Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
27 November 2023 Photo KALEIDOSCOPE
Prof Francis Petersen
Prof Francis Petersen, Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of the Free State.

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


The 16 Days of Activism Against Women and Child Abuse campaign has over the years raised valuable awareness around the pervasive scourge of gender-based violence that continues to plague our country in general – and our institutions of higher learning in particular. But, as with any campaign around an issue of such importance, it is vital that awareness evolves into real action. And in the higher education sphere, there is much that universities can do to make a real difference, says Prof Francis Petersen.

South Africa’s levels of violence against the more vulnerable sectors of our society remain alarming. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) recently expressed grave concern over the latest crime statistics released by the South African Police Service. It revealed that more than three children and twelve women were murdered daily in South Africa over a 90-day period between October and December last year – while another 21 434 women and children suffered attempted murder or grievous bodily harm.

Such staggering levels of abuse can simply never be accepted as the norm. On our university campuses in particular, the rate of gender-based violence remains unacceptably high. As university authorities, it is essential that we never lose the impetus to combat this, and that we keep on dedicating resources, time, perspectives, skills, and insights to help bring about real change. 

Creating safe spaces 

It starts by ensuring that our campuses constitute physically safe spaces for our students – with all the necessary security measures in place to ensure a living and learning environment free from risk or fear. Here, special attention should be paid to ensuring safety at on-campus and off-campus accommodation, and while commuting to and from them. Policies around gender-based violence need to be developed and regularly reviewed, and the necessary support structures should be established and empowered – not only to provide aftercare, but also to work towards prevention. Universities should treat all incidents of gender-based violence in a serious light, consistently responding with swift and thorough investigations and appropriate disciplinary action. The ultimate aim is to create environments where all students and staff feel secure and respected, regardless of their gender and sexual orientation.

But our campuses should also be intellectually safe spaces, where students feel free to speak out about issues that concern them, and where archaic ideas around masculinity can be exposed, challenged, and contested without fear of humiliation or retribution. Platforms for discourse and discussion need to be deliberately created for this, with the university leadership setting the tone by speaking out against issues that work against a culture of social justice on our campuses.

Creating a safe, caring environment for our students includes listening to them, responding in an appropriate and timely way, and working with them towards co-creating real workable solutions. An important part of this is to include students in university governance structures, where they can actively influence policy and decision making around issues that affect them.

Changing harmful gender stereotypes

As centres for innovation, research, dissemination, and application of knowledge, it is essential that universities use their society-focused role to speak out against harmful gender stereotypes and outdated perceptions around gender roles. In the process, we play an important part in influencing a new generation of leaders and helping to reshape societal norms and expectations.  Our curricula should include a comprehensive focus on principles of gender parity, incorporating GBV awareness and prevention – which is why curriculum renewal remains so important. And why curricular and co-curricular programmes should all be underscored by a value system of equity, care, and social justice. 

As microcosms of what an ideal society should look like, it is of course equally essential that this equity is reflected in universities’ own human resources policies, staff complements, and hiring procedures. 

Mental health support

Universities are ideally placed to provide professional mental health support to victims of abuse – many of whom would otherwise not have easy access to it.  This support extends to cultivating assertiveness and resilience in our students. Through individual therapy, as well as the various self-awareness programmes offered on our campuses, we empower potential victims to realise their own worth. It also equips them with knowledge on how to avoid an abusive situation, and how to act when they find themselves in it. 

Combating economic abuse 

Economic abuse is a manifestation of gender-based violence that is too often overlooked. This silent and insidious form of abuse traps women in a cycle of dependency and can prevent them from pursuing employment prospects and attaining personal growth. Education remains one of the most potent weapons in the fight against economic abuse. But it needs to go even further than that. As hubs of research and critical thinking, universities should use their resources towards understanding the dynamics of economic abuse – its prevalence, consequences, and the most effective interventions to address it. As part of our society-focused role, we should also use our knowledge and skills to provide counselling, legal aid, and economic advice. 

Harnessing technology to fight abuse

The digital sphere has become a critical battleground in the fight against gender-based violence. Not only does it provide access to online platforms where survivors of gender-based violence can speak out, share experiences, and create a support network – it also enables counsellors and caregivers to reach victims who would otherwise not be able to make use of their services.

On top of that, online platforms offer a safe and discreet way for survivors to report incidents and access legal and other aid. Part of our teaching and learning as well as our community engagement functions as universities is to educate our staff and students and also the wider community about these possibilities, equipping them with digital competencies, and helping to facilitate access to online resources.

Driving a collaborative approach

I believe it is abundantly clear that institutions of higher learning have an important and meaningful role to play in the fight against gender-based violence on a variety of fronts. It is a role we should embrace, develop, and refine with growing determination. What is equally clear is that it is a fight we cannot win on our own. A collaborative approach by higher education, the private and business sector, and government is needed – to reinforce anti-abuse discourse from various angles and to escalate it into real, sustainable, and effective action.

Creating a culture of responsibility 

This much remains clear: The responsibility of preventing gender-based violence lies not only with the potential victims, but with every member of society. Universities should establish clear and mandatory reporting protocols for staff and students who witness or are aware of instances of abuse. But even more important – create a culture of responsibility, where information sharing, support, and assistance are a natural outflow of a caring, cohesive institution. 

Establishing such united university communities, based on equity, inclusivity, and social justice, is the only way we can hope to eradicate gender-based violence from our campuses – and in turn, from our society as a whole. 

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