Four years later and Nzimande has still not acted on higher education reports

Minister has been sitting on detailed recommendations on how to resolve fees crisis and improve loan system

The week before last, we heard the first squeak from Higher Education Minister Blade Nzimande since his disastrous announcement last month that universities could set their own fee hikes for 2017, but asked that these be not more than 8%. Obliged to appear before the parliamentary select committee, Nzimande declared that “there are forces that have no interest in the academic year and it will suit them if it is not completed because it will destabilise the country”.

It is implausible that there are many students who do not wish to complete their studies this year. Where Nzimande is correct is that some students are prepared to make this sacrifice, and universities are in the unfortunate position of once again finding themselves in the firing line.

This time last year, President Jacob Zuma managed to stay the tide by agreeing to bankroll most of a zero-fee increase for 2016, and in January this year, he set up a commission, to report by June, to investigate the feasibility of free higher education.

But for four years, Nzimande has had a report of a working group chaired by Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University vice-chancellor Derrick Swartz on this very topic. He also has two reports on related issues: the future of university funding (chaired by Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa); and a review of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), chaired by Walter Sisulu University vice-chancellor Marcus Balintulo.

Somewhat amazingly, delaying tactics appeared to have worked yet again, and we have had a year’s respite. But when at mid-year, Zuma extended the life of the Heher commission by another year, even he must have realised he was playing with fire. And so it has come to pass.

All these reports were commissioned by Nzimande and all the relevant facts were (and remain) at his fingertips. Are the universities to be allowed to burn so we can await the further insights of a retired judge (Jonathan Heher) and two relatively unknown lawyers?

For many of my generation, the anger of these born-frees has come as a wake-up call. Why are they prepared to burn libraries and paintings, break down doors and disrupt lectures? For some of us, the 1980 education boycott was a seminal event that unified many black and white students. Was the anger of black students who had to apply for permits to attend “white” universities not more justified than that of today’s counterparts? Yet our protests were conducted in a respectful manner.

The answer to this question is not simple. The expectations of the current generation of students are higher, so they feel betrayed. The increase in size — and the corporatisation of — universities has led to a general decline in institutional loyalty. Many black students experience a feeling of alienation by historically advantaged institutions to the point that little respect for institutional culture or infrastructure exists. Anyone seeking to understand this should see the play The Fall that has been running at the University of Cape Town’s Baxter Theatre, which deserves to travel to other centres in the country.

Universities are not completely innocent victims. In particular, university managers were remarkably complacent in accepting the government’s subsidy cuts, which per capita have been declining in real terms since enrolment started growing around the turn of the century. The universities’ response — to increase fees to compensate — was enacted with barely a whimper of protest on behalf of their management (a notable exception being Rhodes vice-chancellor Sizwe Mabizela). But many institutions have now realised they need to inspire a sense of belonging among all their students, and are actively engaged with ways of doing so.

But Nzimande remains disengaged and rabbits on about nefarious third forces. No wonder the students remain intransigent. They don’t trust him, and with very good reason.

Tertiary education should be free for all South Africans who qualify for a place at university (in the same way that they should have free access to primary and secondary education). A corollary to this would be that the number of university places would have to be reduced, but this might be no bad thing if it were matched by a significant expansion in the vocational training component of our higher education system.

There are alternatives too. The Chinese, for example, have a system whereby universities are forced to keep fees low (below R12,000 per annum), with state grants covering these fees only for the really poor, and tax-free loans for the next level up. This solution has some common features with the recommendations of the Swartz report.

The more complex issue is that of maintenance grants. Currently, these are provided in the form of loans by the NSFAS. Despite its budget having trebled between 2012 and last year, the scheme caters for the indigent only, as it does not cover students with household incomes above R180,000 a year. Many students come from households with incomes higher than this, but not high enough that their parents can stand surety for loans from commercial banks — the “missing middle”.

Some argue that loans should be replaced by a graduate tax. In either event, the scheme would have to be properly run to provide recovery, which is not the case — the finding both of the review of the NSFAS and of the Swartz report.

One crucial problem identified by the former is that of the students supported by the NSFAS, only 28% had graduated. The ability of the remaining 72% to repay their loans was thus impaired, as loans are repaid only once the beneficiary earns above a critical level. This notwithstanding, NSFAS has been largely unsuccessful in recovering even the loans of graduates. The NSFAS review recommended that this task be performed directly by the South African Revenue Service.

Whatever the solution, significant additional investment will be required from the state, but it might well be worth it. Increased spending on higher education is urged by the Ramaphosa report. With the deputy president supporting him, surely Nzimande should be able to swing this with Cabinet?

So, why has Nzimande desisted from any coherent course of action? He may simply be dysfunctional, but there could be more to it than that. The government is petrified to take on the EFF, which has played an important role in the protests. And besides, university disruptions provide a very convenient media distraction to the troubles Zuma finds himself in at the moment.