SRC 101 Colloquium Report

 

 

RHODES UNIVERSITY’S 101^ST  STUDENTS’ REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL

COLLOQUIUM REPORT

TOPIC:

Student governance in the general higher education sector in South Africa and Rhodes University, in particular.

Venue: R.A. ROOM

Date: 13 MAY 2011

First Session

Registration

Welcome and Introduction

Professor Paul Maylam, Head of the Department of History, at Rhodes University, and Chair, welcomed everyone to the colloquium, highlighting poignantly, that the Rhodes SRC shared a birthday with the formation of the Union of South Africa, in 1910.

The Chair welcomed all the delegates to the colloquium, with a special word of welcome to the Rhodes SRC Alumni, including the SRC President from 1961, Professor Emeritus Ian McDonald, current SRC members, and the SRC delegates from the Durban University of Technology, the University of the Free State, the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand, who had come to Grahamstown to participate in the Rhodes SRC’s 101/Centenary celebrations. The Chair thanked the Rhodes SRC for giving the various stakeholders that had assembled for the colloquium, the opportunity to engage with the issues, saying that that in itself was history-making.  

The Chair highlighted that “governance”, on a global level, has been a disaster, with the twentieth century having been dubbed as the “Age of Catastrophe” by historians. In light of this, the pressure was on young leaders to strive towards better governance.

After touching on the aims of the colloquium, the Chair cautioned that colloquiums amount to nothing if there are no agreed to, practical outcomes or if too many high-flown realities are dealt with.

The Chair informed everyone that the first speaker on the agenda, Mr Vasco Ndebele, had not arrived yet, and that in consultation with the Rhodes SRC VPE and Chair of the Organizing Committee for the colloquium, Mr Mohammad Shabangu, the second speaker, Dr Vivian de Klerk, Dean of Students at Rhodes University, would take his place and be the first speaker.

 

 

First speaker: Dr Vivian de Klerk (Ph.D.), Dean of Students, Rhodes University –

Dr De Klerk began by thanking the SRC 2010 / 2011, for giving her the opportunity to address the colloquium, and also offered congratulations to the SRC on the occasion of its 101/Centenary celebrations. Dr De Klerk also welcomed the Rhodes SRC’s alumni. At this time, she also outlined for the delegates that her address would cover her time as a Rhodes student, as a Rhodes academic, and as a member of the Rhodes Senior Administration Management team, in her role as Dean of Students since 2006.

Dr De Klerk continued that as a student, the SRC had a “negligible impact” on her. She confessed that she never voted in the SRC’s elections, and that she failed to see them as being relevant. She acknowledged that in the early 1970’s, Rhodes was white and privileged and that times had changed since then. Dr De Klerk could only remember two instances of student protest that she was aware of during her student days. Once when students marched down High Street, protesting against the rule that male students had to wear ties to dinner (every night?). The second time was when she participated in RAG (Remember and Give), a charitable cause, and mobilized on campus through the efforts of the SRC. Dr De Klerk blamed herself for not being more aware of the activities of the SRC, and added that when she recently quizzed her friends about how they remembered the SRC, that they also drew blanks.  

Dr De Klerk returned to Rhodes as an academic in the 1980’s, and also remarked that the SRC was also invisible then, commenting that their voice was “muted”, even in the late 1980’s, notwithstanding the mounting pressure of the struggle against apartheid which intensified dramatically during that decade. 

Dr De Klerk was appointed as the Dean of Students in 2006, and the SRC became a part of her “job”, and it was at this time that she first became aware of the issues in student governance. She strongly believed that she needed to keep a respectful distance from the SRC. Dr De Klerk asserted that except for the current SRC administration, every other SRC has always approached the Dean of Students with a request for more “money”.  She further commented that SRC’s also appeared to spend a great amount of time hoping to change managements’ views on issues. The University had also made some privileges available, notably in the form of a mentorship programme, whereby SRC Cllrs would voluntarily choose a mentor from the academic staff. She reported that successive SRC’s had not taken full advantage of this programme.

Dr De Klerk also highlighted the fact that successive SRC’s had given up on trying to achieve satisfactory constitutional reform, if at all, and that this was a concern. The Dean suggested a “shorter” constitution as part of her recommendations to improve student governance, on a pragmatic level.  The issue of apathy amongst students in the nation was also an issue, in light of the fact that universities across the nation, battle to obtain a quorum in SRC general elections. Another area of concern, and which was the practice of all SRC’s across South Africa, was that of hosting big budget parties to welcome first-year students onto their respective campuses, as part of official orientation programmes. She also questioned why so few postgraduate students did not run for SRC?

