Leon Lemmer: Oor pers gesigte en ‘n swart Beethoven – praag.co.za
Aan die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US) het twee blanke damesstudente hulle gegrimeer om soos ruimtewesens te lyk. Hulle het hulle gesigte pers gesmeer. Die US-bestuur het op grond van foto’s geoordeel dat hulle hulle gesigte swart gesmeer het. In die oë van die polities korrekte US-bestuur is dit ‘n doodsonde as blankes voorgee dat hulle swart is. Dit kan bv daarop neerkom dat blankes valslik daarop aanspraak maak dat hulle net so voortreflik soos swartes is. Ook kan die beleid van raskwotas weens swartgesmeerde gesigte in chaos gedompel word. Die twee dames is onmiddellik uit ‘n US-koshuis geskors.
Lede van die militante Open Stellenbosch is toegelaat om die leviete oor rassisme, ens, aan al die inwoners van daardie koshuis voor te lees. Later het die US-bestuur agtergekom dat die dames hulle gesigte nie swart gesmeer het nie, maar pers. Die oortreding was dus nie so ernstig as wat aanvanklik gemeen is nie. Die twee dames is dus toegelaat om weer hulle intrek in die koshuis te neem. ‘n Onafhanklike ondersoeker het tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die universiteitsbestuur nie gefouteer het nie. Hierdie bevinding bevestig dat die US-bestuur weet watter kant om in enige wit-swart dispuut te kies. Dit blyk bv uit die voorkeur wat aan Engels as onderrigtaal gegee word. Ebbe Dommisse skryf: “Op Stellenbosch het ‘n onervare bestuurspan verlede November ook sowat alles probeer verengels” (Rapport, Weekliks, 13 November, p 4; ook LitNet 21 November). Die vraag is of dit nie ook ‘n onbekwame bestuurspan is nie.
Hierdie persgesig-insident is kenmerkend van die soort misplaaste politieke korrektheid wat uit Amerika hierheen oorgewaai het. Volgens Wim de Villiers, die US-rektor, geniet transformasie (pleks van akademiese oorwegings)* voorkeur in iedere vesel van die US. Daar is ‘n spesifieke Amerikaanse universiteit wat in hierdie opsig as voorbeeld vir die US dien, naamlik Stanford University, by Palo Alto in Kalifornië. Soos die US is Stanford voorheen akademies hoog aangeslaan. Die anti-akademiese virus word daar nie transformasie genoem nie, maar multikulturaliteit. David O Sacks en Peter A Thiel het ‘n boek daaroor geskryf: The diversity myth: Multiculturalism and political intolerance on campus (Oakland: The Independent Institute, 2nd edition, 1998, 323p; Amazon Kindle $10,25). “The ‘diversity myth’ is the myth that universities are doing a good job promoting diversity” (Kindle 227). “Our primary goal was simply to present an accurate account of what ‘diversity’ politics and its alter-ego ‘multiculturalism’ have meant at a major university,” naamlik Stanford (281). Naas transformasie is diversiteit een van die terme wat deesdae graag deur die US-bestuur rondgeslinger word. Daar is al gepraat van die Diversiteit Stellenbosch. [* Oor Stanford is geskryf: “The professors, appointed out of political motives and less talented academically than their own students …” (5261). Ook aan die US speel nie-akademiese oorwegings, soos ras en geslag, dikwels ‘n deurslaggewende rol by aanstellings en bevorderings.]
Polities gemotiveerde anti-akademiese gesindheid word algemeen aan universiteite in Amerika en Suid-Afrika aangetref. By sommige universiteite is dit in groter oordaad as by ander aanwesig. Die kernproses is ontwestering, wat al “ghettoizing of knowledge” genoem is (525). “Multiculturalism filled the vacuum created by the elimination of the West” (963). “Multiculturalism amounts to nothing less than a war on Western civilization and, beyond it, a war on the very idea of civilization” (202). Die ideaal van ontwestering is wat die huidige studente-onrus in Suid-Afrika aanblaas.
