The Stellenbosch University (SU) is losing out on an opportunity to take the institution one step forward in the quest for transformation, with vice-chancellor Wim de Villiers apparently remaining safe in his job despite new claims of nepotism.
De Villiers managed to survive a motion of no confidence in him earlier this year in an another matter involving a report by the SA Human Rights Commission, which found the university violated the rights of Afrikaans-speaking students. With the new allegations of nepotism looming, it seems De Villiers may get away unscathed once again.
A convocation, consisting of graduates, staff and retired staff, submitted a new motion in support of a vote of no confidence in De Villiers, to be heard on Monday. However, a weekend report says the alumni rejected this request.
It was up to the council on Monday to decide De Villiers’s fate after allegations, to which he openly admitted, of nepotism at the higher-learning institution.
But the claims against him go deeper than that — they speak to a lack of commitment from his side to use his position to uplift disadvantaged students. This should be the crux of the main argument for him to vacate his seat.
De Villiers admitted to allegations of a nepotism scandal where he placed his nephew and another close relative to study for a coveted medical degree. The Sunday Times reported 12,000 applicants were received for the MBBCH degree and only 2.5% spots were available. The vice-chancellor’s nephew was reserved one of the sought-after spots despite his marks falling far short of those at the bottom of the waiting list.
The nephew got a place thanks to the VC’s powers allowing him to make three discretionary placements, which led De Villiers to come forward to admit that another relative of his had been placed in the previous year. These three discretionary placements are meant to give disadvantaged students an opportunity to study at SU.
It was just in June last year when De Villiers appointed the commission of inquiry into allegations of racism, which was also mandated to look into transformation at the institution. The inquiry came after two racist incidents at the institution last year, including the saga where a white student urinated on the laptop of a black student.
The final report into the inquiry was released in October by chairperson, former Constitutional Court Emeritus Justice Sisi Khampepe.
The inquiry concluded that the university made “impressive theoretical strides” towards transformation but that these did not translate into the lived experience of students and staff.
Khampepe said: “Although the university appears to have in its arsenal a formidable transformation apparatus, black students and staff members still feel unwelcome and excluded at the university.”
What contributes to the lack of transformation is the history of the university and its “symbolic meaning” to the white and Afrikaans community, who believe Stellenbosch University is culturally significant to Afrikaners and preserving the status quo.
This seems evident in the response by the university’s alumni, who prevented the convocation from taking steps against the vice-chancellor.
Alumni relations manager Shaun Stuard told the president of the convocation, advocate Jan Heunis, that they reject the request for a motion against De Villiers, according to News24. This appears to mean the flagrant abuse of power by De Villiers that hinders the growth of disadvantaged students is not even worth discussing.
Stellenbosch is among the universities that have seemingly struggled to transform, including the University of Cape Town, which has a demographic of 60% white students, according to the UCT’s Black Economic Caucus.
UCT vice-chancellor Mokgethi Phakeng has since vacated her seat after allegations of bullying and poor governance during her tenure, where she said she tried to instil transformation.
Back to Stellenbosch, it was found in the inquiry that the hierarchy within the university has also contributed to the lack of transformation.
Instead, there seems to be “resistance” from the university’s middle management, Khampepe found.
“These individuals are not positioned high enough within the university to be held directly accountable for the status of its transformation, but have enough power to make decisions that frustrate the efforts of those members of the university who are responsible for the implementation and operation of the university’s transformation apparatus.”
Khampepe’s words of wisdom need to be taken seriously by the powers that be at SU, otherwise it will remain stuck in an untransformed era, doing more harm than good to its current and future generation of students and the academia at large.
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
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.