At the outset, let me congratulate the organizers of this colloquium for the brave initiative to publicly engage on the important yet challenging issue of racism in higher education. Engagements such as this, particularly involving a network of academics and scholars, are vital to the health and sustenance of our democracy and assist in the maturing of our society.
Fifteen years since the dawn of democracy, it is appropriate and very necessary to debate and examine our progress in unraveling the vestiges of apartheid in all sectors of society. While we have made tremendous strides in transforming our society according to democratic values and principles, we cannot be under any illusion that discrimination in all its manifestations has been expunged.
The Report on Transformation, Social Cohesion and the Elimination of Discrimination in the Higher Education Sector therefore sought to establish the nature and extent of racism and racial discrimination in public education institutions and in particular university residences.
Up to the release of the report, there has not been a body of knowledge analyzing the progress of transformation in higher education institutions or any measure of the prevalence of discrimination. Therefore, prior efforts to engage on the issue were based on anecdotal evidence and presumption. The Soudien report now provides a profound insight into a sphere hitherto protected from such scrutiny.
The conclusion of the committee, though not unexpected, lifted the lid on a shameful feature of higher education institutions in South Africa.
"It is clear from this overall assessment of the state of transformation in higher education, that discrimination, in particular with regard to racism and sexism, is pervasive in our institutions," the report stated.
The committee also said in the report that there was a disjuncture apparent between institutional policies and the real-life experiences of staff and students.
One of the key findings of the committee was that though the demographic composition of the student body has changed significantly with black students (i.e. African, Indian and Coloured) constituting the large majority of head count enrolments, there continues to be significant inequalities in relation to the participation rate and throughput and success rates, as well as access to postgraduate programmes. The committee also found that progress in student equity -limited as it may be -has not been matched by progress in staff equity.
Thus the findings of the report present us with a litany of challenges. In order for us to analyse and engage on the Soudien report it is necessary to examine the context in which discrimination is perpetuated and to ground the findings in the broader social and political context of our society.
Ladies and gentlemen, in my view, our democracy is threatened by the very things we seek to overcome - racism, sexism and class inequalities. These three issues, while deeply integrated, are not the same things. They are each distinctive forms of discrimination and cannot be reduced into one another. And they each cannot be fully understood outside of the others.
In the course of national dialogue, racism is often viewed primarily from the prism of the apartheid legacy - merely a handover from the past. This in my view is a false notion. However despite progress made since 1994, racism is continuously reproduced by, not least, the continued existence and perpetuation of class and gender inequalities as well as patriarchy.
Racism manifests itself in different forms - both covert and overt. Whilst overt forms of racism have not disappeared, they have certainly receded. Acts of explicit bigotry are sporadic and when they come to light, they are met with commensurate public outrage.
It is covert forms of racism which remains prevalent in all sectors of society and which has proved to be most challenging.
The incident at the Reitz residence at the University of the Free State , which gave rise to the investigation by the Soudien committee, reflected both overt and covert racism. The shocking abuse of black women workers was done privately but recorded on video with the aim of spreading a particular attitude towards Africans.
In recent weeks we have witnessed a raging public debate stemming from comments I made regarding access to post school education for students who do not get a matric exemption. Under the guise of trepidation over the supposed lowering of standards and a fallacious idea of a free-for-all higher education system, we have seen naked fear embedded in racial and class interests.
While this issue requires thorough public debate, it is disingenuous in the extreme to our society as a whole and the next generation of school leavers to undermine proposals to expand access to higher education in order to keep it as the preserve of the privileged.
Ladies and gentlemen, we face a new danger now that some of the cornerstones and principles of our democracy are being used to perpetuate racism. Rights and principles entrenched in our Constitution can be manipulated to discriminate against sections of society.
The one distinct example of this is around language and arguments for the continuation of single medium schools and Afrikaans only universities. The proponents of these campaigns use constitutional rights guaranteeing the existence of all official languages to perpetuate the exclusion of, and racism against, black students.
Discrimination comes in many guises and pretexts which therefore requires us to continuously unmask and expose it. We also need to show the one-sided emphasis on rights at the expense of responsibility for what it is - an attempt to evade accountability in the transformation process.
In this regard, academic freedom is sometimes advanced as an excuse to counter the responsibility to transform higher learning institutions and to sustain racial, patriarchal and elitist predispositions. While academic autonomy should remain a hallmark of our institutions of higher learning, it should not be used to escape the responsibilities of transformation.
We have seen similar arguments about independence used to resist transformation of other key institutions of society such as the judiciary and the media. We are currently witnessing a campaign by those opposed to the transformation of the judiciary who argue against the President's right to make key appointments.
With regard to the media, there is a distinct lack of scrutiny and debate on the issue of diversity. It is no secret that the media in South Africa does not reflect the voices nor serve the interests of the majority of the citizens. In fact, it does not even aspire to do so and panders unashamedly to class and financial interests. This disjuncture between the media and the views of the majority was evident in the results of the April elections.
Perhaps it would be helpful to other sectors of society grappling with transformation to have the kind of open engagement and examination provided by this colloquium.
Ladies and gentlemen, we should be under no illusion that there are some in our society who are deeply opposed to transformation and who will find any and every excuse to hinder its progress.
The honourable Wilmot James of the Democratic Alliance has for example questioned the methodological basis of the Soudien report in order to undermine its findings and divert from the reality of racism in higher education institutions. This is a disgraceful attempt to pander and protect his new constituency, as if there is only one methodology of arriving at the truth.
Even without the valuable insights provided by the Ministerial committee, it is evident that black students are in the minority in the fields of accounting and financial studies, as well as the scarcity of black scholars and researchers. This shows that the system still leans towards patriarchal, racial and elitist forms of knowledge production.
While some would place the blame for this on the schooling system, the challenges we confront in basic education cannot be a cover for the discriminatory practices in higher education institutions.
Colleagues, following the release of the report, you will be aware that I wrote to the Chairperson of Councils to invite responses to the findings. I await their concrete recommendations on how to remedy the problems identified and advance the transformation process.
We have also proposed the establishment of institution-based monitoring mechanisms. I urge this forum to engage on this issue in particular and come up with proposals as to what form these monitoring mechanisms should take and how they should operate.
Concurrently, we will work towards setting up a national ministerial monitoring mechanism which would process information from the institutional units.
You will also be aware that I have announced that a higher education stakeholder summit will be convened early next year to consider among other things the recommendations of the various institutions on the Soudien report. The summit will discuss the state of transformation in higher education, identify ways to accelerate the process and possibly look into the development of a transformation charter.
It is my intention that the summit will result in the establishment of a national stakeholder forum for higher education where all these issues can be discussed and debated on a continuous basis. Through this forum, I hope that we will be better prepared to anticipate problems in the transformation process and tackle them holistically rather than to react to individual incidents and issues.
Ladies and gentlemen, I look forward to the outcome of deliberations from this colloquium in also guiding us on this arduous journey to systematically free our institutions of higher learning of discrimination. With your help and input, we are a step closer to reaching our common goal to create institutions we can truly be proud of.