Campus riots: a just cause sabotaged by ruinous tactics
Students’ all-or-nothing, violent approach to fighting for affordable education will cause serious collateral damage on, and beyond, university campuses, writes Narend Baijnath
DISRUPTION, mayhem and destruction sweep through the higher education system yet again as disaffected university students vent their dissatisfaction at proposed fee adjustments for 2017.
Most role-players who were consulted in the process preceding the announcement by Higher Education Minister Blade Nzimande on provisions for the poor and the “missing middle” agreed that the proposed fee adjustments were reasonable: no increases for the poor; no increases for those with a family income threshold of R600 000 — generous by any measure.
Sadly, but predictably, for those pushing for immediate free higher education — unrealistic as the quest may be — no solution, however pragmatic or accommodating, was ever going to be satisfactory. The endgame consequently is: “Accede to our demands for free higher education immediately, or we will render these institutions dysfunctional.”
The collateral damage for our universities from such politicking is incalculable. There rises the spectre of a repetitive pattern of disruption leading along a precipitous pathway of destructiveness.
Let us deal with the central issues unambiguously. Should funding be provided for the poor in higher education? Most definitely. Should the plight of the “missing middle” — those who do not qualify for national student financial aid — be attended to and their burden lightened? Absolutely. Should those who can afford it pay? Given the inequalities in our society, most certainly.
The cause of accessible, affordable and quality higher education is a just one. Ours is an extraordinarily unequal society. To become a more equitable society, our sustained efforts at creation and distribution of opportunities and wealth must continue to be directed towards the needs of the poor and less affluent.
We have millions in the 18- to 24year age range, many poor, who need to be accommodated in some form of post-school education at either universities, technical and vocational, or community colleges. Developmental planning stemming from the National Development Plan of 2011 is demonstrably cognisant of the needs of the youth. Adults who have not had opportunities to complete schooling also need learning opportunities to improve their skills and acquire qualifications.
Post-school education and training policy and planning detail the trajectories that will be followed to achieve growth goals in all three subsectors. All the policy goals require immense resources beyond the limitations of the fiscus, exacerbated by a moribund economy.
The trouble with letting political pressure from protest action set the agenda for where finite resources are allocated is that we may well end up with skewed development of the education sector, at the expense of the vocational education and training institutions.
The immediate and anticipated quantum of need is enormous, running into several million places that will need to be funded adequately, more so because the targeted recruits will be the poor and missing middle. The need for infrastructure, facilities, trained staff, funding support for students, housing and operational budgets will escalate the resource needs further.
Demands from protesters in the higher education sector need to be balanced against the needs and aspirations of students in the technical and vocational sectors, aside from the millions who do not have access to any post-school education at all, nor any avenues to give voice to their needs.
Public debt is already astronomical, with a massive interest bill annually. Fiscal prudence dictates that borrowing to fund policy goals should be kept at manageable levels if we are to avoid bequeathing a bankrupt state to future generations. This imperative casts doubt on whether more funds can be made available to fund post-school education immediately on the scale demanded.
Budgeting operates within the realm of the possible — dictated by revenue generated and borrowing that can be justified. Upping the ante through disruption of the academic programme and sowing mayhem does not improve the possibilities at all.
Moreover, burning and destroying university infrastructure is not justifiable in a constitutional democracy. Universities are places where reason and reasoning prevail. There should be more dialogue on issues and less disruption.
Protesters need to develop an understanding of what is realistically possible and temper their demands accordingly, instead of going for broke.
Universities and the poor are not the only ones that suffer as a result of the disruption. It must also be recognised that it is not all of the protesters who are wreaking havoc. While coherent in the beginning, the movement has subsequently been acrimonious, with evidence of fractiousness and ideological as well as tactical divergences, and party-political agendas being part of the mix.
Disruption of the academic programme also imposes a bigger burden on the poor and those in the middle class with modest means who are incurring huge debt or eroding their savings to send their children to university. More collateral damage.
We cannot be indifferent to the impact on these parents of more costs being imposed on them due to disrupted learning and delayed completion of degrees. It is also increasingly apparent that the vast majority of students who are not part of the protests wish to complete their studies without disruption, intimidation or violence.
Protest action should always be within the provisions of the law and it must be insisted that this be the required standard for all protest action at our institutions of learning, no matter the gravity of the cause.
Universities, being the places they are, will always be the theatre for protest action.
If academic programmes are disrupted and property destroyed every time there is a cause leading to protest action, it is only a matter of time before our institutions become barren and intellectually bereft wastelands.
A real danger is that perpetual disequilibrium at our institutions will lead to an exodus of fee-paying students and the brightest and best of our academics into private or foreign institutions. The poor in particular will suffer most from the closure and continued disruption of academic programmes.
In a seemingly intractable situation a lasting solution needs to be found to break the cycle of perpetual disequilibrium that seems established. Responsible action is called for. A key motive behind the proposed solution on fee adjustments for 2017 is to lessen the burden on the poor and the missing middle.
Major initiatives, such as the presidential commission led by Judge Jonathan Heher, which has embarked on an extensive and indepth process of research and engagement on the fees issue across South Africa, and the ministerial task team on funding for the poor and missing middle, led by Sizwe Nxasana, should be given leeway to conclude their work and make their recommendations so that they may be constructively engaged.
Whatever the pathway forward, we must not compromise the quality and sustainability of our institutions, or learning by students.
Baijnath is CEO of the Council on Higher Education
The poor will suffer most from the continued disruption of academic programmes
Comment on this: write to tellus@sundaytimes.co.za or SMS us at 33971 www.sundaytimes.co.za