The student representative council (SRC) at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) says the apology by Prof Srila Roy does not go far enough to address the harm caused by her public remarks.
In a statement, the SRC said it had noted the public apology issued by Roy and the institutional response released by the university, but found the apology “inadequate in addressing the depth of concern raised by students and members of the broader academic community”.
The controversy follows Roy’s public comments in which she characterised South Africans as lacking ambition and work ethics. According to the SRC, the remarks “reproduce harmful and historically loaded stereotypes that have long been used to undermine the intellectual and professional contributions of black South Africans”.
The SRC said the statement could not be viewed in isolation.
“The statements do not exist in a vacuum. When expressed by a senior academic and head of school within a sociology department, they carry structural weight and institutional consequence,” said the SRC.
Roy said her remark was a hasty response to xenophobic slurs faced by academics born abroad and working in SA, and she regretted her poor judgment.
In her apology, Roy referred to her supervision, teaching, and mentoring of South African students as proof she does not hold prejudicial views. However, the SRC rejected the reasoning.
“The SRC wishes to state clearly professional interaction with students cannot, in itself, serve as proof of the absence of bias. Structural prejudice operates precisely through institutions, relationships and everyday academic practices,” it said.
“Sociology, as a discipline, teaches us prejudice is not reducible to individual temperament or intent.”
The student body said Wits has failed to outline any remedial or restorative actions that demonstrate accountability and a commitment to rebuilding trust within the academic community.
“The university’s institutional response does not clearly articulate processes for addressing the implications of such public statements when made by individuals occupying positions of leadership and influence,” said the SRC.
“Leadership within the academy is not only administrative; it is symbolic and epistemic. Public statements made by senior scholars shape discourse, influence institutional culture and may embolden exclusionary narratives beyond the university,” it said.
The SRC has called for:
- meaningful engagement between Roy and affected student communities;
- clear institutional processes for addressing public conduct by academic leaders where such conduct undermines the values of equity and inclusion;
- restorative and educational interventions that demonstrate accountability beyond symbolic apology, and;
- transparent communication from the university regarding how institutional culture will be safeguarded against the reproduction of harmful generalisations.
“Universities are spaces where critical thought must flourish, but also spaces where intellectual responsibility must be exercised. Academic freedom cannot be separated from academic accountability.”
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.