The turn-over of SRC’s and concomitant continuity issues, were also highlighted as a pitfall to “service delivery”, in the sphere of student governance. The issue of lack of continuity in SRC at Rhodes, in 2011, was particularly visible, as not one Cllr from 2010 stood the elections for a second term of office in 2011. The knock-on effect of this was that the SRC had to function with very little institutional knowledge, and with very little insight on which national concerns and issues to pick up on, and why?  The Dean continued by saying that some students worked well and some were more notable by their absence.

Dr De Klerk agreed that one of the major areas of conflict for individual Cllrs, was balancing SRC work vis-à-vis academic work, and the ongoing tension that this caused would have to be dealt with.  It was trite knowledge that many students failed or underachieved when they joined the SRC, across the board. She highlighted the need for universities to attract the right students to stand for office and for the right reasons. There was a need for an issue focused SRC, that focused on daily issues and not so much the national issues. There was also a need for a good understanding of roles for future relationships, and an ethos of working together in a team. The turn-over issue also meant that “bonds” with individuals had to be severed re-established every year. She concluded by reminding everyone that serving on the SRC is about “leadership”.

Points of clarity followed by discussions (matters arising)

• the SRC should be more representative and not administrative;
• focus must be “to live out” portfolios;
• the SRC at Rhodes has been given administrative staff by the University;
• the SRC at Rhodes “liked” to serve on committees, and if this would be the way forward, then good time management was necessary;
• universities across South Africa liked to function in isolation;
• some universities, it was alleged, criminalize the right to protest;
• did the university strike the balance between national and local issues;
• it was not possible to rent a crowd (for a protest) in Grahamstown, notwithstanding that Rhodes endorsed students exercising their rights to protest;
• Rhodes has never used the political party ticket system in SRC elections, across the board, but instead candidates stand for a portfolio, ensuring that candidates run for what they want to do;
• the issues of national importance (“big issues”) in society were also not as clear as they were pre-1994 (in the struggle days, lecturers had an “unequivocal indictment” to appraise students on what “the enemy” was), and this could be a possible explanation for student apathy today - a national profile for student governance would be in a better position to identify what the national issues were, and would be in a better position to engage the state on the national issues;
• Rhodes was still dominated by the “white male” and “privileged student” hegemony, just like it was in the 1970’s, so the vast majority of the university does not hear or see what the SRC actually does. This could also be a reason for the apathy, and this could also be the reason why “reaching out” to the students often “falls flat”;
• students took a visceral view to issues and so the SRC needed to set the agenda;
• financial exclusions and “skyrocketing” entrance requirements also contribute to apathy, and universities should remember that students come from society and not from the institution, and the call for universities not to “act as islands”/in isolation was reiterated;
• there was a class struggle taking place on South African campuses today;
• for two years in the 1970’s, there was no SRC at Rhodes (check which ones?);
• lack of continuity in the 1970’s was not seen by the Administration as a problem, but instead it was used by the Administration to their advantage;
• the SRC at Rhodes was also expected to work very hard and this also could be misinterpreted as apathy;
• in South Africa, post-1994, there was a lack of leadership, in part because there was no clearly identifiable enemy, and in part because individuals use SRC as “stepping stones” to other positions (some universities SRC’s were also involved in tender processes);
• the lack of a clearly identifiable enemy could be attributed to academics at universities failing to educate;
• a lack of a sense of community could possibly lead to feelings of apathy about governance structures, and for answers one should look to see where the sense of community is strongest, and at Rhodes, one could locate it in the residential system. This could, in part, also be attributed to the sub-warden selection process (which was more stringent than that for SRC), and this could also, in part, be attributed to the size of the residences;
• Rhodes punted itself as a socially aware and mobilized/”activist” community;
• the exact role of SRC’s “in getting the excitement going” on campuses was also questioned;
• where universities use the political party ticket system, it was incumbent on those universities to keep the focus on issues rather than on political parties;
• there was still an enemy and institutions needed to challenge government and not the students;
• it was stated emphatically that it was the “job” of the SRC to get folk to participate, but also to remember that not everyone will want to (apathy has existed at Rhodes in the past, too);
• while Rhodes may be the smallest university in the country, it had a far reaching effect;
• SRC “identity” itself  was a problem area;
• there was no institutional culture of debate at Rhodes;
• Rhodes provided many leadership opportunities;
• poverty was easily identifiable in South Africa;
• communication was paramount, and SRC’s needed to convey it’s mission and vision to students;
• “one-race-based” or events which were targeted at a single race only, were not supported by the SRC on one campus in South Africa;
• being on SRC was sometimes perceived as a job title and not service;
• some students were discouraged from standing for SRC and from participating in SRC events because of the political overtones of some SRC’s;
• the approach universities were taking to SRC “ binges”/parties, was questioned;
• SRC’s must be careful about what they wish for – in the past SRC’s wished to get into the [meeting] room and now must carry that load in conjunction with maintaining an image of “not colluding with Admin”;
• “change comes from the margins and not from the middle of the page”;
• train students in leadership before putting them into power;
• institutionalize students into becoming good leaders;
• university Councils ensure that SRC’s are undermined;
• university Councils must learn to deal with students face to face;
• SRC’s should use their time effectively and monitor how much time was spent in meetings so as to minimize the feeling of being trapped in the [meeting] room;

