Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
24 February 2025 Photo Supplied
Siyanda Magayana
Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, 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.

The recent executive order by US President Donald Trump to defund and dismantle Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives is more than just a bureaucratic shift. It is a declaration of whose lives matter and whose do not. Removing DEI initiatives and policies, notably, those that centre on marginalised groups, racial minorities, and LGBTQI+ individuals does not erase their struggles and existence in our society. Instead, it exposes the entrenched unwillingness of power structures to validate and acknowledge these realities. The fact that some leaders feel they can simply ‘tick off’ or ‘untick’ human rights and social justice efforts from policy reveals just how expendable these communities are perceived to be.

We need to be clear, erasure at a systemic level does not translate to actual erasure. Marginalised people such as women, queer individuals, black and brown individuals, disabled people will continue to exist, resist, and demand their space, regardless of this order. The removal of systemic and/or institutional recognition and support does not make discrimination disappear. Instead, it amplifies their oppression by stripping away their right to exist, and legal protections that have been fought for, for decades. We cannot have one person deciding to erase the fight of numerous people in just a matter of weeks.

These policies and initiatives were primarily designed to address systemic inequalities and create spaces where historically marginalised groups could thrive. These initiatives of redress were not just for the benefit of the marginalised only, they were for everyone. Therefore, the dismantling of these initiatives will perpetuate and recreate unjust and unequal environments for all.

What is the impact for the Global South?

It is almost tempting to think that the dismantling of DEI initiatives in the US is an isolated issue with no direct impact on our realities in the Global South. However, that assumption is both naïve and dangerous. The ripple effects of regressive policies and initiatives in powerful nations often influences global attitudes, social narratives, and funding. The move by the US devalues global perceptions and the importance of having DEI initiatives in, and for other governments; and there is a possibility of these institutions disregarding and/or following suit in their own countries.

For black and other racially marginalised communities in the Global South, particularly in Africa, this is alarming. It needs us to ask the question, if major global powerful entities dismantle such initiatives and no longer prioritise DEI, what does it mean for marginalised groups and identities within our countries and communities? It reinforces the idea that the oppression of certain groups is not a crisis, but a norm. In the same way, it weakens the push for LGBTQI+ rights, gender equality and racial justice, which are already met with precarious conditions in many countries due to their colonial legacies, systematic inequalities, and conservative cultural norms.

Impact on the diversity of women

The dismantling of DEI policies and initiatives does not only, unfortunately, impact non-normative or those identifying outside of heteronormativity or the gender binary. It also disproportionately affects women, especially those who face intersecting forms of discrimination. For instance, for black women who are already navigating the dual burden of racism and sexism; the dismantling of DEI programmes translates to fewer systemic protections against workplace discrimination, less access to leadership roles, and diminished support for reproductive justice. This extends to women of all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds; no woman is exempt from this decision.

This is even more damaging for non-binary, and trans identities as it reinforces rigid gender norms that limit their autonomy, agency, and expression. It further signals a broader societal regression that undermines the existence and rights of these groups, as well as the progress made towards gender equality and sexual freedom for all.

Men, too, of all races, identities, and backgrounds are affected by the dismantling of DEI initiatives. For instance, black men are already subjected to systemic racism, and as a result of this they are vulnerable to losing economic opportunities and educational equity benefits as initiatives set up to address systemic inequalities. Similarly, the systems that deny trans rights enforce toxic masculinity, thus punishing and discriminating against anyone who deviates from heteropatriarchal and narrow gender norms. As such, white men, for instance, who identify outside of the gender binary and heteronormativity are equally going to be affected.

While it may appear that the dismantling of DEI policy exclusively affects trans individuals and those that identify outside of the gender binary, their removal sets a dangerous precedence for everyone, including cisgender men and women. The erasure of non-normative identities and systems that affirm and acknowledge them are not just about gender identity, but more about controlling how gender is expressed, who gets to belong, and who is deemed worthy of rights and dignity.

