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

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

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