SAIRR Today: Warning bells for South Africa - 18th March 2010
SAIRR Opinion: Jansen’s decision part of a bigger picture - 23rd October 2009
Professor Jansen’s decision to drop the charges against the Reitz four, and allow them back into the University is part of a greater vision for the transformation of the university. He plans to change the institutional culture of racism that remained entrenched on campus.
Professor Jonathan Jansen, the new vice-chancellor of the
University of the Free State (UFS), showed independent thought and
action in his inaugural speech. His leadership could provide South
Africans with something interesting, even inspirational, to think
about.
He made the decision to drop the university’s internal charges
against four white students who had subjected five African cleaners to
degradation and humiliation. He also decided to allow the two of those
students who still need to complete their degrees back into the
university.
His decision has sparked anger and controversy. The Congress of
South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and some UFS students have called
for him to step down. The minister of higher education, Dr. Blade
Nzimande, asked him to suspend his decision. However, that decision
forms part of a broader plan for change. His speech shows forethought
for the UFS as a whole, and a focus on the transformation of the
institution.
He has made a shift from concentrating blame for a deep social
problem on one highly publicised incident, however severe that one
incident may have been.
Professor Jansen said, ‘The biggest mistake made in the analysis
of Reitz is to explain the incident in terms of individual pathology.
This video-recording was preceded by a long series of racial incidents
protesting against racial integration, especially in the residences of
the university. Not all of these racially-charged incidents made the
press; in fact, were it not for the public release of the
video-recording, no one outside the university would have known about
it…The question facing us, therefore, is a disturbing one, and it is
this: What was it within the institution that made it possible for such
an atrocity to be committed in the first place?’
Professor Jansen did not downplay the severity of the students’
actions, or the amount of damage that those actions inflicted. He
implied, however, that the students were not solely at fault as the
university had allowed a context in which these, and other racist acts,
could take place. Professor Jansen said that ‘institutional complicity’
had allowed for many more acts of racism than that of the Reitz
incident. It is the repetitious nature of these incidents that points
to an underlying cause in addition to individual wrongdoings.
In his decision Professor Jansen considered the university as a
whole and the environment that had been fostered there. Hostels at UFS
were segregated until 2007. Segregation occurred in many aspects of
university life: up until the arrival of Professor Jansen, the
university had one black choir and one white choir.
In making the shift from individual blame Professor Jansen opened
up the question of accountability. He
examined the context in which the event occurred, and all those who in
some way facilitated it. This includes parents, lecturers, fellow
students, and those within the hostel who awarded the video first prize
at a cultural evening competition - all those who would be more
comfortable with the blame being placed definitively on those who
committed the act. However, if the UFS was a place in which racism was
universally looked at with disgust, this and the other purported acts
of racism would probably not have had the space to occur. The Reitz
video would definitely not have been awarded a prize.
Within the context of this institutional racism, the Reitz
incident was the case that exposed the underlying situation, with the
attention it brought to the levels of racism within the university.
This is not to say that the individuals involved do not hold personal
responsibility. They do, and criminal charges are pending against them.
However, Professor Jansen has acknowledged that the problem is more
insidious and requires more drastic action than merely punishing the
students involved. This broader perspective
is not only brave, but necessary, because if the context in which these
racist acts took place remains the same while individuals are punished,
it is likely that similar acts would be committed by different
individuals.
After acknowledging the university’s role in allowing these events
Professor Jansen moved on to his intended program of change. An
important part of this is that the Reitz hostel will be reopened, and
will be a model for integration. All hostels will be integrated in a
50/50 ratio until integration happens naturally. Among Professor
Jansen’s visions for the university are those of social integration,
intellectual and academic excellence, international recognition, as
well as producing graduates who have a social understanding and
conscience in addition to their degrees.
He said, ‘Whoever wins and loses in the Reitz case, I will still
wake-up on Monday morning dealing with the same social, cultural, and
ideological complexities that stand in the way of transformation –
unless we do something differently.’
His decision is a step towards doing things differently. The four
students will still face criminal charges, and live with the stigma of
their actions. Professor Jansen’s plan for the integration of the
university is both visionary and pragmatic. His decision to drop the
university’s charges against the Reitz four forms part of this. Instead
of calling for him to step down, his vision should be appreciated, and
he should be allowed the space and time to make his plans for
transformation work.
- Sarah Godsell (Sarah Godsell is a research intern at the
Institute)
Forgot your password?
great ideas
With people like him in charge, we have a chance to become a really great country.