 

Dr De Klerk thanked everyone for the feedback and commended all the participants on having spoken “beautifully”.

 

The Chair thanked Dr De Klerk for her address, and adjourned the colloquium for lunch.

Colloquium adjourned for luncheon.

 

 

 

 Second Session

Second speaker: Ms Amanda Ngwenya, University of Cape Town SRC President 2011, currently a student at the University of Cape Town (UCT), on: “Rethinking student governance reform / renovation”.

Before the second speaker delivered her paper, the Chair recapped for everyone, as follows:

·         Regional, national and international issues, had been raised thus far, and it would be worthwhile to ponder on what amounted to good governance, and what the ethical components were, and how to govern more effectively?

Ms Ngwenya began by disclaiming that her views would be based on her experiences of SRC at the University of Cape Town (UCT).

Ms Ngwenya cautioned against romanticizing the past and protest. She reiterated that as much as there was a right to protest, there was also a right not to be forced to protest. She said that making protest the first port of call in times of distress was “petulant”. UCT has been reluctant to comment on issues of national concern, and therefore students via SRC’s, cannot be called upon to act in this capacity. Universities have become parochial, notwithstanding that the struggle still continues, in that there were huge ideological battles still raging on. SRC’s needed to be discerning and pick up on pertinent issues which needed to be protested. Ms Ngwenya, reiterated her earlier call, to concentrate on difference in ideologies and not difference in association at the party level. 

On being “trapped” inside the [meeting] room, she encouraged that SRC’s should not lament the present, but rather be more effective, in the new spaces they find themselves in. There were power relations at play and SRC’s needed to be careful not to lose ground by wearing [prefects] blazers, and the like. Why wear a blazer when the other people in the meeting are wearing normal clothing. SRC’s should not be “trained” to do things or be asked for their opinion, if they’re really equals with everyone inside the meeting room?

Ms Ngwenya believed that SRC’s shouldn’t view their work as lobbying against their university, but rather as working with the University. She also maintained that everyone at a university was aware of the issues. She also encouraged SRC’s to back up their claims, particularly when one looks at the increasing [or need for increased] student fees issue. Student leaders should also take themselves seriously and not follow the example of SAUS, which hasn’t worked as well as it could have, in the past. There was no “attachment” or sense of community of UCT. She encouraged SRC’s to talk to each other.

In conclusion, she reiterated her thesis, and that was that the past should not be romanticized, and that holding office on an SRC was an “amazing” space to effect change, and that SRC’s should always substantiate their claims.

The Chair followed-on by saying that there appeared to be an absence of public intellectuals, responsible leadership and decision making.

 

 Point of clarity and discussions (matters arising)

·         the significance of protest needs to be pointed out, and yes, it must be given relative importance;

·         the issues of access to HE in the country was also as a result of increasing fees, and was described by one delegate as the, “… financial genocide of our students.”;

·         the needs of  international students were also raised in light of the fact that in South Africa, we’re a narrow intellectual community;

·         access to HE cannot be reduced to percentages;

·         engagement with management was strongly encouraged;

·         protest action should be the last resort, and should be managed as it will always shift;

·         need to look at the quality of academics that are in our institutions of higher learning;

·         what matters has shifted, as there is a black middle class in South Africa now;

·         protest happens when there are material conditions [reasons] in existence, and you cannot resort to anything else apart from protest, “… and at some institutions it is the only language that management understands.”;

·         SRC’s should not forget that a peaceful protest is possible;

·         whose responsibility was it to raise the “prickly issues”;

·         enabling spaces should be created to resolve all issues;

·         many students in the country were suffering, and something needs to be done about this;

