In response to Professor Jonathan Jansen's article about Unisa, DD, Feb 14.
As a researcher, Prof Jansen should know the dangers of relying on hearsay and making public pronouncements. This raises questions such as - How can we take seriously desperate low blows from a man that has dismally failed to genuinely transform and deal with systemic problems at an institution that is 10 times smaller than Unisa?
What about the deliberate ignorance Jansen applies to the known complexities of higher education institutions, conveniently ignoring the exponential sum of complexities in an institution of Unisa’s size? How does Jansen’s rainbowist, colour-blind outlook assist in analysing and diagnosing the role of the very forces of white supremacy in their quest for “survival” even if their survival is at the expense of the institution? How can we resist the temptation of digesting Jansen’s utterances without thinking of his purported injustice and the way he has been spitting at the pain of black students, parents and workers at UFS despite clear-cut cases of barbarism? Addressing systemic racism by perpetuating subjugation of the black majority! How do we take seriously, advice from such comical postulations?
Perhaps on another day, we will analyse his term of office in detail and unpack its meaning for leadership. While we are at it, we will also have to analyse the true colour of his soul. The South Africa we know was founded on race and higher education is no exception. The transition into democracy came with the responsibility of transforming higher education in content and form. It goes without saying that resistance against transformation is as old as preparations to thwart the democratic transition. In the process, blacks have been subjected to various kinds of tactics, which Jansen is aware of, for example, ridiculing black leaders that drive transformation, co-opting/encircling black leaders to neutralise efforts driven by consciousness, or installing token blacks whose primary purpose is to preserve the status quo.
The unprovoked attack on Unisa serves as a rude awakening that there is indeed a cold war.
It is not by chance that the attacks coincide with the current wave of transformation at Unisa which is at its peak.
White supremacy within Unisa is being disrupted and the only desperate reaction is disbanding council and executive management, installing an administrator whom they can manipulate to save the interest of the Broederbond.
Those of us who have been at Unisa can attest that over the past four years, there have been racist campaigns to bring about instability, only to later cry foul calling for “ministerial intervention”.
The recent accreditation crisis is an example of such orchestration that should not be viewed at face value.
The masterminds had hoped that the university would fall on its knees and be put under administration.
The problem presented to us as though it was complex and impossible to overcome, was actually simple sabotage.
The miraculous pace at which the accreditation was resolved proved the simplicity. We know the network of the dark forces runs countrywide. It is thus not surprising that the likes of Jansen and Prof Belinda Bozzoli will suddenly have opinions. These outsiders under the guise of impartiality, add fuel to the repeatedly failed campaign of the racist establishments. Taken in good faith, perhaps it’s a coincidence?
Jansen who is a former Vice-Chancellor himself, has since gone on to join, what is in my opinion, a Stellenbosch “Rewards Programme” in service of white privilege, with intent to criticise black-led institutions, while being careful not to disturb the peace of whiteness. There is something wrong. Jansen, like his peers has never attacked white privilege with this kind of zeal, and after all the opportunities he has had, we look forward to that day.
It is not surprising that a person who is expected to impart intellectual depth in his analysis to enlighten the nation and think out of the box in solving problems, will deliberately go shallow in a Facebook post styled article; full of exaggeration and deception, and blowing administrative issues out of proportion to an extent of using one example to characterize an entire university!
Actually, Jansen creates an impression that 400,000 students are frustrated! That the 6,000 committed, hard-working employees are all useless. That governance structures have collapsed. Then goes on to encourage council to become operational, while creating an impression that Unisa has the luxury of making hundreds of millions in profit therefore has zero financial problems.
The best that Jansen has to offer is unwarranted advice that Unisa must be smaller? One would have thought that the educationist in him would have taken the platform to create awareness that the time has come to introduce a debate that seeks to challenge the dogmatic view of Unisa being solely a distance learning institution.
It goes without saying that since the late 2000s, Unisa has seen a sharp enrolment increase of students coming directly from high school.
What about the disproportionate subsidies Unisa receives to service its students in comparison to smaller, but louder institutions?
At the same time, there has been a proliferation of traditional contact universities venturing into distance learning. Why is it that the playing field is made unequal on the side of the pitch where Unisa is located?
Contact universities are allowed to adapt their model in order to respond to the distance learning needs of students while Unisa is not allowed to adapt the same way. Jansen and everybody else must understand that the solution to Unisa is not in increasing or reducing numbers, but it is in redefining and reforming the institution in response to its :contact needy” students. This inevitably means a larger academic and administrative staff component, and more infrastructure.
I am tempted to agree with one of Jansen’s suggestions with an amendment of course, that the College of Education should perhaps have its own campus given its enrolment numbers. The dogmatic posture of it being a distance learning institution has been loosing relevance, so too becomes irrelevant Jansen’s view that Unisa should be smaller to cater solely to the dogma.
Furthermore, higher education broadly needs to put an end to the unnecessary prescribed textbooks but instead study guides should be content-rich, so that students can have an option of spending money on recommended reading. The textbook industry milks millions of rands annually from a pool of resources that can be better used by students, government and universities to expand access to higher education. Let me leave the administrative answers to the administrators.
Unisa keeps taking stones that the builders refused and they continuously become corner stones. If you make it smaller, what then about the black lives that would have otherwise been deprived of a higher education?
Jansen, his sources and others must leave problems of Unisa to Unisans who love their institution passionately.
He must rather focus on addressing systemic problems of black oppression at Stellenbosch.
As an elder that has reached the pinnacle of his career, he must appreciate that he now has nothing to lose, therefore making courage justifiable. There is no longer time to be in in the middle. It is time to be courageous in fighting for the emancipation of black people where he is in Stellenbosch. It should be a new beginning for him. Perhaps we will call him one day to present his inputs properly, hopefully that day he will take the need for thorough preparation and clear thought more seriously.
-- Mohau D Mokoena is the treasurer general at Unisa’s Black Forum..