Latest News Archive

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

Human rights this and that … whose perspective matters?

13 March 2024 Photo Sonia Small

Opinion article by Prof Sethulego Matebesi, Associate Professor and Academic Head of Department of Sociology, University of the Free State.

There was a time when weekly news coverage of South Africa was dominated by various forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance incidents that painted a grim picture of respect for human rights.

However, in the history of contemporary South Africa there has been plenty of optimism about the prospect of deepening the understanding of human rights in order to entrench a human rights culture among citizens. This optimism is underscored by a range of deliberate actions by the South African government to promote, protect, and monitor the development and observance of human rights through, for example, the South African Human Rights Commission and the Commission for Gender Equality.

Yet, while these institutions – and many other policy instruments to ensure compliance – are central to creating an environment conducive to advancing rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, citizens also hold significant responsibility to prevent the escalation of discrimination and racial tension. But many of us face an uncomfortable truth we have become accustomed to avoiding: the ability to show unusual restraint in the face of injustice.

The challenge of combating practices that glorify intolerance

Beyond formal political rights, human rights also entail the progressive realisation of the right to the structural social determinants of well-being, such as access to clean water, food, and a healthy environment. However, while the process of social change in South Africa has many unique attributes, the response to the process reflects two extremes.

There are, on the one hand, those who cultivate an image as defenders of the rights of the ‘oppressed’ and are predominantly black activists, and on the other hand, anti-transformation forces who stall the move of the country towards a more inclusive and egalitarian future and are primarily white activists. These activists, whether advancing the reclamation of rights, perpetuate legacies of the past instead of asserting a positive commitment to eradicating socially constructed barriers to equality.

These activists are found everywhere. They are part of our education, religious, political, and social establishments. Reflecting on the painful past of the country, these activists do not help foster diversity as an ethos but advance the conscious and unconscious practices of structural racism. Aided by hyper-personalised social media feeds, these activists can stretch the boundaries of logic and destabilise fragile and established democratic and human rights.

The problem, they claim, is that those who embrace diversity and want to find amicable solutions to longstanding social injustices are either advocates of white supremacy or want to abrogate their right to freedom of expression. In such cases, when people in a hate frenzy find something to hate together, they become bonded. And anything contrary to their beliefs goes into an echo chamber of mockery.

I do not want to establish a potentially trivialising affinity with branding activists who assert their rights as an attack on human rights. But attention is drawn to instances where noble objectives to confront the tentacles of human rights abuses have been weaponised against what is perceived as ‘the other.’

But how can we navigate this fundamental societal defect? Collective agency to advance the ethos of human rights

After three decades of democracy, attempts to eliminate systematic and institutionalised under-privilege must be welcomed. Likewise, our response to the perceived threats to efforts to enhance diversity as an ethos in public institutions and society matters. In many instances, when subjugated to hatred, hostility, or even violence, there is a tendency to believe that the best approach to such an absurd situation is more absurdity. At its most benign, such a response is not helpful to efforts to embrace diversity. At its weirdest, it garners public sympathy for hate groups and activists.

While there have been concerted efforts internationally and nationally for the progressive realisation of social rights and efforts to strengthen democratic resilience and rights-respecting societies, South Africans have been passing the buck. Rights-respecting citizens have a choice to make. They can continue to pass the buck or help build a culture where everyone achieves their potential and develops into responsible citizens.

I am convinced that beyond formal politics, the attainment of respect for cultural diversity and professing the freedom, equality, and unity of all peoples are contingent upon our collective activism and shared commitments to these values. This collective approach – although some may view it as illusory – is, in fact, our most potent weapon. Reinforcing its commitment strengthens our collective agency and resolve to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

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