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

UFS researcher selected as emerging voice
2016-11-03

Description: Andre Janse van Rensburg  Tags: Andre Janse van Rensburg

André Janse van Rensburg, researcher at the
Centre for Health Systems Research and Development
at the University of the Free State, will be spending
almost three weeks in Vancouver, Canada. He will be
attending the Emerging Voices for Global Health programme
and Global Symposium on Health Systems Research.
Photo: Jóhann Thormählen

His research on the implementation of the Integrated School Health Programme (ISHP) in rural South Africa led to André Janse van Rensburg being selected to become part of the Emerging Voices for Global Health (EV4GH) group.

It is a collection of young, promising health policy and systems researchers, decision-makers and other health system professionals. A total of 222 applications from 50 countries were received for this programme, from 3-19 November 2016 in Vancouver, Canada.

The EV4GH is linked to the fourth Global Symposium on Health Systems Research (HSR2016), from 14-18 November 2016. It also taking place in Vancouver and Janse van Rensburg will be taking part, thanks to his research on the ISHP in the Maluti-a-Phofung area. He is a researcher at the Centre for Health Systems Research & Development (CHSR&D) at the University of the Free State (UFS).

The theme of the HSR2016 is Resilient and Responsive Health Systems for a Changing World. It is organised every two years by Health Systems Global to bring together roleplayers involved in health systems and policy research and practice.

Janse van Rensburg also part of Health Systems Global network
The EV4GH goals relate to the strengthening of global health systems and policies, particularly from the Global South (low-to-middle income countries with chronic health system challenges). The initiative involves workshops, presentations, and interactive discussions related to global health problems and solutions.

As an EV4GH alumni, Janse van Rensburg will become part of the Health Systems Global network. Partnering institutions include public health institutes from China, India, South Africa, Belgium, and the UK.

“The EV4GH is for young, promising health
policy and systems researchers, decision-makers
and other health system professionals.”

Research aims to explore implementation of schools health programme
In 2012, the ISHP was introduced in South Africa. This policy forms part of the government's Primary Health Care Re-engineering Programme and is designed to offer a comprehensive and integrated package of health services to all pupils across all educational phases.

Janse van Rensburg, along with Dr Asta Rau, Director of the CHSR&D, aimed to explore and describe implementation of the ISHP. The goals were to assess the capacity and resources available for implementation, identify barriers that hamper implementation, detect enabling factors and successful aspects of implementation and disseminate best practices in, and barriers to, ISPH implementation with recommendations to policymakers, managers and practitioners.

“A lot of people were saying they don’t
have enough resources to adequately
implement the policy as it is supposed to
be implemented.”

Findings of project in Maluti-a-Phofung area
Janse van Rensburg said the ISHP had various strengths. “People were impressed with the integrated nature of the policy and the way people collaborated across disciplines and departments. The school team were found to work very well with the schools and gel well with the educators and principles.”

He said the main weakness of the implementation was resources. “A lot of people were saying they don’t have enough resources to adequately implement the policy as it is supposed to be implemented.

“Another drawback is the referral, because once you identify a problem with a child, the child needs to be referred to a hospital or clinic.” He means once a child gets referred, there is no way of knowing whether the child has been helped and in many cases there is no specialist at the hospital.

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