Publications
Partners
Leon Schreiber writes that, instead of using the opportunity to apologise unreservedly and to undertake to fix the failings of the Stellenbosch University's 2016 language policy to prevent a recurrence, the university's Vice-Chancellor Wim De Villiers chose to respond with denial and obfuscation.
More than a month after the prohibition on the use of Afrikaans in various public spaces at Stellenbosch University (SU) first became public, rector and Vice-Chancellor Wim de Villiers finally broke his silence in an opinion piece. But instead of using the opportunity to apologise unreservedly and to undertake to fix the failings of the university's 2016 language policy to prevent a recurrence, De Villiers chose to respond with denial and obfuscation.
READ | Opinion: Stellenbosch University remains committed to inclusive multilingualism
Although De Villiers claims to base his arguments on "the facts," his piece contains several worrying inaccuracies.
Instead of taking responsibility for the predictable consequences of the crusade he has led against mother-tongue education ever since his appointment, De Villiers throws his students and lecturers under the bus – and, for good measure, has a go at a central tenant of our democracy.
Let's look at a few of the facts that the rector apparently chose to ignore.
The first fact that stands out like a sore thumb in De Villiers' piece is his disregard for the plight of Afrikaans-speaking students who were banned from speaking in their mother tongue.
SAHRC investigation
Despite weeks of media reports about the prohibition on the use of Afrikaans in residences, on park benches and even in songs, as well as the announcement by the Human Rights Commission that it is launching an urgent investigation based on affidavits submitted by the DA, De Villiers still uses the word "if" about the ban on Afrikaans. In other words: the rector of SU still refuses to believe the victims of his language tyranny.
In contrast, a few years ago, his administration fell over its feet to prove its subservience to the ideological pressure group, Open Stellenbosch. The group had demanded that two female students be immediately suspended because they dared to paint their faces purple and dress like aliens for a dress-up party. The double standard when it comes to Afrikaans-speaking students is glaringly apparent.
READ | Call for English only songs at annual first years show raises hackles at Stellenbosch University
In the same way that he disregards the cries for help from Afrikaans students, De Villiers also chose to chastise professors and lecturers in the Department of Afrikaans and Dutch who, out of apparent sheer desperation, published an open letter about the university management's assault on mother-tongue education.
The lecturers wrote that an impression exists that "those who speak Afrikaans do not belong on our campuses in equal measure to their English-speaking counterparts". The professors and lecturers further write that requests for the use of Afrikaans are often ignored or even dismissed.
Instead of reacting to these grave allegations levelled at the university management by a group of respected academics, De Villiers responded angrily because they did not use "existing communications channels" for their letter. Not for one moment does he pause to consider that these professors and lecturers probably wrote the open letter precisely because they have lost all trust in a rector whose actions also continually dismisses the needs of Afrikaans-speaking students and staff.
Then there is the fact that De Villiers, as per usual, regards the needs and aspirations of millions of Afrikaans-speakers from diverse communities as a longing for "the past." Not only is this a vulgar lie, but it is also ironic. De Villiers' management style suggests that he is the one who longs for an authoritarian past where opposition was not tolerated.
Polarisation
How De Villiers prioritises subservience to the ideology of a hegemonic ruling party over the needs of a large portion of the community he is supposed to be serving would undoubtedly be quite recognisable to his predecessors from the previous dispensation. Ditto for his apparent discomfort with the role of vigorous opposition under our constitutional dispensation.
In his desperation to scapegoat others for his blatant failure to protect the right to mother-tongue education, De Villiers tries to blame the DA for the "polarisation" that predictably followed in the wake of his failed 2016 language policy. Whereas any right-thinking person can see clearly that many Afrikaans-speakers are getting more desperate by the day about how SU management undermines their right to mother-tongue education at the last university in the southern half of the country that has the capacity to teach in Afrikaans, De Villiers' self-pity means that he only sees ghosts using him as a "punching bag."
The DA is the official opposition in South Africa.
Our constitutional duty is to defend the rights of citizens where state institutions – including public universities – undermine those rights. De Villiers can kick and scream all he wants, but the reality is that it is not the DA that supports a language policy that designates certain students as inferior.
It is not the DA that prohibits students from speaking or singing in this country's official language. It is not the DA that drove desperate professors and lecturers in a university department to write an open letter about the management's disdain for Afrikaans.
Wim de Villiers' functionaries were committed to every single one of these violations who were implementing Wim de Villiers' preferred language policy.
Lip service
Finally, De Villiers' opinion piece also reveals that he only pays lip service to article 29 (2) of the Constitution. He openly denies that SU has any sort of responsibility to promote our official languages. He makes this statement, even though our Constitution places a positive responsibility on the state – and thus also on state institutions like SU – to make constitutional rights "progressively available and accessible."
Whether De Villiers likes it or not, the right to be educated in the language of one's own choice is no less important than any other constitutional right, which means that state institutions have the concomitant responsibility to promote access to mother-tongue education.
READ | Stellenbosch university's revised language policy draws sharp criticism
Unconvincing as De Villiers' series of denials were, it is nonetheless essential that we now have on record his disregard for Afrikaans students, lecturers, article 29 (2) of the Constitution, and the role of political opposition under our constitutional dispensation.
All that his opinion piece achieved was to confirm that De Villiers has no sincere interest in honestly repairing the trust deficit he has created between SU and Afrikaans-speakers. By seeking to blame everyone but himself for his 2016 language policy's failure, he merely confirms the suspicion among many people that the current abuses against Afrikaans students are no accident. Consequently, he should not be surprised if the growing wave of resistance from diverse Afrikaans-speaking communities comes crashing down above him.
- Dr Leon Schreiber is a DA MP.
*Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to opinions@news24.com with your name and town or province. You are welcome to also send a profile picture. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers' submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
