala responded to the topic by saying: “In order to understand a university’s governance, student politics, and activism, it’s also important to historicise the impact and political influence that governmental structures in South Africa continue to have on higher education institutions.” 

He unpacked his argument by highlighting the importance of engaged scholarship within universities when the South African society is threatened by occurrences such as the riots that took place in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng in July as a result of political failures in government. 

“If there are social ills and problems at community level, you cannot divorce yourself from such, because they have an impact at your place of work or learning,” he explained. 

Prof Twala further highlighted the provision of higher education in SA as political, and that universities should move according to the ideological times and changes experienced across the country to understand what governance within higher education spaces should look like.

Prof Petersen reflected on the role of higher education institutions as catalysts for social change and the collective responsibility they have in solving the key challenges of poverty, inequality, unemployment, and violence in societies.
According to Prof Petersen, the crucial role that universities need to fulfil is often impacted by political influence exerted on university governing structures. “Therefore, student governing structures, in particular, are often vulnerable to political pressure that results in different tensions and challenges in the higher education system,” stated Prof Petersen. 

Complexities regarding language policy in university governance at a time of political transition
Prof Giliomee reflected on the complexities regarding language policy in university governance at a time of political transition, by unpacking the negotiations among higher education institutions regarding the implementation of a new language constitution in South Africa – and the absence of pertinent proposals from universities concerning their future role and functioning in society. 

Prof Giliomee argued that universities, separately or collectively, did not try to promote understanding of how the new South African state could meet the demands for higher education in a multilingual society. While enjoying the highest prestige, English was not in effect the optimal medium of instruction for the country.

The involvement of government in university governance is necessary and inevitable

Prof Madonsela, who is also the founder of the Thuma Foundation – an independent democracy leadership and literacy public benefit organisation – and a widely published author, discussed the role of the South African government in mandating leadership, governance, and protocol from a national level so that higher education institutions can follow suit. 

“Government is a custodian of the constitution,” Prof Madonsela stated before explaining the principles that should oversee government’s involvement in university leadership structures.  

She modelled the eight (8) standards of good governance as identified by the United Nations, being participation; rule of law; transparency; responsiveness; equality and inclusivity; consensus orientation; effectiveness and efficiency; and accountability, as a sounding board for the South African government itself, through to university management structures – prevailing through the basis of South Africa’s own constitution. 

Prof Madonsela further underlined the importance of ethics in the overall society that South Africa is building as a nation, by discussing the necessity of understanding democratic value, social justice, and fundamental human rights – not only within university governance and governmental structures, but also within the population.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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