The disciplinary panel heard Du Toit and a friend had the night before the incident consumed half a bottle of brandy at their residence, Huis Marais. They then went to two establishments where Du Toit consumed eight double brandies (totalling a minimum of 16 shots, or close to one bottle).
“In total, the accused consumed around one-and-a-half bottles of brandy between 7pm/8pm on May 14 and 2am/3am on May 15. During this period the accused states he periodically ‘blanked out’. His alcohol consumption led to him failing to render or remember periods of the time at the establishments.”
They returned to the residence at 3am and, after the incident occurred, Du Toit indicated he passed out and only later heard what he had done in the early hours of the morning.
The judgment said: “The truth is alcohol abuse is, ironically, drinking the country dry. SU is not excluded from this issue. Unfortunately, the longer the excessive use of alcohol and the resultant defence of intoxication is used to protect an individual from the consequences of their actions, the longer this systemic problem will continue.”
The panel said: “A hard stance must be taken. Students are adults, and they must be aware their actions carry consequences.”
Read the judgment in full here:
‘Culture of drinking, lack of leadership’: Stellenbosch University ‘urination judgment’ is scathing
Image: Esa Alexander
The disciplinary hearing judgment expelling student Theuns du Toit, who urinated on the desk of African student, Babalo Ndwayana, provided a scathing assessment of the “drinking culture” at Stellenbosch University (SU) in the Western Cape.
On Thursday the university said the disciplinary hearing, after the incident at Huis Marais residence on May 15, found Du Toit guilty of contravening a number of clauses in the institution’s disciplinary code for students.
The case revolved around five pillars: the urination incident, the abuse of alcohol, residence culture, racism and the future interests of Stellenbosch University.
“SU is no stranger to alcohol abuse and alcohol-related controversies. As is ever-present in SA, SU continues to battle the negative effects of alcohol. However, being a university, it has had to deal with the added difficulties of young adults engaging in a culture of binge-drinking,” read the judgment.
The disciplinary panel heard Du Toit and a friend had the night before the incident consumed half a bottle of brandy at their residence, Huis Marais. They then went to two establishments where Du Toit consumed eight double brandies (totalling a minimum of 16 shots, or close to one bottle).
“In total, the accused consumed around one-and-a-half bottles of brandy between 7pm/8pm on May 14 and 2am/3am on May 15. During this period the accused states he periodically ‘blanked out’. His alcohol consumption led to him failing to render or remember periods of the time at the establishments.”
They returned to the residence at 3am and, after the incident occurred, Du Toit indicated he passed out and only later heard what he had done in the early hours of the morning.
The judgment said: “The truth is alcohol abuse is, ironically, drinking the country dry. SU is not excluded from this issue. Unfortunately, the longer the excessive use of alcohol and the resultant defence of intoxication is used to protect an individual from the consequences of their actions, the longer this systemic problem will continue.”
The panel said: “A hard stance must be taken. Students are adults, and they must be aware their actions carry consequences.”
Read the judgment in full here:
The judgment also highlighted a “failure in leadership and the culture of Huis Marais”.
“Why it took the student leadership of Huis Marais so long to report this incident correctly, we can only speculate. In light of evidence produced in the hearing, this CDC [central disciplinary committee] is inclined to speculate that the delay is undoubtedly linked to the residence’s culture of secrecy and poor leadership.
“The lack of an immediate reaction speaks to the mindset of those in Huis Marais. This was not viewed as the atrocity the rest of the community saw it as. The reaction arguably seems to breathe an air of normality. It was as if drunken incidents such as this were not an egregious exception. Many of the student witnesses who testified attested to this, with the majority seemingly not grasping the true magnitude of the incident and believing Mr Du Toit would be welcomed back into Huis Marais.
“The CDC wishes to make it clear incidents such as this are not acceptable. It is only under the ambit of poor leadership that such complacency can thrive,” reads the judgment.
“As the CDC, we cannot begin to understand what Mr Babalo Ndwayana was going through in the hours after the incident, where no-one provided the necessary professional, psychological, and emotional support he surely needed. What took place was merely administration, a bureaucratic game of pass the baton up the line. This is not leadership and any attempt to dress it as such is an insult to the terms and the values attached to it.”
The leadership in Huis Marais had “failed atrociously” in being there for Ndwayana.
Due to the nature of the incident the committee deemed it necessary to produce a written judgment providing clear reasoning for its decision.
The judgment also delved into why Ndwayana did not take part in the disciplinary hearing as a witness.
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos