Alternative views on why South Africa’s universities are struggling and a way out
I have many comments to make on the article: Why South Africa’s universities are in the grip of a class struggle - The Conversation – January 13 2016
But, before I do this here is a summary of my credentials.
I am an emeritus professor and elected Life Fellow at the University of Cape Town who occupied every academic post from junior lecturer to full professor, always promoted on merit. During my career development, I competed against applicants from the likes of Oxford and Princeton Universities. I have mentored 50 masters and Ph.D. graduates, all of whom published their research results and have successful professional careers. Four (one woman) are professors (one at world renowned University of California at Berkeley), two (both ‘black’ women) are senior lecturers, and two (both ‘black’ men) are directors of African natural history museums.
I designed, launched and taught in a post-graduate programme that has generated nearly 300 graduates (including many ‘blacks’ from throughout Africa), 80+% of whom are relevantly employed or studying further. I have authored 272 scientific works in internationally recognized, peer reviewed, journals including Nature, one of the world’s top-ranked scientific publications.
Throughout my career, I have maintained a rating by the South African National Research Foundation, peaking during my last eight years of service as an “Internationally Acclaimed Researcher”. Outside of university life, I served as a founding trustee of a national trust created to further research and education on gamebirds (my primary research animals) and as president of both of the South African professional societies that reflect my academic interests. One of these societies honoured me its lifetime achievement award.
First, let me try to summarize the article concerned.
The post-apartheid educational system is racial and, especially, class-based. Previously advantaged universities (Cape Town, the Witwatersrand, Stellenbosch and Pretoria) are ‘advantaged’ because they are given the lion’s share of research funding and charge higher fees.
This privileged position was challenged last year by protesters who were largely poor and ‘black’ because the universities concerned had failed to address or even deliberately ignored the needs of poor ‘blacks’, thus continuing capitalism’s goal to “exploit” them. University bureaucracies have “discouraged and repressed” “ thinkers” and “activists” who offer possible strategies to remedy this sad situation.
My comments below are framed on statements made in the abovementioned article.
“Education is unequal at all levels in South Africa.”
This is certainly true for most countries in the world. Moreover, no matter how much ‘transformation’ is effected in SA education, it will always remain true. All we can strive for is to make it less unequal without compromising ‘quality’.
“There is deepening racial segregation at schools and universities.”
This is not true for previously ‘whites-only’ universities. All have made and continue to make significant strides towards eliminating ‘racial’ segregation. They may not have achieved “targets” set by governmental and other politically driven bodies too-often staffed with people who know little about the real meaning of education.
“That stems from their [previous ‘whites-only’ universities] obtaining the lion’s share of research funding from statutory bodies such as the National Research Foundation.”
Yes. But, this is because researchers at these universities have earned this largesse as a consequence of having consistently strong research records. This is certainly the case for the NRF which funds people on the basis of stringent international peer review and high-quality recent research track records.
“They also charge much higher fees than the universities that were built exclusively for blacks during the apartheid era. This maintains the class structure of apartheid society. It is logical that universities which charge higher fees are able to provide a higher quality of education to middle class students.”
Yes. This is because the national government and non-governmental donors/investors do not contribute adequately to pay the costs of high-quality teaching and research. Moreover, at the University of Cape Town at least, the money generated by “high fees” is also used to subsidize the expenses of economically disadvantaged and ‘black’ students.
“But the status quo has been disrupted. In 2015 something shifted inexorably at South African universities. Students protested against institutions' language policies, high fees, structural inequalities and colonial symbols.”
True it part. Some of the ‘protesters’ acted irresponsibly, if not violently/illegally to prevent students and staff who did not share their views from getting an education and doing their jobs.
“It was poor and working-class youth who drove the protests - a clear indication that it is a class struggle. This is further emphasised by the fact that most students who protest, whether during 2015 or on other occasions, are black. Race and class lie at the heart of opposition to South Africa’s existing, exclusive university system.”
This is debatable. One of the messages that was given in the media, time and again, was the fact a significant number of relatively affluent students joined in protests (evidenced by their expensive hair styles, apparel and use of cell phones) . There were also suggestions that at least some of the ‘protesters’ had no direct association with the universities concerned and therefore had questionable motives. The fact that most of the protesters were ‘black’ reflects SA demographics. My personal view is that many of the protestors were students who were probably both financially stressed and who had not achieved what they expected academically. Lastly, I object to the word “exclusive” and would prefer “leading”.
“This is possibly because the education system has distributed relatively petty advantages within the working class through limited scholarships and loans. It also allows for entry into elite, predominantly white institutions based on academic achievement. This serves to disorganise the entire working class and allows the capitalist democracy to more effectively exploit the majority of poor youth.”
What is meant by “petty”? What about the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) and the myriad of bursaries and scholarships funded by universities and the private sector? There is certainly room for improvement, but dismissing these major investments as “petty” is unwarranted to say the least. The implication of a “capitalist exploitation” of “poor youth” reeks with ideological bias.
“Modern forms of class prejudice are invisible even to the perpetrators, who remain unconvinced of the class struggle of black youth. They dismiss it as unruly behaviour and a lack of respect for the new “progressive” order governing universities. Protesters are berated for not understanding universities' financial pressures; they are viewed as being insensitive to their peers who just want to get on with their education without disruptions.”