Wat ek interessant vind, is dat die outeurs vroeg in hulle boek naas Stanford vir Cornell University, te Ithaca, New York, uitsonder as ‘n ander groot en bekende universiteit waar multikulturaliteit, bv swart bevoordeling, ‘n deurslaggewende rol speel (298). Jonathan Jansen, die vorige rektor van die Universiteit Vrystaat (UV), het na studie aan die Universiteit van Wes-Kaapland in 1987 ‘n magistergraad aan Cornell en in 1991 ‘n doktorsgraad aan Stanford voltooi. Jansen het onlangs as ‘n navorsingsgenoot na Stanford teruggekeer. Die multikulturaliteit waarin die eertydse akademiese integriteit van Stanford sedert 1987 (485) versink het, is veral die maaksel van ‘n bioloog (450), Donald Kennedy, wat twaalf jaar lank (1268), van 1980 tot 1992 (4946), die president of rektor van Stanford was. Jansen was ‘n biologie-onderwyser voordat hy in Amerika gaan studeer het. Wat tydens sy rektorskap aan die UV gebeur het, getuig (soos by Stanford) van die gevaar as iemand wat (grootliks) onkundig in die humaniora en sosiale wetenskappe is as rektor op ‘n universiteit losgelaat word. Vir ‘n rektor is ‘n mediese agtergrond nie minder gevaarlik as ‘n biologie-agtergrond nie. ‘n Medikus kan vertrou word met raad oor bv spysvertering en purgasie, maar daar kan kwalik van hom verwag word om as rektor insig te toon en leiding te gee oor ideologiese en taalsake of hoedanig ‘n universiteit behoort te wees. Let op dat Jansen tydens Kennedy se ampstermyn ‘n student aan Stanford was.
In hierdie rubriek is daar nie ruimte om die hele inhoud van Sacks en Thiel se boek aan die orde te stel nie. Wat hierdie boek baie duidelik maak, is dat Stanford tot in sy kern akademies en moreel verrot is. “Institutions like Stanford University are indoctrinating the current generation of American graduates with a new mythology – a complete pantheon, filled with heroes and villians, deified victims and demonized oppressors” (4354). “Bursting with revolutionary consciousness and run by a corrupt elite, Stanford truly had come to resemble something like the Third World” (4643). Aan Stanford “the multicultural state came to resemble a despotic Third World regime not only in its fervent ideology, but also in the endemic corruption throughout its ranks” (4865).
Ek gaan egter my aandag beperk tot ‘n enkele tipiese voorval op die Stanford-kampus wat aan die US se persgesig-voorval herinner. Soos in die geval van die persgesig-insident is Stanford se Beethoven-voorval ondersoek en is ‘n verslag daaroor vrygestel. Daardie voorval toon die mate waarin polities korrekte irrasionaliteit die oorhand oor Amerikaanse universiteite gekry het, met Suid-Afrikaanse universiteite wat al hoe meer net ‘n kortkop agter hulle is. Die voorval is so verregaande dat ek liefs probeer om my van lopende evaluerende kommentaar te weerhou en ek my eerder tot verduidelikende kommentaar beperk.
Lesers kan gerus ook die buitensporige afmetings wat die Reitz-insident aan die UV aangeneem het, in gedagte hou. As remedie vir die pyn wat die Reitz-gebeure glo veroorsaak het, is die Sentrum vir Versoening en Sosiale Geregtigheid deur Jansen tot stand gebring. Die direkteur, André Keet, en sy adjunk, JC van der Merwe, is onlangs daarvan beskuldig dat hulle die studente-onrus op die kampus aanblaas en dat hulle die oortreders openlik in die hof bystaan. Dit toon hoe gevaarlik dit is as ‘n universiteit hom eerder deur politieke as akademiese oorwegings laat lei.
Stanford het ‘n koshuis, Ujamaa House,* waarin swart kultuur die koshuistema is en waarin daar oorwegend swart inwoners is. In Amerika is daar deesdade ‘n neiging tot skeiding van etniese groepe. Swartes wil apart wees wanneer dit hulle pas. In Suid-Afrika vind die teenoorgestelde plaas, naamlik gedwonge rasse-integrasie in koshuise aan eens blanke universiteite. Toe ek laas gehoor het, was ‘n koshuis vir swartes aan die UV ‘n Jansen-toegelate uitsondering. In Amerika, bv aan Stanford, word koshuise en gradeplegtighede deesdae in groot mate volgens etnisiteit apart gehou. [* In Suid-Afrika word die voorbeeld wat militante Amerikaanse swartes stel om omstrede en selfs afstootlike benamings te kies, dikwels nagevolg. Ujamaa was die naam van Julius Nyerere se mislukte sosiale en ekonomiese beleid in Tanzanië, bv kollektiewe boerdery, wat tot die ontworteling en dood van derduisende inwoners gelei het.]
