Q&A

Trade union Solidarity has begun construction of a R300m occupational training college in Pretoria for Afrikaans speakers only. Chris Barron asked Solidarity’s head of research, CONNIE MULDER …

Isn’t this a backward step?

Why would this be a backward step?

Perpetuating segregation.

It’s just giving effect to article 29 of the constitution, which says you can create and maintain a private educational institution in one of the official languages. In a country that has a dire shortage of educational institutions …

Isn’t this why it should be more widely accessible?

If it was a government institution you could have arguments about access. But we don’t have tax money. We’re building this with private money. Anybody who can understand Afrikaans is welcome.

Doesn’t this in effect exclude black people?

If you’re using one of the official languages of the country it’s difficult to see how that excludes the rest of the country.

It excludes those who aren’t fluent in Afrikaans, doesn’t it?

All we’re saying is that we’d like to use our mother tongue as a language of instruction, as articles 29, 30 and 31 of the constitution allow and encourage.

Surely the intention was not to use these clauses as an excuse for whites-only institutions?

This isn’t a whites-only institution.

How many blacks have been enrolled?

We don’t keep statistics based on race, so I’ve no idea. But it’s going to be representative of its feeder area.

So mostly white?

Mostly Afrikaans. If those people happen to be white, then yes. But it’s a worrying trend if we’re trying to say certain people can’t exercise their constitutional rights because it might lead to a certain race group being the only race group at a particular institution.

Could one argue that you’re using these rights as a cover to reintroduce apartheid education?

If you really want to stretch logic you could maybe get there. But if we’re using the constitution, which enshrines Afrikaans as an official language, to facilitate a private tertiary college we’re building with our own funds, I struggle to see how this is harking back to the past. There’s no corporate sponsorship here, it’s members of Solidarity each contributing R10 a month.

What’s wrong with dual medium?

If we had access to taxpayers’ money then most likely we could afford that, but we don’t.

Isn’t the spirit of the constitution about inclusivity?

It talks about unity out of diversity. That means having one homogenous sort of monoculture is not what the constitution envisages. We’re building towards a more unified SA out of the diversity.

Building unity by excluding blacks?

We’re not excluding blacks based on race. There’s no whites-only sign.

Obviously that would be illegal. Isn’t the next best thing to have a language barrier?

I reject that with contempt. We’re not using language as a proxy for race.

Do you see yourselves as part of the South African project?

We’ve got a long track record of being part of the South African project, of trying to get this country working.