Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Social Cohesion on University Campuses is a Continuous Journey

06 June 2022 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small

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

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

Back

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