Report of the SAFT Work Group on Institutional Governance

(E Beyers, C Cameron, D Love, YH Malan)

September 1999


"Democratisation... requires that those affected by such decisions should have a say in making them... It also implies that decision-making processes should be open and transparent and that all interested persons and parties should have access to the relevant information." The National Commission on Higher Education


"The future of higher education's promise to the future of South Africa and its people will largely reflect the capacity of councils to exercise responsible leadership with effective chief executives, other academic leaders and stakeholders."

Daniel Ncayiyana and Fred Hayward, Effective Governance


"Strategic planning is not just a set of projections, but a more profound process whereby institutions are forced to think about themselves." Nick Segal





DISCLAIMER: This document was prepared by a work group of the Student Alliance for Transformation (SAFT). However, it does not necessarily reflect the views or policy of SAFT, and remains the responsibility of the authors.


1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Some Thoughts on "Transformation" . . . . . . . 5

2.1 The Concept . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 The Response at South African Higher Education Institutions . . . 8

3. Background . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 Change in Higher Education at a National Level . . . . 10

3.2 The New Framework: Co-operative Governance . . . . 20

4. History at US . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.1 Distrust . . . . . . . . . 24

4.2 Developments with regard to Broad Transformation Forums, an Institutional Forum and the New Statute . . . . . . . . . 25

4.3 The Strategic Planning Committee and the Strategic Planning Framework . 29

4.4 The Student Transformation Forum and the Student Alliance for Transformation

. . . . . . . . . . 30

4.5 The 1998 Institutional Plan . . . . . . . 30

5. Changes in Institutional Governance coming during 1999 – 2000 . . . 32

5.1 The Council . . . . . . . . . 33

5.2 The Senate . . . . . . . . . 34

5.3 The Faculty Councils . . . . . . . 34

5.4 The Institutional Forum . . . . . . . 35

5.5 A Student Support Services Structure . . . . . 35

5.6 Institutional Rules . . . . . . . . 36

5.7 A New Private Act? . . . . . . . . 37

5.8 The Draft Higher Education Amendment Bill . . . . . 37

6. Some Urgent Matters . . . . . . . . . 38

6.1 Strategic and Institutional Planning at US . . . . . 38

6.2 The Appointment of a Third Vice-Rector . . . . . 41

7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . 41

References . . . . . . . . . . 42


Appendix 1: Extract from the White Paper . . . . . . A1

Appendix 2: 1998 Planning Guidelines . . . . . . . A2

Appendix 3: Comments on the Strategic Plan Framework " ’n Stratigese Raamwerk vir die eeuwissing en daarná" ; by D Love and YH Malan, August 1999 . . . . . A4

Appendix 4: Comments on the US Institutional Plan (1998, for the period 1999-2001); by D Love, YH Malan and TCR Walters, November 1998 . . . . . . A14

Appendix 5: Proposal for an Appointment Procedure for a Rector or Vice-Rector; by the Committee of Societies’ Chairpersons, August 1999 . . . . . . A29


In terms of legislation, the University of Stellenbosch (US) falls under, in the following order:

  1. The Constitution (Act No 108 of 1996);
  2. The Higher Education Act (Act No 101 of 1997);
  3. The US Private Act (Act No 107 of 1992), although some aspects of this are no longer in force as they are in conflict with the Higher Education Act; the Private Act has not been revised since 1992;
  4. The US Statute (Government Gazette, No 14407 of 1992), which was partially amended in May this year (Government Gazette, No 20096 of 1999), following the emergency procedure in March;
  5. The institutional rules or reglement.

The current statuary arrangements (following the amendment of the statute in May) are of an interim nature, having been designed to "ensure sufficient compliance with the Higher Education Act until new statutes in terms of the newly promulgated private Acts can be published" (DoE 1999). A new Private Act and a completely new statute must still be discussed.

