Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
07 February 2023 | Story Siyanda Magayana | Photo Supplied
Sivuyisiwe Magayana
Siyanda 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 Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State.
Historically, the terms ‘head boy’ and ‘head girl’ originated in British boarding schools in the 19th century. They were positions that were often chosen from the senior class and given privileges and duties, such as serving on school governing bodies and serving as role models for other students. Other schools and institutions of higher education, including those in other countries such as South Africa, later copied this custom, and it is still practised today. Similarly, concepts such as ‘head boy’, ‘head girl’, ‘brotherhood’ and ‘sisterhood’ remain among the longest-standing traditions and practices used in schools and post-school institutions for leadership positions as well as selected groups for men and women. The numerous and diverse gender groupings that are now present in these institutions, however, are not served by this heritage. 

Currently, in schools and HEIs, there is a significant portion of the student body that is multi-faceted in terms of gender identity and expression; institutions are now experiencing a growing number of gender non-conforming, non-binary, and transgender students. One of the biggest concerns right now is whether South Africa’s schooling system and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are prepared to acknowledge this reality or not. Are they prepared to change their long-standing traditions and ‘language’ to also cater for sexual minority groups and/or gender-diverse groups that do not match the gender binary or the norm?

These are crucial questions to ask and address because of the difficulties these students are currently experiencing, such as a sense of isolation, bullying, discrimination, and lack of safety (due to their sexual orientation and gender identity).  Thus, these questions are imperative for our institutions to consider the established traditions of promoting participation by all, while valuing diversity and inclusivity. Given the shifting demographics of their student body, basic education and higher education institutions (HEIs) should work harder than ever to create inclusive environments for all students, regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation. Re-imagining diversity and inclusivity within schools and HEIs is important for all students – more importantly for historically underrepresented and marginalised populations.

For instance, when it comes to higher education institutions (HEIs), they reflect one of society's most complex and diversified groups. They serve as a symbol of an environment where diversity goes beyond ethnicity, colour, economic background, and gender, to name a few. HEIs host students from various walks of life; however, despite the obvious diversity within HEIs, there is still a lack of comprehensive acceptance of the complex and diverse nature of the current student body and how this necessitates changes to university practices, procedures, and traditions. 

Abolishing gender-binary concepts and terminologies for more inclusive ones

More recently, the ‘head boy and head girl’ concepts have come under fire; several students have become increasingly vocal in resisting binary thinking, traditions, and practices regarding gender identity and expression. Given the diverse nature of the student population, increased awareness and the complexities of gender identity and expression have given rise to questions regarding practices and traditions that (do not) promote gender inclusivity on campuses, such as the ‘head girl and head boy’ culture. 

Against this background, the long-standing tradition of using terminologies that only recognise the gender binary ought to be denounced, as it is discriminatory and exclusionary towards students who do not identify as either male or female for participation in leadership roles. These concepts exclude transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming students from participating and being equally recognised in these leadership roles because of their gender identity and expression. In addition, such terms are unfair in that they force trans, gender non-binary, and/or non-conforming persons to fit into a particular binary box to attain certain roles and accolades. Moreover, concepts and titles such as ‘head boy or head girl’ insinuate that gender is the primary reason to attain or occupy leadership positions – which should not be the case.

Given the above, traditions change over time, and institutions should follow suit. It is time for all educational institutions to embrace gender-neutral alternatives to old titles and customs in order to give all students an equal chance to engage in leadership roles. More inclusive terms could include concepts such as ‘head student’, ‘head prefect’ or ‘student leader’, and abandon practices of selection and leadership based solely on gender. This change is important, as it will reflect the true nature of diversity within our schools and campuses and reflect a growing recognition of the importance of creating a welcoming and accepting environment for all students, regardless of their gender identity and expression. Using gender inclusive language in institutions of learning affirms students whose identity is outside of the ‘societal norm’, creates a more inclusive environment for all students, demonstrates respect for all students, and ensures that all students are accurately represented. Overall, using gender-inclusive language is a crucial aspect of creating a welcoming and inclusive university environment for all students.

Institutions of learning, such as basic education and higher learning institutions, must therefore renounce practices, language, and traditions that legitimise and serve only the gender binary – that is, man and woman – in favour of diversity and inclusivity, which acknowledges various gender identities and sexual orientations. Equally important is the creation of gender terminologies and concepts out of respect for the uniqueness and validity of each student’s self-perception and identity. Having only practices and traditions that recognise someone, for instance, based on their biological sex, creates a very unsafe and unwelcoming environment for persons who do not conform to social norms regarding gender expression, presentation, or identity. Abolishing gendered titles is one way to challenge and disrupt traditional gender norms and to help create a more equal and inclusive society for all.

Why is it important for institutions of higher learning to adopt gender-inclusive language and terminology?
Universities ought to move away from thinking along the lines of the gender binary. It is important for institutions of higher learning to adopt gender-inclusive campus traditions and ‘language’, because the use of binary gender-specific titles and campus traditions is very limiting and exclusionary as it does not reflect the diversity of gender identities and expressions.  Gender-binary processes and ‘language’ lead to a sense of exclusion for persons who identify as either gender non-conforming or transgender and/or gender-diverse – who generally do not identify as male or female. By changing the concepts, ‘language’ used, and campus culture to be more inclusive and reflective of the diversity of gender identities, universities can create a more welcoming and supportive environment for all students, regardless of their gender. 

