Rhodes University Vice Chancellor Dr Sizwe Mabizela speaks to Grocott’s Mail on 10 November 2015. This was the day after the University held its budget meeting – postponed to adjust for the no-fees-increase announced at the Union Buildings in Pretoria on Friday 23 October. And nearly three weeks after two days of looting displaced 500 people and cast a pall of fear and mistrust over Grahamstown.
Rhodes University Vice Chancellor Dr Sizwe Mabizela speaks to Grocott’s Mail on 10 November 2015. This was the day after the University held its budget meeting – postponed to adjust for the no-fees-increase announced at the Union Buildings in Pretoria on Friday 23 October. And nearly three weeks after two days of looting displaced 500 people and cast a pall of fear and mistrust over Grahamstown.
When the government announced the 70/30 offer it must have felt like a poisoned chalice?
Indeed. The difficulty of course is that we are not a very rich university.
When the President announced a no fee increase… at that point there was the proposal that 70% would come from the state and 30% from the institution. It was going to be very difficult for us.
After every conceivable effort to balance the budget we just couldn’t. We have reprioritised, we have cut everything to the bone, and we just can’t cut any more.
R43 million is our shortfall, and that is what we will be discussing with government.
One of our fundamental principles is that whatever cuts we make, we should never compromise on the academic project… on the academic and educational experience of students at Rhodes University.
There was a very strong view that we were trying the impossible – that the government had placed us in a particularly difficult situation and that we should go back and say, we need more money, or we will be compromising on the quality of our intellectual endeavour.
That 30% – how would it normally break down?
This is just for the operational needs of the University to meet its bills – electricity, water and general maintenance. Research and other activities are funded in other ways.
By the way, the 70/30 split is not fixed.
What the department of higher Education and Training said is that they would look at each institution. It is conceivable that institutions that have nothing to contribute will get a full bailout from government. Those that have stronger balance sheets might get a bit less.
How do the #feesmustfall and the no-fees campaigns link with the broader issues of transformation in the university?
This link is very important.
I find it completely unacceptable that a young person who is academically gifted and who by sheer chance of nature happened to be be born into a poor family will then be denied an opportunity for higher education.
As we build this new society, we must make sure we provide opportunities for young people who come from poor, rural and working class backgrounds to come to Rhodes University and benefit from the quality education the institution has to offer.
Many of these young people have survived poverty, and they have survived our crippled school system. And have done well enough to meet our admission requirements.
So what the students have been doing in the past few weeks is very important in terms of social justice – ensuring that young people who are academically able and who are financially needy are able to access higher education.
At Rhodes University we took a conscious decision to open this institution to young people from poor, working class and rural communities so that they can benefit from the educational experience at Rhodes University – but also to benefit the holistic educational experience of other students at Rhodes University.
That is fundamentally transformative.
Diverse
To construct a student population that is diverse and has different lived experiences.is essential for the holistic educational experience of all our students.
It also gives us as an institution the opportunity to engage with some of the socio-economic challenges of our society.
We cannot continue to be indifferent to the plight of the poor and marginalised in our society, and if we do continue in our indifference, we do it at our own peril.
I have been reflecting on my engagements with the students.
What I’ve heard them say is, You don’t see me for what I am. If you see me at all, you see me for who you wish I was.
They say, “I am the daughter of a nurse. I am the son of a policeman.
“I can’t afford these fees, but I do want to acquire higher education.”
We should start to see our students for who they are and acknowledge their lived experiences.
We must start to appreciate the deep poverty and inequality in our society.
How will that transformation happen at Rhodes?
We have a huge responsibility.
This institution was created for white English-speaking South Africans. It comes with a particular culture.
Over the past few years we have been admitting students from different cultures, different backgrounds. And they do find this culture alienating – the way we do things, the things expected of students.
For example, I sometimes go to the dining halls and look at the set-up: they have a high table.
That’s and Oxford-Cambridge tradition that really is irrelevant here.
Institutional culture
We need to create a welcoming, affirming, supportive and inclusive institutional culture. Our students should not feel they have to adopt a different identity when they get to Rhodes University. The way they will enrich this institution is by ensuring that they are who they are.
It is critical that we create an institutional environment that allows people to be who they are.
Each and every one of us – leadership team, academics, administrative and support staff, students – we all have to work together to create that kind of environment.