·         protest action sets off a vicious cycle, because if you’re an active SRC then something is suffering, and it’s usually the Cllrs’ academics;

·         SRC’s need to be more proactive in the university space;

·         universities also appear to be in competition with each other and this does not foster a “working together” ethos;

·         the quality of management at the institution may also be setting up the SRC for failure;

·         what forms of support were SRC’s able to offer each other in South Africa?;

·         there was a lack of transparency with SRC’s from the universities management teams –  management should furnish SRC’s with logic and reasoning behind decision making;

·         the material value of the environment that an institution has will also influence whether or not there will be any point in engaging in protest action;

·         at Rhodes there weren’t many student protests because there was very little need to embark on this course of action;

·         SRC’s should see themselves as pioneers – what did the SRC want to achieve in the long term, which in many instances is just one year – should there be two-year terms of office?;

·         does an SRC just have to draw lines which the university may not overstep?;

·         SRC’s should move away from pointing fingers and engage with decision, engage with scarcity;

·         predecessors must do hand-over with written reports;

·         manage scarcity effectively;

·         yes, financial exclusions should not ever take place;

·         South Africans seem to lack a “responsibility ethic”, and yes, the problems inherited were not the fault of the current generation of students, but they were inherited problems and need to be dealt with by the current generation of students;

·         South Africans must be willing to “payback” for their education;

Third speaker: Ms Rozz Dlamini, a student at Rhodes University, on: “The students and the preferred way”.

Ms Rozz Dlamini’s opening statements were a take on student apathy as a constraint to student governance, and the role of the Student Body’s participation in governance. One of the effects of apathy was that it limited the bargaining power of the SRC. To date, no SRC at Rhodes, has called students to sit in at Senate meetings (check on this – accuracy and viability?)  Another effect is that the voters set the agenda for the SRC, the few that do vote, the few who get involved in student issues, and it’s usually the same people all the time.

Another practical example of the effect of apathy: if the Student Body perceived it as the sole responsibility of the SRC to host parties then surely it would be stopped if the students were actively voicing their discontent at this practice. Apathy could also lead to SRC agendas that were ambitious and unachievable, because of the lack of student input. It can also be used to explain why students often remarked that they were neither aware, of an issue, nor of who the SRC were, et cetera.  Students did not want to read up on issues. “Where were the SRC on gender issues - throwing a party?”

On the role of the Student Body, Ms Dlamini, began by commenting on the Student Body itself, especially at Rhodes, where most of the students were middle class. She confirmed that the SRC did set the tone for the students’ institutional culture, and that activism, academics and parties could all happen at university. There was also no cooperation at the national level between the universities, and that this created issues, notwithstanding that the conversations were mostly the same but happening in isolation. “What can I do so that I’m not a parasite?” “SRC Cllrs cv build.”

She continued, expressing that tenures [terms of office] should be extended to two years, and that there should be a minimum six month hand-over period. SRC’s needed to be more strategic, and the relationship with the student body should be a reciprocal one.

On continuity, Ms Dlamini, raised the bar with the following: “is there no one here who will possibly be on SRC in the future? “There is no one here because we’re having a conversation with the past here.”  “The past is having a conversation with the past and with no one from the future.”  “How do you have an ideological discussion when there is a lack of ideas?”

 

 

 

Point of clarity and Discussions (matters arising)

·         the national body SAUS was not being run properly and all the people who could make a difference were sitting in the room;

·         it was agreed that in future, non-executive members the Rhodes SRC would begin to visit Senate meetings more often;

·         there would also be a drive to do voter education preceding the elections, and elected candidates training as normal after the elections at Rhodes in the 2011 general elections (maybe “development” in light of Ms Ngwenya’s sentiments about using the word “traning”?);

·         a Cllr also admitted to having felt “battered and bruised” in his place on the SR Council;

·         it was suggested that the “party hosting” could also be used as a fundraising opportunity (“a parity”);

·         university campuses have become hotly contested areas by the very people that they’re made up of; students sitting on campuses could not be fighting for access, as they already were on campus?

·         the wrong issues currently were dominating the public discourse;

·         education was not a privilege but a right;

·         it was suggested that the current SRC embark on head-hunting recruitment drives;

·         it was further suggested that a runner-up should be “appointed” to shadow the elected SRC Cllr for six months;

·         students were expected to extend their [educated] influence into society and the university should be a place of good. Universities should revitalize themselves from the inside to become the active and crusading institutions that they once were;

·         it was also suggested that an experienced person [in an ideal world] Cllr., preferably someone who has served on Council for one term, should be a candidate for the role of SRC President;

·         what were the SRC’s communicating with all the party hosting?;

·         outsource party planning;

·         students party too much;

·         the SRC’s should draw up a plan on how to lead the student body and they should be strategic;

·         the SRC’s should also be creative and get “stuff” to be more interrelated.

