Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
27 June 2022 | Story Sivuyisiwe Magayana | Photo Supplied
Sivuyisiwe Magayana
Sivuyisiwe Magayana is the Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office in the Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State (UFS).

Opinion article by Sivuyisiwe Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State.
South Africa is one of the most progressive countries in advancing the rights of sexual and gender minorities in Africa, and its Constitution is the first in the world to prohibit unfair discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation . But even though South Africa's Constitution guarantees all citizens' rights, many factors still conspire to make transgender and gender-diverse persons particularly vulnerable to life-threatening marginalisation, oppression, violence, and exclusion. Some of these factors include access to education, socioeconomic status, health status, stigma, housing, and discrimination. Because of these and many other factors, the delicate topic of how South African communities and institutions of higher learning treat sexual and gender minorities, particularly the transgender community, is one area that still demands considerable attention. Transgender and gender-diverse students continue to be marginalised, neglected, mistreated, harassed, and silenced because of their gender identity; as a result, universities must develop policies and tactics to combat transphobia and transcend the gender binary.

A spiral of exclusion and marginalisation of trans and gender-diverse students in institutions of higher education

University communities around the world have seen an increase in the number of persons who identify as transgender, gender-diverse and non-binary. As a result they have experienced equally increased enrolment of trans and gender-diverse students. However, it appears that universities are not comprehensively ready to meet the needs of trans and gender-diverse students. While universities acknowledge trans and gender-diverse people, they do so in ways that sustain societal beliefs of underlying gender distinctions and heterosexuality. South African institutions are largely heteronormative, resulting in an institutional setting that is not prepared to meet the needs of transgender and gender-diverse people. Institutions continue to operate under the premise of catering to cisgendered individuals, subjecting those who deviate from this to institutional and social alienation and discrimination. Institutions are fixated on societal distinctions between men and women, which are a primary source of social categorisation and, as a result, feed differentiation and inequality in everyday cultural practice and processes. The binary categorisation excludes transgender and gender-diverse people. Not only is this categorisation hostile, but it also silences and erases the above-mentioned individuals.

As a result, trans and gender-diverse persons experience multiple forms of marginalisation, exclusion, and discrimination in institutions of higher learning, including being denied access to or questioned within campus housing and facilities, harassment, bullying, and alienation – because of their gender identity and expression. Moreover, trans students are faced with being exposed to university systems that lack knowledge about trans persons and issues altogether, including challenges with their forms, such as applications that do not recognise and cater for students that identify outside of the gender binary. Exclusion and marginalisation are also evident in the lack of gender-inclusive residences and facilities, which demonstrates resistance and slow progress towards inclusivity. As a result, some trans students are subjected to aggressive treatment in residences because of a life they did not choose. For instance, trans students who identify as transmen must be placed in women's residences because their official documents still reflect that they are female; similarly, transwomen are placed in male residences. This placement system exposes them to bullying, harassment, and violence from other students who do not “feel at ease” or “safe” among transgender people – because they do not understand the concept of “transitioning”. 

Also, in cases where students must share a room, cisgender female students are paired with transmen in female residences, and when the former expresses any discomfort or feelings of unsafety, the transgender or gender-diverse is more likely to be removed and placed in another residence; it is never the other way around. For people who identify as transgender or gender-diverse, this requires an ongoing negotiation of space. 

Trans persons are evidently caught in a spiral of exclusion and marginalisation, as they are often rejected – not just by their families, but also by the system and by the very institutions that are supposed to equally advance and cater for everyone, regardless of their gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. 

The violence experienced by trans persons and strategy of invisibility within and outside of universities.

Despite South Africa's constitutional and legislative provisions against discrimination based on gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation, transgender people continue to be violated and become victims of transphobic violence and discrimination. These acts are motivated by society's preconceived notions of what a trans person's gender identity should and should not be. For example, our communities and our institutions of higher learning currently represent a stern heterosexual matrix in which a hegemonic social order posits that all persons should and/or must have a set gender and sexual identity.

This creates a scenario in which those who present gender diversity are perceived to be foreign, “responsible for the collapse of African traditional values” or “un-African”, and are shamed and become victims of violence because they are “not God’s creation”. Many in our society believe that being transgender is a violation of “God's natural order and creation”, which then exposes people outside the gender binary to varying forms and levels of physical, verbal, and emotional violence. These forms of violence impact and trample on their human rights and dignity, self-esteem, and academic progress. As a result, universities lose these students to other institutions that they perceive to be better, more inviting, transformed, and inclusive.

For their safety and wellbeing, trans persons hide and remain invisible to avoid violence, bullying, and discrimination. They do this because society and institutions want them to exist in silence so that the “natural” order of existence in their communities and institutions is not disrupted. As a result, their use of invisibility protects them from humiliation, bullying, transphobia, and general exclusion from social activities that other people enjoy regardless of gender identification.

Way(s) forward
Universities are a direct reflection of our societies. Transphobia attacks, harassment, and discrimination are on the rise in communities across South Africa, and students are more likely to imitate these behaviours that replicate where they come from. As a result, it is past time for institutions to develop safe spaces for everyone, especially gender minorities. Universities should lead the charge for change, but they remain some of the most unaltered and unsafe spaces for people who identify differently. Universities continue to explicitly fight other societal ills such as racism and gender imbalance, but there is still a long way to go in the fight against homophobia and transphobia. Therefore, universities must strengthen their efforts to combat homophobic and transphobic prejudice, discrimination, and violence through policy formation and reformation, advocacy, and awareness campaigns denouncing such treatment.

Additionally, higher education institutions are strongly gendered spaces; they are physically and symbolically divided along gender lines, and remain weaved in the normalised construction of a gender binary. Universities must abandon a binary perspective, adopt and execute gender-inclusive policies, and provide gender-inclusive facilities and housing. They must encourage equality for all, rather than viewing institutions of learning through a gender binary perspective.

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

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