The various governance bodies of the US are:

  1. The Council, which is the governing body and supreme decision-making body of the US, currently comprising Management, and representatives of the Senate, SRC, Convocation, Donors, Western Cape Government and National Government; the Council is to be expanded in terms of the amended statute;
  2. The Senate, which is the supreme decision-making body of the US with respect to academic affairs, currently comprised of Management, all professors, heads of divisions, and representatives of associate-professors, the lecturers’ society, the SRC and the ABR; the Senate is to be expanded in terms of the amended statute;
  3. Management (also referred to as "Dagbestuur" or the "Rectorate") who are responsible for managing the US, under the authority of the Council;
  4. The - as yet not established - Institutional Forum (IF) which advises the Council within the framework of co-operative governance - see section 2.4 below;
  5. The - as yet not established - Advice-Forum on Student Support Services (ASSS/ASO) which advises the Council and management on student support services, within the framework of co-operative governance;
  6. The Students' Representative Council (SRC/SR), which is there to represent the interests of the student community;
  7. The SRCs of the Satellite campuses of Tygerberg, Bellville and Saldanha.
  8. The Academic Affairs Council (AAC/ABR), the student decision-making body with respect to academic affairs - effectively the student Senate, comprised of representatives of all faculty student committees;
  9. The Prim Committee (PC/PK), the student decision-making body with respect to residence affairs, comprised of representatives of all hostel and ward committees;
  10. The Committee of Societies' Chairpersons (CSC/KVV), the student decision-making body with respect to student societies, comprised of representatives of all registered societies;
  11. The Student Alliance for Transformation (SAFT/SAVT), comprised of the SRCs, all hostel and ward committees, student faculty committees, societies and student-run services (Die Matie, MFM, Stellenbosse Student, Carnaval, Trivarsity, Maties Community Service).


With the passing of the Higher Education Act (Act No 101 of 1997) and the amendment of the old US statute (Government Gazette, No 14407 of 1992) in May 1999 (Government Gazette, No 20096 of 1999), various changes in the structure and manner of US institutional governance are required. These changes must be handled carefully because of the climate of distrust that has developed between certain sectors of the US community1 and its governance structures, as noted on numerous occasions, for example, by all parties in the Institutional Forum Pilot Committee and during the process of amending the US statute (USIFPC 1999a: 2.3, 3.3.2).



2.1 The Concept

Part of the reason that some groups are uneasy with the concept "transformation" is that it is difficult to give an exact contents to the concept. Furthermore, it operates on more than one level. The concept can be approached from two angles. First, there is the technical or pragmatic aspects of the concept, for example, the work of the National Commission on Higher Education. There is, however, also an important more abstract dimension to the concept. It should be noted that "transformation" is an extremely complex issue. We have no intention of giving an exhaustive definition/discussion of the concept (and since it is complex, that would be impossible). We merely hope to give some (bare) framework for discussing the concept.

The Technical - Pragmatic Level

At its most basic level, transformation must refer to some kind of fundamental change, from one thing to another. At a national level, "transformation" and "social transformation" tend to be used interchangeably with "building a new society", "building a better life for all", and similar slogans. In the context of higher education, it must refer in some way to changing the old, pre-1990s fragmented, apartheid-based higher education system, with something new. But what is this "something new" and what is the change?

In the context of US student politics, former SRC Chairperson, Nadine Fourie, described transformation as a matter of principle, involving a change in management style (Die Matie 25 February 1998). Wynoma Michaels' definition is essentially one of adaptation: "changing with a changing environment" (Die Matie, 4 August 1999). Naudé de Wet of SAFT refers mainly to changing the management style (Die Matie, 4 August 1999).

In the context of US Management, the Vice-Rector (Operations), Prof RH Stumpf, gives the definition of informed, planned and managed actions, to achieve specific and generally-accepted university objectives that arise from continuous changes in knowledge, as well as in the broader community within which the university operates (Die Matie, 4 August 1999). The Rector, Prof AH van Wyk, declines to define the term (Die Matie, 4 August 1999), which to date has never been used by the US Council in any official document or pronouncement.

In the 1970s and 1980s, documents from the liberation and opposition movements on education policy tended to stress some, or all, of three key points:

    1. Education is a basic human right2;
    2. Education should be polyvalent, combing sciences with humanities, and theory with practice;
    3. Education should be an agent of social transformation (Wolpe, 1991)

Wolpe's (1991) discussion gives some clue to what kind of change in education was envisaged by the liberation movements - but also comments that policy seemed to generally be developed in a rather ad hoc way. Following the release of Nelson Mandela, the matter of higher education transformation became debated more widely, and the early Broad Transformation Fora were established, for example at the University of the Witwatersrand. "Transformation" continued to mean different things to different people.

The most systematic treatment of higher education transformation is (or course) that done by the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE 1996). The work of the NCHE has shaped post-apartheid higher education policy, and seems the appropriate place to try and draw and understanding of "transformation" from. From the NCHE's work, transformation stands on two (inter-connected) pillars:

    1. Massification: The change from an elitist system, that is one where the sense of quality is derived from exclusiveness and where governance is usually authoritarian, to a mass system, that is one with greater participation and more democratic governance - in the South African context, massification must include the redressing of past discrimination, at student, staff and institutional level;
    2. Responsiveness: The change from an isolated, ivory-tower form of higher education institution to one which, although maintaining large degrees of institutional autonomy and academic freedom, conducts teaching and research and operates in general terms in a manner more relevant to the regional, national and global contexts.

