A few weeks ago, retired judge Sisi Khampepe released her 184-page report on allegations of racism at Stellenbosch University. The commission of inquiry was called for by the university management and the report makes three major points. One, that black students and staff still feel unwelcome at the institution. Two, that while the university has made “impressive theoretical strides” on transformation, such efforts were not felt in the lived experiences of staff and students. And three, that Stellenbosch should review its multilingual language policy “to remove the possibility of language exclusion through the preference of Afrikaans”.
The report is written with a soft hand and considerable wisdom that recognises the rights of all South Africans, including white Afrikaans speakers (somehow the DA’s local agitator missed this). Its closing arguments for change are not only structural, but surprisingly personal, making the point that rebuilding a campus and a country is impossible “unless every individual is willing to look inward and change”. So why has the report agitated the white right and, more importantly, what explains these public displays of racism?
In 2018 the minister of education’s investigatory committee released the so-called Soudien Report (after its chair, Prof Crain Soudien) on “transformation, social cohesion [and] discrimination” in public universities. That report was commissioned after the notorious Reitz (male residence) incident at the University of the Free State (UFS), in which four white male students racially abused five black cleaners on the Bloemfontein campus. The obvious question is why was there a need for a Khampepe report (led by a judge) when the same ground was covered 14 years ago by the Soudien report (led by mainly academics)?
Remember, for these people it is not about Afrikaans; it is about white identity and cultural preservation. They just cannot imagine a world in which Afrikaans is simply another language in a richly multilingual world.
The reason you have this latter-day racism at Stellenbosch University is because the university is changing, not because it is untransformed. Ask yourself this, why would the Free State students and the now three incidents at Stellenbosch involve men and urine? Quite simple. Just like dogs use urine to mark their territory and anxiety, white male students use the same strategy to protest black incursion into their intimate spaces, such as residences. Stellenbosch now has more black students (almost half, the tipping point) than ever before in its 100-year history and more black academics, including professors, than a mere decade ago. English, not Afrikaans, has become the dominant language on campus, whether in lecture halls, laboratories or libraries. That is what the urinating men are protesting — the threat to exclusive racial ownership of their territorial spaces that is slowly but surely slipping away.
Reitz happened when black student enrolments were escalating at the UFS and racially integrated residences were on the agenda. That is where Stellenbosch is now after white students dominated enrolments for much longer than in their sister university in the Free State. Hence the first urine incident at another white men’s residence, Huis Marais, that prompted the Khampepe inquiry.
The question is, what will the Stellenbosch leadership do in response to the Khampepe report? It should continue to ignore the apoplectic few on the white right raising hell about the threat to Afrikaans. Remember, for these people it is not about Afrikaans; it is about white identity and cultural preservation. They just cannot imagine a world in which Afrikaans is simply another language in a richly multilingual world. Put differently, the taalstryders do not know how to be without being dominant, and Afrikaans is one of the few remaining weapons in their arsenal to fight a war already lost.
No doubt, there will be a price to pay. Stellenbosch is by far the wealthiest public university on the African continent. The number of donors, mainly alumni, who give millions every year is unique.
Then the university needs to make quick and firm decisions on the transformation of residences. There is clearly a leadership problem in some of them and white resistance in many. My experience is that there are many progressive white staff and students who can, alongside their black counterparts, completely rewire the social and cultural ethos of the residences so alienation can be overcome. No doubt, there will be a price to pay. Stellenbosch is by far the wealthiest public university on the African continent. The number of donors, mainly alumni, who give millions every year is unique. The older residences at the former Afrikaans universities are endowed with deep meaning and commitment for alums. You fool yourself if you think any leader can simply change a residence without severe backlash, financial and political. I have walked that path. Yet it has to be done to create, over the long term, more welcoming and affirming environments for all staff and students.
Finally, the university has to accelerate the appointment of the most talented black academics across its faculties and campuses so all students, black and white, are exposed to scholars and scientists from around the country and the world. The transformation of the professoriate would go a long way to deeply transforming the campus.
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.