Op 29 September 1988 het twee blanke eerstejaarstudente, Gus Heldt en Ben Dugan, in Ujamaa House ‘n openbare gesprek met ‘n swart tweedejaarstudent, BJ Kerr, gevoer. “The discussion’s topics included black influence on music … BJ informed the students that ‘all music is black’ and that ‘all music listened to today in America has African origins – beats, drums, and so forth.’ A white bystander asked, ‘What about classical music? Beethoven?’ Undeterred, BJ declared that Beethoven also had been black – he had read it in a book in the Ujamaa library. Ben and Gus were incredulous. BJ expressed displeasure with Gus and Ben for doubting. The idea that Beethoven had been black ‘was so far from their own truth,’ he declared, that the two freshmen ‘could not accept it'” (1318).
Hier moet ek verduidelik dat sogenaamde identiteitstudies, bv Black Studies, Women’s Studies en Queer Studies, onder ‘n verskeidenheid benamings deesdae as baccalaureuskursusse, selfs as voorgraadse hoofvakke, en as nagraadse studieterreine erken word. Hierdie onderwerpe word nie soseer doseer om feitelike inligting aan die studente oor te dra nie maar eerder om die studente goed te laat voel.* Dit gaan primêr nie om kennis nie, maar eerder om terapie. Die gevolg is dat vergesogte stellings gemaak word ten einde bv swartes, (feministiese) vroue en homoseksuele goed te laat voel. Dit is dus moontlik dat in ‘n handboek oor Black Studies beweer word dat Beethoven swart was. Die waarheid word gerelativeer en as subjektief geag. ‘n Swart Beethoven is BJ se waarheid maar nie Gus en Ben se waarheid nie; ook nie dié waarheid nie. [* Vandaar die versugting plaaslik op eens blanke kampusse dat swart studente daar tuis moet word. Dit word bewerkstellig deur blanke studente te ontheem, dus minder tuis te laat voel, deur bv gebouname te verander, standbeelde te verwyder en selfs leerplanne en leergange te wysig, bv te verafrika.]
“The following evening, Ben noticed a Stanford Symphony recruiting poster featuring a picture of none other than Beethoven himself (in the poster, Beethoven appeared white). Inebriated, Gus and Ben used crayons to color in the Beethoven flier with the stereotypical features of a black man – brown face, curly black hair, enlarged lips – and then posted the flyer on a ‘food for thought’ bulletin board adjacent to BJ’s door. The black residents of Ujamaa did not consider the satire amusing. BJ, who had lectured other people on Beethoven’s blackness just several days earlier, was particularly flabbergasted. ‘I coundn’t believe anybody would do that. You see things like that in the movies or on TV. It’s the kind of thing someone would do in their room and joke about but it didn’t seem like anyone would be bold enough to put it on a door.’ One of the black resident assistants (RAs) in Ujamaa added that the flyer was ‘hateful, shocking. I was outraged and sickened.’ Overnight, with the most minute shift in inflection, the symbolic significance of the claim that Beethoven was black had changed 180 degrees – from a source of multicultural pride to a point of multicultural derision” (1326).
“Ben and Gus’s satire was certainly in bad taste [?]. But BJ’s words and the two white students’ drawing had said precisely the same thing. Nevertheless, the fact that these students were of different races made BJ’s expression legitimate and the white students’ something of a crime. A black student who said that Beethoven was black was bolstering racial pride, while white students doing the same – with the ‘wrong’ intentions – were racist rabble-rousers. To the multiculturalists, for whom truth is subjective, the accuracy or falsehood of the original claim was irrelevant. Because ‘subordinated’ groups are not subject to criticism by ‘superordinated’ groups, the relevant issue was not what was said, but who said what to whom” (1335).
“On October 16, an emergency house meeting was called to discuss the Beethoven flier. An Ujamaa ‘teaching assistant’ (TA) had succeeded in extracting a confession from Gus by warning him that ‘people* are really angry,’ ‘people* are really suspicious of you,’ and there are people* planning ‘to beat the hell out of you.’ According to the Final Report, ‘We asked TA Brown if in fact there were residents planning to beat up [Ben] and [Gus]. He said no; this was a ruse to get [Gus] to tell the truth” (1344). [* Die etnisiteit word nie gespesifiseer nie.]
“If Gus’s confession was extracted by intimidation, the emergency house meeting resembled a show trial. Ujamaa’s residents had been discussing the matter among themselves for the previous two weeks, and the atmosphere was highly charged. Gus attempted an explanation: He had been disturbed and offended to find that people cared so much about race at Stanford, and he thought the focus on ‘ethnic differences’ was counterproductive. Gus suggested that the poster had been attempted as ‘food for thought,’ educational, and ‘avant-garde’ art. Ujamaa’s residents, however, were not interested in an art lesson, much less the suggestion that their focus on race – of which the show trial was but the latest instance – was excessive. A resident interrupted Gus’s speech: ‘You arrogant bastard, how dare you come here and not even apologize. I want an apology.’ Gus’s flip reply indicated that he remained unrepentant: ‘1, 2, 3, we’re sorry.’ The ‘apology,’ needless to say, was inadequate,* and some of the residents began to demand that Ben and Gus be removed from the Stanford dorm system. Ron Hudson, an assistant dean of student affairs, suggested rather lamely that it would be good to keep the two freshmen in the dorms so they could receive a better multicultural education” (1344). [* In Suid-Afrika word van blankes verwag om nie net verskoning vir bv apartheid te vra nie, maar om dit herhaaldelik te doen en in oortreffende mate anders is dit onaanvaarbaar.]
