Student protests set to re-start
Fees must fall activism
AT the start of the new academic year at universities we can expect a continuation of the disruption of the academic programme that marked the end of last year. The purported reason for this continuation is the announcement by most universities that they will increase fees by 8% for this year.
This does not affect the poor as they will study free, despite the increase. To claim that this increase is wrong and that protests must continue is merely a convenient excuse to continue the disruptive acts.
There are other nefarious motives behind these protests. The protesters have been referred to as activists until now, but the term “radicals” is more apt for the current lot.
As stated by other commentators, their motives are anything but noble and in the interests of the poor. The main protagonists are ANC- and EFF-aligned student bodies who practise race-based politics.
They claim that too little transformation has taken place at universities and they are taking up the cudgels for transformation. One of the barriers to transformation, according to them, is white monopoly capital which is a key factor in causing the inequality in South Africa and the deprivation of certain races.
They are saying what President Jacob Zuma has said – they are copycats who cannot come up with something original. White privilege is also one of their gripes, but it is white student success that really gets to them (even though they do not admit it) and that is the sector they wish to hurt even at the expense of the majority of students who are poor.
Furthermore, they wish to see universities decolonised, but have never said what that means. Could it mean purging universities of descendants of colonialists, those who enjoy privileges from the colonial past? This is a distinct possibility. However, if that is the case, it is counter to the Freedom Charter which states that “South Africa belongs to all those who live in it” and “shall be equal”. These radicals are not only acting in breach of the Freedom Charter, but also the constitution of South Africa.
They are denying the majority of students their right to education which is enshrined in both the Freedom Charter and the Bill of Rights in the constitution.
Yet when the concerned parents (Captu) took the matter to the high court for an interdict to compel NMMU to comply with its contractual obligation to paid-up students to provide lectures, the judge said she could not rule in their favour as it would mean that parents could then dictate to the university on how it must be managed. The paradox is that this judgment permitted a group of radical students to dictate to management. It makes no sense. What complicates this is that there is a strong suspicion that certain members of the leadership team at our universities who are engaging (negotiating) with the radicals are colluding with them as they share the same political persuasions and agenda. This has emboldened the radicals to continue with their destructive behaviour.
It is well known that certain staff members at the universities also support the radicals as they hope allegedly to benefit from the “transformation” they are demanding. These staff members possibly hope that the purging of descendants of colonialists will create opportunities for upward mobility for themselves.
The fact that the government has not intervened in any meaningful way may suggest that the radicals enjoy government support as well, because the ANC continually engages in race-based politics and clearly the university protests have become race-based – fees must fall has become a side issue.
If it is true that certain members of the leadership group whose job it is to resolve the student unrest are colluding with them, thereby encouraging the radicals to continue with their destructive conduct, they should hang their heads in shame.
Norman Kemp, emeritus professor, NMMU