Campus mayhem condemned

Interference and/or subtle promotion of vigilantism and self-interests is ‘fuel for tensions’

SINCE January our beloved institution – the University of Kwazulu-natal (UKZN) – has been making headlines, not because it has a proud academic history, but because it has become a hot-bed of violence and mayhem. The damage to property sits at R31 million.

The academic programme has been set back by a full term.

We abhor and strongly condemn the wanton acts of violence, intimidation and destruction of property on our campuses.

We implore the perpetrators of these crimes to stop.

We genuinely care for financially disadvantaged students and are making every effort to help.

Hence, we have heeded the call for support made by the university management and donated R1 million towards the 15% required for the registration fees from students.

There are many forces at play in this current violent protest scenario at our alma mater. Some have alluded that, much like other institutions before, the situation is now a contested political playground.

There are also those forces that appear to want to take control of the financial running of the institution. More pertinently still, some who left the university under a cloud now appear to want to make a come-back off the back of the current problems.

Then there are those who are hell-bent on fuelling the tensions further by using the institution as a pawn for their personal public positioning.

The problem with newly formed lobby groups in any situation like this is that they serve an agenda, usually opportunistic. Such agendas inevitably serve primarily the interest of the small minority that constitutes such a lobby group.

Take the example set by the newly formed UKZN education crisis committee. We use this as an example to illustrate the point of interest simply because it has a face and a name. These are leaders, recognised or otherwise, who have circulated a memorandum of demands in the public arena, but have neither engaged directly with the university, nor are they recognised by our university.

This committee has on its Whatsapp group academics currently employed by the university as well as other former employees with a score to settle.

Most glaringly though, the group membership is (as far as we can ascertain) predominantly if not exclusively representative of the Indian community.

But the waters were further muddied when one of the members of the so-called executive of the committee decided that as a former alumnus, he would in his personal capacity offer a R10000 reward for finding the protester who assaulted our respected academic Professor Erwin Brüning.

No sane human being can condone such an act and the university has followed proper procedure by engaging the police to act.

Regrettably, the video that promoted such action is now in the public space and has therefore compromised the investigations.

This despicable assault has been condemned by the institution and student leadership.

The reward, therefore, coming from within this committee without any engagement with the university, only fuels the tensions.

Money for any student is a poisoned chalice worth the risk. But it also divides the students as any arrest that follows as a result leads to more mayhem. It was done without consultation with the university and the investigation team and should have been left to the police and security authorities to opt to reward a whistle-blower.

Furthermore, demands that this group should be recognised without further merit or muster, does not engender any form of confidence (or sincerity) that the university’s interests are being served.

Why was this committee so silent during the university’s medical school crisis, when Indian students were logged as African students or said nothing when a female African student was killed on campus, nor stepped in to lend a helping hand for the students in dire financial need.

We live in a region where the dynamics of race and culture matter. We must in all situations consider the consequences for the other or for the whole.

We must allow the two parties at our former university to deliberate and sort out the crisis and find a lasting outcome.

We must have faith that a transformed leadership aided by a transformed council can do what is right for our university.