“The din of the crowd quieted as BJ rose to speak. Noting that Dean Hudson’s suggestion was silly, BJ stated that Ujamaa’s residents should not educate the two freshmen because ‘this all came about because [black Ujamaa residents] were trying to educate [these two] about African history [in the first place].’ It would be a waste to educate persons with ‘such dogmatic racism who came to Stanford with eighteen years of belligerent ideology,’ and he ‘shouldn’t have to pay $20 000 to educate white people about racism’ in his own home. BJ concluded that the proper remedy would consist of throwing the culprits out of the dorm” (1344).
“In the course of his speech, BJ had become more and more emotional. There are conflicting accounts of what occurred next, but observers interviewed for the university’s Final Report generally agreed that towards the end of his speech, BJ started to gesticulate wildly, lunged violently at the two white freshmen, and, seemingly to have lost his mind, collapsed on the floor. According to the residence staff, when people caught BJ ‘he was groaning and flailing his arms;’ it ‘seemed as if BJ had lost his mind;’ he was ‘not in control of his actions’ and was carried out of the lounge to his room by about six students, while he was ‘crying, screaming and having a fit'” (1362).
“BJ’s tantrum was only the beginning of the end of the house meeting. The university’s Final Report describes the pandemonium that broke loose next:
‘As many as 60 students were crying with various degrees of hysteria. At least one student hyperventilated and had to be assisted in breathing. According to R[esident]F[ellow] Brooks there was “utter chaos.” People were “crying, screaming,” “hysterical” and “distraught.” R[esident]F[ellow] Weiss said that there was “mass chaos,” “people were holding hands and crying, tears were running down”, the “staff was running around trying to collect people.” She compared the scene to the mass hysteria that occurred when the [space] shuttle exploded or the US exhibition air show in Germany where a group of planes simultaneously crashed. R[esident]F[ellow] Brooks told the staff “to make sure no one was alone.” R[esident]A[assistant] Johnson reported that “one woman was jumping up and down saying this is not fair.” She “herded” crying persons into her room which was “a wreck,” “bodies everywhere”‘ (1371).
“Multicultural diversity has its limits, and at Ujamaa events had moved far beyond the breaking point. Two freshmen, at Stanford for only a few weeks, had done nothing more than poke fun at multiculturalism with a satirical flier. In the subsequent days, the flier’s significance became exaggerated to the point where it caused an entire dorm to have a collective nervous breakdown. Since the administration was unwilling to tell Ujamaa’s minority* residents (members of a privileged multicultural group) that they had overreacted, Ben and Gus had to be found guilty of instigating** the entire episode. They were blamed for the ‘painful experience’ and were removed from university housing for the remainder of the year. The fact that Ujamaa’s residents were largely responsible for blowing events out of all proportion*** was conveniently overlooked in the cathartic hunt for scapegoats” (1379). [* In Amerika beteken “minority” nie-wit. ** Dus, Ben en Gus se reaksie het die insident begin, nie BJ se stelling dat Beethoven swart is nie. *** Vergelyk die doodskisvoorval in Suid-Afrika. Niemand is beseer of gedood nie maar hierdie beuselagtige gebeurtenis kry baie meer verontwaardigde publisiteit as die wreedste plaasmoord.]
“As unfortunate as the entire episode was for Ben, Gus, and the other residents of Ujamaa, the incident is still useful for its instructional value. For multiculturalism to ‘work,’ some groups of people must defer to other groups of people. Within each group, some persons are ‘correct’ (while others are ‘sell-outs’), and so on. Ben’s and Gus’s actions undermined multiculturalism on almost every level. They challenged a claim made by a representative of a favored group [!], they renewed the challenge with a flier, and (perhaps worst of all) they refused to confess to their crimes in front of a crowd that desperately needed reassurance. Because Ben and Gus were partially [?] right in what they had said (that is, Beethoven was not black), their challenge could not be dealt with in a rational or intellectual manner. Rather, the residents of Ujamaa restored consessus by demanding the literal expulsion of the two nonconformists. Ben and Gus had to go because the multicultural community requires (as the substitute for objective truth) widespread agreement on underlying ideological values. At the same time, their punishment would also serve as a warning and deterrent to other would-be contrarians. Incidentally, the question of whether Beethoven actually was black, around which much of this debate ostensibly had resolved, was never resolved or even addressed” (1388). “There was something wrong with a regime that punished people for speaking the truth” (3920).