Additionally, this transformation can also help to raise awareness of gender and sexuality issues and encourage students to think more critically about traditional gender roles and expectations. Overall, changing binary gender-specific titles to be more inclusive is a step towards creating a more equitable and inclusive society where all individuals are valued and respected, regardless of their gender identity. This helps to break down gender stereotypes, promote equality, and foster a sense of belonging for all students, regardless of their gender. Furthermore, it sends a message that all students are valued and respected, and that the university is committed to creating an inclusive environment for all.

This can foster a greater sense of belonging and empowerment among students and can also help to break down gender-based stereotypes and discrimination. Additionally, gender-neutral language and titles can help to create a more equitable playing field for students, regardless of their gender. This can promote leadership opportunities for all students, regardless of their gender identity, and help to create a more diverse and representative student body.

News Archive

Media: Sunday Times
2006-05-20

Sunday Times, 4 June 2006

True leadership may mean admitting disunity
 

In this edited extract from the inaugural King Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State, Professor Njabulo S Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa

RECENT events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994.

When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things.

There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.

There is an impression that a very complex society has developed, in the last few years, a rather simple, centralised governance mechanism in the hope that delivery can be better and more quickly driven. The complexity of governance then gets located within a single structure of authority rather than in the devolved structures envisaged in the Constitution, which should interact with one another continuously, and in response to their specific settings, to achieve defined goals. Collapse in a single structure of authority, because there is no robust backup, can be catastrophic.

The autonomy of devolved structures presents itself as an impediment only when visionary cohesion collapses. Where such cohesion is strong, the impediment is only illusory, particularly when it encourages healthy competition, for example, among the provinces, or where a province develops a character that is not necessarily autonomous politically but rather distinctive and a special source of regional pride. Such competition brings vibrancy to the country. It does not necessarily challenge the centre.

Devolved autonomy is vital in the interests of sustainable governance. The failure of various structures to actualise their constitutionally defined roles should not be attributed to the failure of the prescribed governance mechanism. It is too early to say that what we have has not worked. The only viable corrective will be in our ability to be robust in identifying the problems and dealing with them concertedly.

We have never had social cohesion in South Africa — certainly not since the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. What we definitely have had over the decades is a mobilising vision. Could it be that the mobilising vision, mistaken for social cohesion, is cracking under the weight of the reality and extent of social reconstruction, and that the legitimate framework for debating these problems is collapsing? If that is so, are we witnessing a cumulative failure of leadership?

I am making a descriptive rather than an evaluative inquiry. I do not believe that there is any single entity to be blamed. It is simply that we may be a country in search of another line of approach. What will it be?

I would like to suggest two avenues of approach — an inclusive model and a counter-intuitive model of leadership.

In an inclusive approach, leadership is exercised not only by those who have been put in some position of power to steer an organisation or institution. Leadership is what all of us do when we express, sincerely, our deepest feelings and thoughts; when we do our work, whatever it is, with passion and integrity.

Counter-intuitive leadership lies in the ability of leaders to read a problematic situation, assess probable outcomes and then recognise that those outcomes will only compound the problem. Genuine leadership, in this sense, requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. That’s what happened when we avoided a civil war and ended up with an “unexpected” democracy.

Right now, we may very well hear desperate calls for unity, when the counter-intuitive imperative would be to acknowledge disunity. A declaration of unity where it manifestly does not appear to exist will fail to reassure.

Many within the “broad alliance” might have the view that the mobilising vision of old may have transformed into a strategy of executive steering with a disposition towards an expectation of compliance. No matter how compelling the reasons for that tendency, it may be seen as part of a cumulative process in which popular notions of democratic governance are apparently undermined and devalued; and where public uncertainty in the midst of seeming crisis induces fear which could freeze public thinking at a time when more voices ought to be heard.

Could it be that part of the problem is that we are unable to deal with the notion of opposition? We are horrified that any of us could be seen to have become “the opposition”. The word has been demonised. In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelmingly dominant political force as is currently the case. Such is the course of history. The measure of the maturity of the current political environment will be in how it can create conditions that anticipate that moment rather than seek to prevent it. We see here once more the essential creativity of the counter-intuitive imperative.

This is the formidable challenge of a popular post-apartheid political movement. Can it conceptually anticipate a future when it is no longer overwhelmingly in control, in the form in which it is currently, and resist, counter-intuitively, the temptation to prevent such an eventuality? Successfully resisting such an option would enable its current vision and its ultimate legacy to our country to manifest in different articulations, which then contend for social influence. In this way, the vision never really dies; it simply evolves into higher, more complex forms of itself. Consider the metaphor of flying ants replicating the ant community by establishing new ones.

We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have “comrades on the other side”.

Any political movement that imagines itself as a perpetual entity should look at the compelling evidence of history. Few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day.

I believe we may have reached a moment not fundamentally different from the sobering, yet uplifting and vision-making, nation-building realities that led to Kempton Park in the early ’90s. The difference between then and now is that the black majority is not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994. Could we apply to ourselves the same degree of inventiveness and rigorous negotiation we displayed leading up to the adoption or our Constitution?

This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.

In the total scheme of things, the outcome could be as disastrous as it could be formative and uplifting, setting in place the conditions for a true renaissance that could be sustained for generations to come.

Ndebele is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and author of the novel The Cry of Winnie Mandela

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