Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
06 June 2022 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Francis Petersen
Prof Francis Petersen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Prof Francis Petersen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.
It is our harsh South African reality that racially charged incidents, such as the recent incident at Stellenbosch University, can happen at any institution at any time. Disheartening as they may be, they should not detract us from the very real journey towards true transformation and social cohesion that is taking place on South African campuses of higher education.

Along with all the various forms of change and transformation that different sectors in our country have undergone over the past few decades, there has also been a definite shift in the role of public universities. It has evolved from an almost exclusive focus on academics to a more society-focused role. An undeniable and very important part of universities’ mandate in modern-day South Africa is to make a positive difference in the communities we serve. This inevitably includes embracing transformation, inclusivity, and diversity. In short: universities must be microcosms of the kind of community that we want to see in the broader South African context.

Transformation in higher learning 

Since 1994, all university campuses have in one way or another implemented well-designed transformation processes and social cohesion programmes – reflected in their institutional culture, physical environment, and the Academic Project. What we should always bear in mind, though, is that transformation in its very essence can never be a complete process. It can never simply mean changing from one thing into something else, but it is rather an ever-continuing process that requires incessant focus and a resolute acceptance that you will never really arrive at a final destination. What this implies for universities is that – true to our nature – we should always challenge the status quo, question conventional wisdom, always wrestle with complex issues, and never settle. Only by doing this will we achieve perpetual renewal, which is what true transformation boils down to.

Over the years, there has been an important shift at traditionally white universities that runs much deeper than just a superficial change in numbers and racial composition. Black South Africans at these institutions have reached a critical mass, which means they can now more freely express their convictions about their individual lived experiences, and in the process assist in shaping the institutional culture in ways that recognise diversity. And often, certain events can act as triggers for them to express these lived experiences as a collective.

Trigger events that cause us to pause and reflect

In the past, transformation efforts at universities were centred around attempts to absorb, assimilate, and homogenise individuals into the dominant culture, instead of institutions shaping their institutional culture to adapt to their changing student population. The latter approach is far more effective and organic, requiring institutions to not only recognise and embrace diversification, but also to respond and adapt to it. Undesirable incidents or phenomena, whether in the form of acts of racism, gender-based violence, bullying, or any form of othering or intolerance then become triggers that should make us pause and reflect on where we are in our journey towards transformation, and whether we need to adapt in any area or in any way.  

I want to differ from observers who feel that the Stellenbosch urinating incident is not worth spending any time or discussion on. I believe it is vital that we understand these ‘triggers’, because it is in the process of grappling with it as a university society – in those sometimes-uncomfortable conversations that challenge us on so many levels – that true transformation occurs.  

Former trigger events at the UFS

A distressing trigger event in our own university’s history was in 2016, when white rugby spectators attacked a group of black protestors at the UFS. What made this particularly painful was that it happened almost a decade after the notorious Reitz video incident, when a racially offensive, humiliating student video made in response to the university’s residence integration policies at the time, surfaced. The Shimla Park incident was an immense disillusionment for the university leadership, as it flew in the face of the great strides made towards social cohesion in the preceding eight years. It was a stark reminder that transformation will always be a ‘moving towards’, as opposed to an ‘arrival at’. True transformation is a process that requires a constant listening to diverse student and staff voices from all angles, an unrelenting focus on visible leadership, constant interaction with the diverse groups that make up a campus community, which is then consistently translated into action and institutional reform. 

It also requires a continuous creation of spaces where students and staff can express themselves without fear. It is vital that platforms are created in different parts of an institution where diverse voices can be heard. And it is equally vital that we listen to these voices, and that intensive discourse be followed up with real action, ultimately shaping the institutional culture. It requires that we use these painful trigger events as moments to pause and reflect on our transformation journey. What is imperative, is that the entire institution should be involved in this reflection process – not only the policy drafters or those who specifically deal with social cohesion. 
 
Youth Month – an opportunity to assess involvement

Youth Month gives us the opportunity to consider just how well we are listening to the voices of young South Africans – specifically in our higher education sector. We need the youth to speak out, and to take up the positions that institutions of learning have created for student representation in their leadership structures as an important part of the transformation process. We also need them to respond in a very circumspect and mature way to the trigger events that challenge our transformational journey. They should expose and denounce them in no uncertain terms, but guard against triggering similar actions in the process, which will only lead to further polarisation and discord. Instead, they should treat trigger events as opportunities to pause and reflect on how they can become part of the journey towards solutions.

Trigger events don’t define individuals or institutions

There are numerous challenges facing universities countrywide: racism, gender-based violence, xenophobia, mental health challenges, intolerance, and many more. Try as we might, we cannot always prevent these challenges from ‘breaching our defences’.  And when they do, we need to draw on all sectors of our university community to come to terms with it as an institution and devise a strategy going forward. It is in this process that we make progress on our journey towards true social cohesion.

I recently came across this very apt description relating to mental health – which is one of those issues we need to continuously and openly address on our campuses:  

“Mental health problems don’t define who you are. They are something you experience. You walk in the rain and you feel the rain, but you are not the rain.” 

In the same way, trigger events that happen in our university spaces are issues that we have to deal with, talk about, address, and learn from. They are part of our students’ lived experience and should therefore shape our institutional journeys. But they do not define, limit, or reflect who and what we are. Or what we may become. 

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