How rape protests escalated at Rhodes

The protests at Rhodes University became so contentious and violent this week that the reason behind them almost became obscured.

• April 11: An anti-rape organisation, Chapter 212, begin a campaign to raise awareness about the rape culture. It was aimed at the university’s policies on sexual assault and rape on campus and management’s attitudes towards victims of rape and sexual assault.
• April 17 (Sunday): The mood changed on Sunday night when a list of 11 names of past and current men students alleged to have committed sexual violence against Rhodes students was posted on social media. Groups of students began hunting those named.
• April 18 (Monday): By Monday morning three men had been taken into “custody” by groups of students. Two escaped and a third was released after police intervention.
• April 19 (Tuesday): Most of those named had gone into hiding. More names were added to the list. Lectures, tutorials and tests were forcibly disrupted, the library emptied out and barricades were erected across roads by students. On Tuesday evening matters became heated between police and students during a half-naked protest.
• April 20 (Wednesday): Running battles took place between students and police. Five students were arrested and one briefly hospitalised. Mabizela suspended all academic activities. The university successfully sought an urgent interdict from the high court prohibiting protesters from any unlawful behaviour including assault, kidnapping or intimidation.
• April 21 (Thursday): The university suspended all operations until Monday. Fourteen academics announce their support for the protest.
• April 22 (yesterday): The vice chancellor announces measures to review policies, beef up the university’s support of survivors of sexual assault and the appointment of a task team to carve out a way forward that would result in the university providing a caring and supportive environment for all. Mabizela says he cannot meet demands that denied any accused due process or that require him to act against the constitution.