Latest News Archive

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

A Culture of Acceptance Could Be Our Country’s Greatest Threat

06 March 2023 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small

Opinion article by Prof Francis Petersen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.

Amid the various threats currently faced by our beleaguered country, there is one that many people seem oblivious to – but which has the potential to speedily and decisively send us over the precipice: civil society’s attitude of accepting rampant corruption, crime, and economic degradation as if it is something inevitable and unavoidable. This current culture needs to be urgently exposed and addressed. And higher education institutions have a definite role to play in preventing its destructive potential, says Prof Francis Petersen.

References to a ‘culture of acceptance’ most often conjure up a positive connotation – especially in our South African context with its unfortunate history of ‘non-acceptance’, prejudice, and discrimination. The term usually refers to an attitude of embracing a diversity of views, backgrounds, and opinions, and accommodating differences along political, cultural, gender, and religious lines. But there is a new, much more ominous ‘culture of acceptance’ taking root in our society: that of adopting an attitude of indifference and even complacency when it comes to those phenomena that are eroding our future prospects as a nation.

Challenges to our state

There can be little disagreement about the general state of decay we are currently experiencing in our various structures of governance on nearly all levels. This includes government departments that are not functioning properly, as well as state-owned enterprises such as Eskom, SAA, Prasa, and Transnet, which are either crumbling away or have virtually collapsed. Some of these structures have been systematically eroded through corruption, inefficiency, and cadre deployment over a sustained period of time. On top of that, we have escalating crime, ranging in manifestation from gender-based violence to mafia-style organised crime syndicates that are infiltrating and effectively paralysing some of our most important sectors, such as the construction, mining, and agriculture industries. All of these contribute to a sagging economy, preventing the economic growth that our country so desperately needs in order to move forward. South Africa’s recent greylisting by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as a result of insufficient mechanisms to monitor and combat money laundering and terrorist financing activities, further compounds an already dire situation, as it places severe strain on our financial services sector and negatively affects our ability to attract investment. Last minute efforts to amend legislation and prevent greylisting were evidently insufficient and much too late. Our current disconcerting national financial status is clearly the result of not only poor government performance, but also a totally deficient policy environment – the combined effect of which serves as a definite deterrent to investors.

Indifferent response of civil society creating inflated risk

What is also a growing cause for concern though, is civil society’s prevailing response to these calamities. One of the things that the COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated, is how quickly society can adapt to a ‘new normal’. Things that were altogether unthinkable and outside the frame of reference for most – such as a national lockdown, social distancing, and mandatory public mask wearing – quickly became acceptable and commonplace after it was introduced. Regrettably, the same trend is visible when it comes to our response to the government’s non-performance, rampant crime, and economic pressures that we are currently experiencing. The difference is that there is no greater common good that should make us summarily accept the current status quo. We get frustrated and angry when we hear that products cannot get to ports or markets; we shake our heads when we hear about yet another corruption scandal or another murder; we get irritated when power blackouts increase. But instead of speaking out or voicing our concerns in some constructive way, we tend to quickly and quietly find individual ways of working around obstacles such as load-shedding schedules, rather opting for making alternative arrangements and putting up with all the ramifications caused.

While on some level it is admirable that ordinary South Africans are showing resilience and innovation and increasingly choosing to do things for themselves amid government failures, it is, however, also indicative of an alarming downgrading of our societal values. Things that would create a public uproar in a developed state, and almost automatically lead to picketing and a widely publicised calling to book of the responsible office holders, seem to hardly get a second glance in our battle-weary South African society. We have lowered the bar of what is seen as acceptable. And from there, it can be an alarmingly fast downhill slope to becoming a truly failed state. The fact that government often goes the route of not responding to public objection, should add fuel to the fire of outcries and protests. But unfortunately, it often has the opposite effect, where government silence is met with public silence and a growing sense of national resignation.

What needs to be done

The question is: has our current situation created a society that has simply accepted its fate? Or has it created a society that has become more innovative and creative, actively navigating current challenges, and finding new solutions to societal issues independent of government? And what should be our reaction to the challenges we currently face?

As with many things, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. While it is vital that ordinary South Africans and the private sector find ways of working around government shortcomings, it is just as important that they remain vocal, pointing out government failures and questioning the conduct and decisions of our elected leaders. Public reaction should, however, not stay with objections alone, but evolve into physical action. There should also be a willingness to work with struggling government institutions and incorporate other role players in order to find real solutions together. As a responsible citizenry, simply being quiet and complacent is our worst option.

Role of higher education sector

As vital vehicles in the shaping of our next generation of citizens, universities and other higher education institutions have an important role to play in the current government versus civil society impasse. I believe this role is twofold: on the one hand, we need to educate and encourage young citizens to stand up and make their voices heard against injustice and non-delivery in the public sector. On the other hand, we are also cultivating a next generation of leaders. While they are gracing our campuses, we need to contribute towards instilling ethical values in our leaders of tomorrow and equipping them with a vision that is much broader than just individual needs and wants, but that encompasses the needs of our society as a whole. Our education efforts should always have this all-important developmental focus, where graduate attributes such as critical thinking, community engagement, ethical reasoning, and an entrepreneurial spirit are nurtured and employed in order to build a better country. We should also impress on our youth the importance of forming partnerships and collaborating with various role players from different areas of expertise and sectors of society to work together to reach this common goal.

How do we do this?

I believe an important and obvious basic building block that institutions of higher learning are already providing – and should increasingly be enabled to do – is the creation and expansion of competency through teaching, research, and engagement. By equipping our students with knowledge and skills, we empower them to play an active role in taking our country forward. This should be complemented by social justice competencies, where curricular and co-curricular programmes and activities are used to grow a sense of social justice in our leaders and citizens of tomorrow. These social justice initiatives should also be coupled with the creation of robust platforms for dialogue on topical issues of national interest, where government voices are invited, incorporated, and challenged, but in a constructive, mutually respectful context. Universities should finally also employ their research capacities in various fields to come up with real, practical, and sustainable solutions to societal issues, presenting government with new, innovative, and effective ways of addressing our current national dilemmas.

It is vital that our leaders – and followers – of tomorrow are sensitised to an important fact: as much as South Africa needs competent, ethical leadership, it also needs an alert, active, involved citizenry to keep those leaders in check. Because a government that is dysfunctional and a society that simply accepts it, makes for a very dangerous combination.

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