    

 

Fourth speaker: Dr Sizwe Mabizela, the Deputy Vice Chancellor: Academic & Student Affairs at Rhodes University – On the way forward and structures of SRC  

The Deputy Vice- Chancellor: Academic & Student Affairs, Dr Mabizela, began his address by reminding all of the delegates that, “… the SRC existed as a statutory body, and not at the behest of management.” He also brokered the question: what constitutes good governance in our individual university contexts? He said that it was necessary to particularize what good, accountable leadership was.

Dr Mabizela went on to highlight that a higher education conferred both public and private benefit. Does that mean that you stick your head in the sand? He also questioned why SRC’s did not reach quorum in elections. Have SRC’s lost touch with the institution? Was it necessary to organize and host parties?

On the issue of contesting the SRC elections on political party tickets on campuses, he implored everyone to remember that party politics had killed a student on a campus of higher learning in 2010.  

In respect of continuity, the DVC recommended sabbaticals for SRC Cllrs because this was both practical and workable.

At Rhodes the budgeting processes and fee increase discussions, all included the SRC.

Training would be useful [if not only to warn incoming SRC’s of the various power relations or tensions that existed, and] it would also be difficult to hit the ground running without some basic training.

He also agreed that SAUS needed to be reviewed.

Marginalization and underdevelopment were big issues on South African campuses.

DVC, Dr Mabizela, thanked all the delegates for the opportunity, and for listening to his input.

 

  

Closing comments/summary/vote of thanks from Chair

·        the battle for inclusion was not over;

·        universities in South Africa were still dominated by the middle class;

·        the black middle class were there to act as a barometer to warn when the country will erupt (wish he explained this a little more – should we follow-up?)

·        it was ok to dispute the structures that you’re a part of; you can contest the universities;

·        it would be incorrect to assume that members of a party did not dispute each other – even the most loyal party followers differ amongst each other;

·        yes, economic oppression still existed in South Africa;

·        nothing was ever certain when running on a party ticket – you run risks here as nothing is certain and there is a need to engage those risks;

·        smart ideas must be implemented;

·        there was nothing wrong with running on a party ticket, except when a few “lunatics” were elected and wish to change the campus;

·        colloquia and imbizo’s amounted to “hot air”;

·        what is good governance?;

·        there was a lack of meaningful and real engagement with students in the sector, and SRC’s need to fill this gap;

·        there was no adequate inspiration by the leaders of the day;

·        SRC’s were often not interested in information and were precious about their power;

·        current SRC’s should engage with previous administrations;

·        SRC’s failed to build and maintain strategic alliances within the university structures;

·        SRC’s must be more involved and take responsibility;

·        SRC’s cannot be majoritarian, and must take a stand on principles;

·        hand-over from one administration to another was critical. This was where the battle was either lost or won;

·        in the struggle days, people took the time to explain things to each other - today everyone reads about each other, even talking to each other, face-to-face, was inconvenient;

·        SRC’s should carefully consider to whom they could outsource the unimportant jobs, like parties, etc., and do the jobs that were important, themselves.

DVC, Dr Mabizela concluded as follows:

1.      Hand-over must be carried out properly.

2.      Bring enthusiastic students on board.

3.      Inclusion of the SRC was important at universities.

4.      SRC’s must take SRC seriously.

5.      Student leaders were agents of positive change.

 

 

The Chair, Professor Maylam, concluded as follows:

1.      The relationship vis-à-vis the SRC and the Students on the one hand and University Management on the other, has in the last fifteen years or so become less adversarial in South Africa.

2.      SRC’s should relook at sitting on committees and work out which ones were the key ones and what level of impact they had.

3.      On the hosting of parties: SRC’s should lead the students. If the students say that they want parties, and the SRC creates parties, then the students were dictating and the SRC was not leading.

4.      SRC’s need a national structure for muscle – galvanize SAUS.

5.      What do we need to do with the immediate imperatives?

Professor Maylam thanked all the speakers and everyone for attending the colloquium, including the visitors from afar. He also thanked the Rhodes 101^st SRC, for organizing the event [and for a good lunch].

 

End of colloquium

All were invited to attend the 101 Crystal Ball at the 1820 Settlers Monument; 19h00 Friday, 13^thMay.