Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Months
January February March May April June July August September October
Previous Archive
15 August 2025 | Story Tshepo Tsotetsi
Business Acumen Day
The UFS School of Accountancy recently hosted its third annual Business Acumen Day and Panel Discussion, featuring former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, Prof Deon Rossouw, Rochelle Murugan, and Prof Bernard Agulhas.

The University of the Free State’s (UFS) School of Accountancy in the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences hosted its third annual Business Acumen Day and Panel Discussion on 12 August 2025, placing ethics, integrity, and public trust firmly under the spotlight.

Sponsored by audit, accounting and consulting firm Forvis Mazars South Africa, the day opened with a student-centred engagement in the Callie Human Centre, followed by a dynamic panel discussion with staff and stakeholders at the Centenary Complex. Both sessions tackled the theme ‘Restoring Public Trust: Ethical Leadership in an Era of Public Accountability’.

The panel featured former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, whose decades in judicial service include leading the State Capture Commission; Prof Deon Rossouw, an internationally recognised authority on business ethics and corporate governance; and Rochelle Murugan, Head of Audit at Forvis Mazars South Africa and a leader in diversity and inclusion. The discussion was facilitated by Prof Bernard Agulhas, former CEO of the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors and an influential figure in global standard-setting and corporate governance.

According to Prof Frans Prinsloo, Director of the School of Accountancy, the event’s timing was deliberate: “Given the erosion of public confidence in leadership and the ongoing reports of corruption and abuse of power, it is crucial to address ethical leadership and public trust head-on. Our profession has a responsibility to lead conversations that promote integrity, accountability, and responsible leadership. These events give our profession and students the opportunity to hear directly from leaders who have shaped the national dialogue on these issues.”

 

Building a culture of ethics

Earlier in the day, Justice Zondo spoke directly to students who are preparing for careers in accounting and auditing, emphasising the importance of integrity in sustaining the profession’s credibility. “Your job is a very important job, and ethical behaviour is the only way your profession is going to continue to be respected. You must never let your profession down. Remember, your integrity is priceless,” he said. He also identified features of ethical leadership – integrity, fairness, humility, accountability, and courage – as non-negotiables for those entering the profession.

In the panel discussion, Murugan stressed that “the tone at the top plays a massive role” in shaping ethical cultures. She said leaders have a responsibility to create environments where ethical leadership and accountability are built into performance measures and reward systems. “Speaking up should be something we expect, respect, and protect,” she said, adding that embedding ethical policies into daily processes ensures they become a natural part of everyday work.

Prof Rossouw built on this point, noting that ethical tone must extend beyond the top levels of leadership. “We often find that the tone at the top does not filter down through the rest of the organisation. We need the same commitment to ethics across all employees,” he said, adding that an ethical culture requires clear standards, open discussions about ethics, and accountability. “If you do the wrong thing, there must be consequences. Equally, if you do the right thing, there should be recognition for the role you play,” he said, explaining that this approach allows employees at all levels to see themselves as active participants in an organisation’s ethical life.

 

Ethics in action: From Parliament to the public

Justice Zondo contributed a legal and governance perspective, drawing on an example from his time overseeing parliamentary processes. He recounted how, during a motion of no confidence in then-president Jacob Zuma, members of the ruling party were instructed to vote against the motion or risk losing their parliamentary seats. “This illustrates how individuals sometimes compromise their ethics out of fear for their positions,” he said. “In the public sector, the system can work against ethics when decisions are taken in the interest of the organisation rather than the people it serves. This undermines the fight against corruption.”

He also outlined three ways citizens can play a role in strengthening public accountability: avoiding the election of leaders with histories of wrongdoing; remaining active and vocal in holding public representatives accountable; and supporting or joining organisations that fight corruption. “Remember, people in Parliament work for you, not the other way around,” he told the audience.

Prof Rossouw offered a conceptual distinction between ethics and values, clarifying that, although the two are related, they are not identical. “Ethics is about doing good unto others as you expect them to do unto you. Values, on the other hand, are our priorities or convictions about what is important – but not all values are ethical. Ethical values are those that guide how we treat other people and interact with them,” he explained, describing ethics as a subset of an organisation’s broader values.

Underscoring why this conversation matters for the profession and the country, Prof Prinsloo noted: “Accounting and auditing are cornerstones of public accountability. Ethical leadership ensures these functions are performed with integrity and transparency. In South Africa, where there have been significant breaches of trust, the intersection of these three elements is vital. Ethical accounting and auditing practices, guided by strong ethical leadership, are essential for ensuring that public resources are managed responsibly and that those in positions of power are held accountable. In the School of Accountancy, we aim to equip our students with the skills and ethical grounding to navigate these complexities and uphold the highest standards of public accountability.”

Hosting thought leaders such as Justice Zondo and Prof Rossouw, he added, is both “a privilege” and a signal of intent: “By providing a platform for these important conversations, we signal to our students, alumni, and the broader community that we are serious about shaping ethical leaders and promoting a culture of accountability.”

The third annual Business Acumen Day and Panel Discussion continues the School of Accountancy’s commitment to convening rigorous, topical dialogue across auditing, governance, sustainability, and ethics – a commitment Prof Prinsloo says will endure: “We will continue to host conversations that challenge conventional thinking, bring together diverse voices, and provide students and practitioners with tools to strengthen ethical cultures in their organisations.”

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

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