This is nothing more than political rhetoric. The apartheid legal system was dismantled 22 years ago and replaced by a world-renowned Constitution and a range of laws and policies designed to eliminate “prejudice”. When it occurs and is identified, it can be stopped and its perpetrators dealt with punitively.
Some who still are unhappy with their lot in life use terms such as “invisible” discrimination to justify the continued “class struggle of black youth” when, at least in some cases, there may be no discrimination at all and the real basis of discontent may be an unwillingness to accept failure and a ‘justification’ of unruly behaviour and disrespect. Also, why must class struggle exclude students who are ‘non-black’. Some of ‘them’ are poor too.
“Where are academics in all of this? Sadly, we believe that the voice of thinkers in the academe has been discouraged and repressed. Many of the activists among us have been co-opted onto the university bureaucracy and unashamedly drive a neo-liberal agenda of colourblindness.”
This is also a loaded comment. Who are these “thinkers”? What is an “activist”? Surely if the activist/thinkers have a better thought-out strategy/argument they should prevail over their ideologically opposed and morally/intellectually deficient ‘passivists’. While students may blame their inability to succeed at university on a disastrous basic education, what excuse does an academic have for not receiving the desired recognition (e.g. promotion, NRF funding, etc.)?
Once again the words “discouraged and repressed” by a shameless “neo-liberal [whatever that means] bureaucracy” are offered. I (and the vast preponderance of my colleagues irrespective of ‘race’, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) ‘struggled’ throughout my career to gain promotion and recognition.
I did this by honing my teaching skills, conducting research that withstood peer review, treating my graduate students as colleagues in training, and competing for grant funds within and outside of my university. I guess that makes me a thinking activist. Finally, why not have a colourblind agenda, unless the goal is to [re]distribute resources along Vervoerdian guidleines?
“the Soweto uprising in 1976. They do so at great personal risk. But students should fear less the angry policemen with their rubber bullets than the racist academe that covertly discriminates against the poor”
This comment is the most offensive of all. The Soweto Uprising began as a protest in the streets of the township in response to the introduction of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in local schools, the sole aim of which was to still further educational oppression of ‘Bantu’ schoolchildren. Protesters were dealt with fierce police brutality which resulted widespread collateral damage unrelated to the original purpose of the protest and in the deaths of as many as 700 protesters and passersby.
Using UCT as an example, the protests last year were ostensibly a consequence of legitimate despondency over: specific financial matters, overall socio-economic disadvantage (of students and ‘outsourced’ employees), still as yet well-motivated changes to curricula, and some purportedly offensive statues, building names and plaques. To equate this despondency to that generated by apartheid-era oppression is wrong and insulting. Lastly, describing my colleagues as if they were apartheid police whose primary aim is to “covertly discriminate against the poor” is defamatory.
“Racism against black students and staff is prevalent.”
Not “prevalent” in my 40 years of experience at UCT. If so, where are the court cases? Nevertheless, I unequivocally support any process that identifies racism when/where it exists/occurs and leads to the exposure and punishment of its purveyors.
“Academics cannot abdicate their responsibility towards social change any longer.”
Now to some concrete proposals as to how this “change” might be achieved.
First, as has been proposed by struggle-credentialed, internationally respected educators and administrators (e.g. Prof. Jonathan Jansen), the system of basic education needs to be made functional by ensuring that existing funding is well spent (e.g. on resourcing schools/students and training/re-training educators). In the absence of suitable accommodation, school books/materials, and competent educators who spend their workdays teaching, universities will be forced to exclude applicants who are doomed to fail and will continue to try to help those actually admitted to cope with the demands of an even ‘relevantly transformed’ university education.
At the tertiary level, to come to grips with the class struggle alleged by the article’s authors, all South Africans should demand the necessary increased investment (at the expense of wastage elsewhere) in tertiary education to implement the following decisive ‘action’ at universities:
1. recruit (covering ALL costs involved) on a case-by-case, face-to-face basis, demonstrably (not only by matric results) bright, hardworking kids from socio-economically disadvantaged communities and not just blindly following the “racial” quotas favoured e.g. by my colleague Prof. Xolela Mangcu;
2. accommodate these students in university residences to create an atmosphere conducive to effective education, redeploying existing and recruiting new adequately compensated academic staff (ideally with backgrounds similar to the kids) to act as residence wardens and on-demand mentors/counsellors, in addition to their teaching duties;
3. encourage staff to undergo education that could help them deal with the socio-cultural backgrounds/expectations of students;
4. require ALL academic staff to undergo periodic review (as BOTH educators and researchers) by their students and respected peers (inside and outside of the university community – e.g. the NRF) in order to retain their positions, let alone get promoted, and be subject to dismissal if they fail two or more reviews in succession (this will clear out academic dead wood and make space for those who can deliver the goods);
5. periodically evaluate and rationally debate curricula amongst themselves and with respected peers locally and internationally in terms of global and local relevance/excellence;
6. require ALL students to attend lectures and, if necessary, attend counselling sessions with skilled mentors (ideally conversant in their home language) should they fail to perform adequately;
7. exclude students who persist in failing despite counselling – thereby making places available for new students who will succeed.
Emeritus Prof. Tim Crowe
