Latest News Archive

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

Tackling transphobia in institutions of higher learning and moving away from the gender binary

27 June 2022 | Story Sivuyisiwe Magayana | Photo Supplied

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

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