“Much as with the Western Culture debate,* the details of the Beethoven incident gradually would fade, but as a putative racist episode it would provide the justification for additional ‘sensitivity training’ sessions, more multicultural workshops, and new regulations on conduct. Speaking at a ‘Rally Against Racism’ several weeks later, undergraduate Cheryl Taylor cited the Ujamaa episode as symptomatic of widespread oppression of blacks. The genesis of a new multicultural myth was well under way [!] (1396). [* Western Culture was ‘n verpligte kursus aan Stanford maar is vervang met ander waarin by uitstek ander kulture betrek word.]
Cheryl Taylor het gesê: “By now, y’all must have heard about the Ujamaa incident – the racially defaced Beethoven flyer … This is a big deal [!]; in the context of American society, these incidents are truly racist. They weren’t just isolated incidents committed out of ignorance; rather, they were deliberate actions committed in response to the Res[idential] Ed[ucation] focus on diversity. In effect, these individuals sent a message to Stanford, and all communities of color[:] ‘we’re sick of this cultural diversity bullshit that’s being shoved down our throats. Your cultures are not legitimate – they don’t mean shit to us – they have no place in this University – Niggers, we will put you back in your place.[‘] Well, they’ve been kicked out of the dorm and we are here today to say that no one is going to stand in our way as we fight for justice and respect” (1396).
“Ujamaa achieved a ‘unity’ of sorts by collectively expelling the two freshmen. But this unanimity comes at a high price, as sacapegoats are made of those (and there will always be some) who do not conform willingly” (1403). Dit herinner aan Wim de Villiers wat die US se studente en personeel aan verpligte indoktrinasie wil onderwerp en geen afwykende mening duld nie: “We want our students and staff members to develop a transformation competency. A compulsory, credit-bearing first-year module – a kind of Maties 101, which I want to expand to 201, 301 and 401 – is currently being developed. And we are also working on compulsory courses for members of faculty and other staff. The aim would be to sensitise students and staff to transformation” (Cape Times, Insight, 6.10.2015, p 9).
‘n Fundamentele verskil tussen die Beethoven- en die persgesig-insident is dat eersgenoemde dwaasheid deur studente en die persgesig-fiasko deur ‘n universiteitsbestuur gepleeg is. Wat baie duidelik is, is dat die US- en UV-bestuur weet wie die “favored group” is. Aan die US is daar ‘n rasgebaseerde kwotastelsel waarvolgens die getal swart studente vermeerder en die getal blanke studente gevolglik beperk word. Hierdie beleid is nie akademies nie maar suiwer polities gemotiveerd want die bewese akademiese rekord van swart studente is swak terwyl blanke studente akademies uitstekend vaar. Die “favored group” bepaal die US-bestuur se gedrag deurslaggewend. Dit is waarom die De Villiers-US luister na watter onderrigtaal Open Stellenbosch verlang en waarom die Adam Tas-verenging, wat aandring op Afrikaans as onderrigtaal, geïgnoreer word.
Die oordrewe reaksie in die Beethoven-voorval het vir swartes die gewenste resultate behaal. Dit is soortgelyk aan die gebruik van ‘n ander beproefde middel, geweld, waarmee swartes in Amerika en Suid-Afrika deurlopend die resultate behaal wat hulle verlang. Bohaai-opskop en geweld is twee middele waarmee blankes glad te dikwels geïntimideer en benadeel word. ‘n Ander middel is verswelging. Dit gebeur elke jaar oor Kersfees en Nuwejaar in bv Kampsbaai en op Durban se strandgebied. Dit is soos ‘n damwal wat breek. Daar is nie eens beurtruimte nie. Teen sulke suksesvolle demonstrasies is daar skynbaar geen verweer nie. Dit is immers die grondslag waarop die nuwe Suid-Afrika funksioneer.
Skrywer Leon LemmerGepubliseer op 10 Desember 2016 Kategorieë Leon Lemmer, RubriekeSleutelwoord pers gesigte, Reitz, Stanford, universiteit van die Vrystaat, Universiteit van Stellenbosch, Wim de Villiers
Vorige Vorige artikel: Was dit die kebab of die kopdoek?
Volgende Volgende artikel: Guptas steel van swartes, sê groep