“Discrimination Does Not Know Your Postal Address”: Discrimination Against One is Discrimination Against All"

Prejudice can and does affect anyone, anywhere – therefore, it is a dangerous myth that we can selectively uphold human rights. That we can, for instance, advocate for black liberation while turning a blind eye to the struggles of queer, trans and other marginalised groups. That we can rightfully fight for gender equality while remaining silent when non-normative and gender diverse populations’ rights are erased. And similarly, that we can advocate for diversity but only when it is convenient, comfortable, and easy to digest.

It is high time we realise that discrimination is never just directed at a single group, but rather, it is about the broader systems of power we exist in that decide who gets to exist fully and who does not. If these initiatives and support for gender diversity and other minority groups are removed from policy and other critical institutions, then tomorrow, it could be you or any other entity that seemingly no longer fits within the acceptable limits of the norm and/ binary.

The erasure of DEI frameworks and rights of gender diverse persons in the US is not a problem isolated from ours as a collective, it is ours, too. It serves as a warning sign that marginalisation and discrimination is becoming more acceptable, normalised, and institutionalised.

Click to view documentClick here to see other Institutional experts.

News Archive

Migration is a developmental issue - experts
2010-06-01

Pictured from the left, front, are: D. Juma, Mr Williams and Prof. Hussein Solomon (University of Pretoria); back: Prof. Bekker, Prof. Lucius Botes (Dean: Faculty of the Humanities, UFS) and Dr Wa Kabwe-Segatti.
Photo: Stephen Collett


“Migration offers more opportunities for economic growth than constraints. It is an integral part of the processes of globalisation and regional integration.”

This was a view shared by one of the speakers, Dr Monica Juma from the Africa Institute of South Africa, during a panel discussion hosted by the Centre for Africa Studies (CAS) at the University of the Free State (UFS) last week as part of the celebrations of Africa Day on 25 May 2010.

The discussion was premised on the theme, Migration and Africa: From Analysis to Action.

Dr Juma said migrants could be assets for host countries or cities because of their resourcefulness. She said they brought along essential skills that could contribute immensely to the economic development of their host countries or cities.

“Governments are beginning to see migration as a tool for development and working together in developing immigration policies,” concurred another speaker, Mr Vincent Williams from the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA).

He said, if managed properly, migration could yield positive results. He said effective management of migration should start at local and provincial levels.
And for this to happen, he said, the current immigration laws should be amended as he felt they were no longer relevant, because they were based on what countries wanted to achieve in the past.

“Reform national immigration legislation to encourage permanent settlement and improve service delivery mechanisms and bureaucracy to match population movements,” Dr Aurelia Kazadi Wa Kabwe-Segatti, from the Forced Migration Studies Programme at the University of the Witwatersrand recommended.

However, Mr Williams pointed out that policy convergence was a difficult thing to achieve as migration was a politically sensitive issue. He said decisions that countries made on migration could have a negative or a positive bearing on their relations with one another.

Dr Juma also raised the issue of unskilled migrants which, she said, could be a burden to governments. This was reflected in the current South African situation where foreigners offered cheap labour and thus rendered South Africans who demanded higher salaries unemployable. This was a contributory factor to the xenophobic attacks of 2008. What was essentially a labour problem then manifested itself as a migration problem.

Prof. Simon Bekker from the University of Stellenbosch said South Africa was still losing a significant number of skilled professionals to Europe and North America due to an assumption that spatial mobility led to social or economic mobility.

He also suggested that the government should not restrict internal migration but should address the problem of migration across the borders into South Africa.

Senior Professor at the CAS, Prof. Kwandiwe Kondlo, said while the discussion covered a broad scope, there were some gaps that still needed to be filled in order for an all-inclusive view to prevail. One such gap, he said, was to also accord indigenous traditional institutions of governance space in such deliberations and not base discussions on this issue only on the Western way of thinking.

Africa Day is the day on which Africa observes the creation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) on 25 May 1963, to promote the unity and solidarity of African states and act as a collective voice for the African continent; to secure Africa’s long-term economic and political future; and to rid the continent of all remaining forms of colonialism. The OAU was formally replaced by the African Union in July 2002.

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt@ufs.ac.za  
1 June 2010
 

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