RIGHT OF REPLY | Errors about Wilgenhof show the irrationality of the debate around the residence

Jonathan Jansen's recent column about the Wilgenhof saga is a prime example of the misguided arguments so common on the matter. For the entire length of the drawn-out drama, Wilgenhof alumni, as well as the current residents, have attempted to correct the errors and misrepresentations made by prominent commentators and academics. Unfortunately, much of the media, and academia, seem invested in making Wilgenhof a mythical last bastion of racism, and in so doing they often abandon reason and facts.

A technique much used by the defamers of Wilgenhof is a certain type of historical vagueness. They ignore the present Wilgenhof and seek to turn the residence into a scapegoat for the past.

Jansen, for instance, calls Wilgenhof “a troubled, violent space with racist birthmarks”. Regarding allegations of violence, even an investigative panel, who desperately sought to discredit Wilgenhof, had to admit in their report that they “found no evidence of physical violence, sexual violence or sexually inappropriate conduct having been perpetrated by the Nagligte (the residence's disciplinary committee)”.

On the issue of racism, Jansen deceptively quotes a much-publicised sentence of the report, saying “absolute power wielded by white men without consequence” was used in Wilgenhof to “coerce, oppress, to victimise, to humiliate”. These phrases actually appear in a part of the report that opines on the symbolism and “notions” associated with the Nagligte's historic, medieval-styled black robes — which are bizarrely linked by the report to the Ku Klux Klan's white robes. It is abstract and baseless speculation, not a concrete finding about the actual behaviour of specific Wilgenhoffers. Meaningfully, Jansen quotes no victims and he names no incidents in Wilgenhof's recent past in which violent or racist events supposedly occurred.

ConCourt judge Johan Froneman provided much-needed context in his letter published in the Daily Maverick in October, explaining: “Wilgenhof was historically grounded in racial discrimination, as were all students at Stellenbosch; and all white institutions in South Africa. Wilgenhof is thus part of a general 'white South Africa' problem. What has happened is that, in the wake of the media furore, the panel accepted wholesale that the two Nagligte rooms represent and embody Wilgenhof and its entire history; that the current inhabitants must be judged as if they accepted and continued that history; and that Wilgenhof thus represents and embodies all that is repugnant in Stellenbosch’s history of white male racism.”

Jansen does not mention the many submissions made to the university that denied claims of racism and oppression. One of these was a detailed submission made by 77 former and current Wilgenhoffers of colour. This, and many other submissions, was ignored and the SU Council simply moved forward with the closure of Wilgenhof.

In his column, Jansen also minimises the shockingly dishonest behaviour of the SU council chair, Nicky Newton-King, and the university's Rector, Wim de Villiers.

Former ConCourt justice and SU Chancellor Edwin Cameron detailed their highly unethical behaviour in an affidavit submitted in the court case launched by the Wilgenhof Alumni Association against the university. Clear proof was offered by Cameron that there was interference with the “independent” report, making the closure of Wilgenhof as the only option. This has now been supported by the damning findings of a new panel — the “Kriegler panel” — consisting of retired ConCourt justice Johann Kriegler, Adv Karrisha Pillay and Prof Themba Mosia.

To be clear: when the report didn't give the single answer they wanted — the closure of Wilgenhof — the rector and council chair simply decided it should be amended.

They were found guilty of a “simulated transaction”. Newton-King's behaviour was found to have “constituted the withholding of by the chair of material information that could have influenced the outcome of council deliberations”. She deceived the council.

Jansen merely calls all this “unfortunate missteps”. They are not “unfortunate missteps”. They are massive failures in ethical leadership and the deception of the university's highest decision-making body. A predetermined outcome was forced on Wilgenhof — it had to become a political scapegoat.

And while Jansen downplays how the SU leadership abandoned fairness and honesty, he fabricates an entirely different Wilgenhof, calling it a “a closed-off space where racial and class privilege can still operate unmoored from any accountability”. This is simply not true. Wilgenhof has a proud history of genuine inclusivity and is as diverse and transformed as the rest of the SU campus. Jansen will not mention the black former Wilgenhoffers who told the media they want to send their own sons to Wilgenhof. He also will not mention that many former Wilgenhoffers, such as internationally renowned human rights expert Prof John Dugard, have supported the residence publicly and highlighted the misrepresentations made of its history.

Regardless of all the misinformation and sensation, the Wilgenhof Alumni Association was willing to settle their legal battle against SU out of court, but the university proved intractable about assurances regarding the preservation of elements of heritage. A new official name for Wilgenhof was proposed by the residents and supported by the Wilgenhof alumni — one incorporating Afrikaans, English and Xhosa, in line with SU’s own language policy. This was not accepted by the university.

It is not the stereotyped “white men with deep pockets and an enviable Rolodex of top lawyers” — as Jansen dismissively calls a large and diverse group of alumni — that have kept a settlement out of reach. It is the university’s most senior decisionmakers. Even while being defamed by a report, and by many commentators in the media, the alumni have been open to a reasonable settlement.

But reason has been sorely lacking in the Wilgenhof matter. It has been drowned out by frenzied political voices. As the Wilgenhof Alumni Association is forced to proceed with our legal action against the university, we are confident reason will prevail in a court — a place where facts still matter.

Jaco Rabie is the spokesperson for the Wilgenhof Alumni Association

For opinion and analysis consideration, email Opinions@timeslive.co.za