Tolerance
One thing I must be very firm about is that we will not tolerate racism, sexism, xenophobia, patriarchy, gender based violence and other intolerances. They have no place in a civilised society.
When we see these thing manifesting themselves we must act with firmness so that people know what is not acceptable in this institution.
So it’s a collective responsibility.
We must lead by example so people know what is expected of them.
In Die Burger last weekend, Jonathan Jansen’s take was very pessimistic. He was quoted saying professors must find new jobs because no-fees-increase is unsustainable. He said there are repeat costs that will build and add up.
I wouldn’t be that pessimistic.
This is an exciting period, but 21 years into our democracy it is also a very challenging and uncertain period.
I’m firmly of the view that those who have little means should be supported by the state to acquire higher education.
I am also of the view that those who have means must pay.
No fees for everyone would mean the state would have to subsidise the rich, and I don’t think that is sustainable. In fact, if we did that, it would deepen the inequalities in our society.
If those who can afford to pay do so, there will be enough money to support more of the financially needy. In the process, it makes it possible for us to deal with these deep inequalities in our society.
Public good
Even though there is a private good dimension to it, higher education is fundamentally a public good.
When these students graduate they will be working as doctors, as engineers – they will be contributing to the public good.
And they will also be paying taxes.
The biggest challenge we have with the current student funding arrangement is that children of nurses, clerks are not catered for.
We will always refer to them as the missing middle: they are too rich to be accommodated in the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, but they are not rich enough to afford higher education.
One of the biggest challenges we have is to find mechanisms to fund the students in that bracket.
Challenging
Although the next three to five years will in my view be quite challenging, I am not pessimistic.
I can imagine some academics will feel very uncomfortable with the protests that will come our way. They will say, look, I didn’t sign up for this. Maybe they will leave and go to other parts of the world.
And I can also imagine some wealthy people who have means saying, I am not going to send my daughter or son to any of these universities in South Africa. Given the instability I would rather send them to some overseas university.
And that will be a loss of skills for our country.
But I don’t think many people would want to take that route.
It’s going to be challenging, but I think we have what it takes in our society to navigate our way through those challenges.
How does the University, society, look to you in five years?
It will depend on how we navigate the current challenges, and if we have the kind of leadership that will keep us on course.
Twenty-one years after our democracy there is a general sense of discontent. There is restlessness. People say they have been waiting patiently for so long.
The lived experiences of those who are in poor circumstances have not changed much, and so they are starting to assert themselves, making greater demands.
I think one of the tragedies is that since the advent of democracy, the inequality gap in our society has widened instead of narrowing.
So I think we do need some kind of shake-up to say we are not moving in the right direction.
Five years hence? I’m very optimistic. If we can navigate the next two to three years well, I think we’ll emerge much stronger, much more united, much more cohesive.
How do you understand the events of the past few weeks in Grahamstown?
It’s a very tragic thing, because when we’ve had xenophobic violence around the country, we have not witnessed the same in Grahamstown.
Rhodes is part of the greater community here, and so when this happened we felt a need to be part of the community in trying to find ways of resolving this issue.
I’m very hesitant to call it xenophobia. I think it’s largely criminality, because there’s a strong criminal element to it.
The second dimension is that our police are not adequately resourced and so they are not able to provide the kind of policing required for this area.
Their response times tend to be longer. The community do not trust the police that much, because they normally come long after the event.
Reintegrate
We had a very useful meeting on Sunday [The 1 November community meeting at the Indoor Sports Centre in Joza, led by the Ministers Fraternal].
There was a discussion about finding ways to reintegrate the immigrants into the community. I think that should continue.
And we are very grateful to the Ministers Fraternal because they have provided strong leadership.
The Human Rights Commission was there, the Gender Equality Commission, and of course our Mayor and the municipality were there – all saying one and the same thing, that we need to embrace people from other parts of the world.
If there’s anything we need to learn, it’s to start to see each other as human beings before we see anything else.
To recognise each other as fellow human beings deserving of treatment with respect and dignity. Can we just recognise the humanity in each one of us?
And also realise that our own humanity can only reach its fullness if we affirm and advance the humanity of others.
* Sue Maclennan conducted the interview at the Rhodes University administration building on Tuesday 10 November. This is a minimally edited transcription.
