Public University Troubles

[Ivic_Wulfe]

As a lecturer at a private university I am worried about the rhetoric that is currently happening in public institutions and government subsidized universities.

As I've said in another thread, I understand the anger and where it comes from with respect to a feeling of being underrepresented, underprivileged and undercatered for. However what is it that really is going on? What is the sense behind destroying your actual ability to attend the university that you've applied to?

Instead of giving the normal, 'they can't be reasoned with', 'they're barbarians' argument. I'd like to hear statements that would explain the likely course of events that would have this action be the 'solution'.

For example, there are other parties at play, much like there's a semi-serious rumour that believes that we have 'dumbed' down our education systems to accommodate people and allows South Africa to keep it's status as a high pass rated country, while giving substandard education to students and almost attempting to cull the people from being able to do anything but follow and not think broadly about the topic at hand and make their own conclusion.

Consider Zuma's booing at Mandela's memorial. It was a culmination of races, mostly (possibly) middle class and educated that had voices within the stadium. Parties may have seemingly tapped in to these groups to sabotage their own educations and the education of their peers in lieu of some baseless (or partly true) lie about the fact that white people are still being advantaged by education.

So, let's see what the theories are and see whether there's a solution in this hullaballoo?

[Tocs]

Honestly i am not entirely sure what to say in terms of how this all started, I feel that if people were to start making theories, and start singling out who is to blame it will turn into a "he said she said" situation and overall the real causes will not be clear or something which is blown out of proportion or a way to spark up more riots.

Hmm as a solution though, despite it being harsh I believe in my opinion that this may be a viable one even though it will make people angry.. I still strongly maintain that tertiary education is a privilege, and thus should be treated as one. If people, be it students, teachers, government officials or any party decide to abuse this privilege (in any way, b
e that through influencing others or participating in the *violent* protest themselves) should be dealt with in either the court of law, have their jobs taken away or positions at the university/government taken away, and not be allowed onto the campus anymore due to their actions. There have been many polls, researches and surveys done on this situation, and from what I can see is that it is clearly a minority of people who participate in these protests.

Quite frankly I just want these protests to end because I would love to go and study and yet now I'm even questioning that if these protests are to continue in the nature it is, and I feel it's extremely unfair for students starting off in university, and any people inspiring to work in the university.

EDIT: This is just my opinion.. I may have taken the questions posed out of context or said something that may have offended someone and for that I am sorry.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I don't see any solution at the moment. There are some legitimate concerns and frustrations due to the country's past and present political situation but mostly that seems irrelevant. People don't seem to be making a principled stand for anything, what they are doing is falling for divisiveness and entitlement. There is a, wrong, belief that they are entitled to free universities, that they are entitled to residences and entitled to so many other things. Due to the past this is generally split into a black vs white issue. There was actually a news story on UCT's website about discussions of last years protest which included this:

Meanwhile, social theorist Achille Mbembe, replying specifically to the #RhodesMustFall movement, poses the central political dilemma, noting how “[m]any still consider whites as ‘settlers’ who, once in a while, will attempt to masquerade as ‘natives’”. Yet, he urges, “with the advent of democracy and the new constitutional state, there are no longer settlers or natives. There are only citizens. If we repudiate democracy, what will we replace it with?”.

None of that (the attitudes he is describing, not his words) is coherent. You have students burning "white history" (that's two bad signs in one) and protesting to be let into what we have to assume they see as a white institution. One could ask the question why they aren't trying to get into an institute of higher learning from before Europeans arrived but there's a reason for that. It's the same hypocrisy that boggles the mind that the ANC talks about Eurocentrism while wearing European suits, driving German cars and having their conferences sponsored by French champagnes.

Tied in with the entitlement is a rather tragic case of myopia. They can't see beyond their own demands, regardless of how impractical they are. There just isn't the sort of money floating around in South Africa to provide free, quality higher education (not even basic education really) and not everyone should be or can cope with university. That, coupled with a lifetime of knowing only violence and a mindset that the end justifies the means, leads to a group that will do terrible things without hesitation.

I saw someone share a post that said this on Facebook:

If you're more upset about people burning paintings than the fact that students are homeless at UCT (and other institutions), check yourself. Why is it possible for some people to show empathy towards art but not other living, breathing, suffering humans?

There are two problematic statements there. First is the, often held but false, notion that we can only care about one thing at a time. Who cares about paintings when people are suffering? Well, we can care about both. Just because people are suffering does not mean that we shouldn't still protect our history. Secondly, there is the even more insidious notion that because one thing is, subjectively, more important than another, then anything goes in solving that problem.

So, no, I don't see a solution. They aren't willing to wait yet their demands are unrealistic. They don't care to negotiate because their black and white view won't allow room to compromise. And in any case, they can't be reasoned with because the only response they have to disagreement is violence.

[Leeward]

The sad thing is that they think violent protest and wanton destruction are the solution to everything, because that's all they know. They say they're fighting against racism, but they're making it extremely hard not to be racist, which I find extremely ironic.

[Hargan]

So, no, I don't see a solution. They aren't willing to wait yet their demands are unrealistic. They don't care to negotiate because their black and white view won't allow room to compromise. And in any case, they can't be reasoned with because the only response they have to disagreement is violence.

And there you went, summing up my whole statement I was gonig to type up, in just one short paragraph.

So, my statement, though would've focused more on the negative side of things, the way they act and such like, would've led to this conclusion. So I'll save time and just say:

Ditto