Transformation, according to the NCHE, is thus the process of change that furthers these two goals3. The Vision, Principles and Goals of the NCHE's future higher education system spell this out:

Table 1. A summary of the Vision, Principles and Goals of Transformation, according to the NCHE






VISION (5.1)

  • Equitable and increased access
  • Development of a culture of critical discourse, respect for human rights and inter-cultural communication
  • Responding to national needs and to globalisation
  • Enhancing quality and advancing knowledge
  • PRINCIPLES (5.2)

    • Equity and redress
    • Increased Access
  • Democratisation
  • Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy
  • Development
  • Quality
  • Effectiveness and efficiency
  • GOALS (5.3)

    • Promote participation and equal opportunities
    • Representative, responsive staff
  • Democractise structures
  • Strengthen civil society through democratic ethos and critical thinking
  • Relevant programmes
  • Community service
  • Facilitate social transformation
  • Funding as a response to principles
  • Thus perhaps "transformation" in the current context is the change, and the processes needed to facilitate the change, from an elite, unresponsive higher education system, to a mass, responsive higher education system. Does "transformation" mean "lowering standards" – as is frequently claimed around our university? Yes and no. If standards mean now much effort is needed to pass a course or programme, it is possible some standards might drop to achieve greater participation. However, "standards" refer also to how a qualification (or institution) is valued, nationally and internationally. Programmes and institutions which are seen as more responsive to the needs of society, and more participative, will be valued higher nationally and internationally - therefore raising "standards".

    But we must remember that as our society continues to change and develop, and no higher education system can ever be perfect. Thus there will always be some kind of change needed, and what "transformation" means will probably change as conditions change

    The Ethical / "Paradigmatic" Level

    Transformation is not a threat or a hostile attack from "outside". It is a natural and important part of (complex) social systems such as a university. Transformation stands in opposition to "evolution", meaning that change is visible and fundamental (Cornell 1992). It does not mean merely "tinkering" with the existing structure, by reconsidering its boundaries, deconstructing it. This should include a serious and critical reassessment of the institutional character, rules and culture, ie institutional and structural change.

    Any system needs to develop and adapt its structure in order to cope with its environment. Furthermore, complex social systems are not closed systems, they are in constant interaction with their environments. Cilliers (1998: 12) makes an important point in this regard when he writes that "[s]ince the system has to cope with unpredictable changes in its environment, the development of [its] structure cannot be contained in a rigid programme".

    In other words, transformation is a fundamental/vital aspect of a (complex) social system such as a university. This means that boundaries must constantly be reconsidered and redrawn. This, however, is not as simple as it could possible sound. The need and commitment to (constantly) reconsider boundaries is extremely important. However, with this comes huge responsibility. The redrawing of boundaries is vital, but not without its own dangers. Transformation/the redrawing of boundaries must be done with responsibility, in other words, the consequences (although it cannot be calculated) must be considered (and taken responsibility for). There must also be a willingness to reconsider judgments.

    There are, therefore, two important points to keep in mind. First, in a complex system such as a university, transformation is a vital process. It is not a threat, but a "fundamental" aspect/characteristic of the system. Second, with the need for transformation comes responsibility, to reconsider and redraw boundaries and to stand in for the consequences.

    2.2 The Response of South African Higher Education Institutions

    Bunting and Cloete (1999: 6-7):

    "Views expressed at two recent planning workshops suggest that different kinds of HE [Higher Education] institutions are emerging in the SA HE environment. The characterisations are "ideal types" and there are clearly huge differences within types and there are no hard boundaries between types.

    But how has US approached change and planning? This will discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. The following, however, is an attempt to give some general remarks on the approach of US to "transformation" and planning. US has developed a sense of quality that is based to a large extent on exclusiveness and "tradition". Planning has been influenced (at least to some extent) by a fear of the future, of change, of loss of this exclusiveness and "traditions". The result of this is that planning is perhaps reactive and defensive, not proactive or innovative. It is perhaps an attempt to maintain the status quo, to maintain old paradigms and approaches, to merely comply with the letter of the law when forced to do so. Planning becomes an attempt to avoid what is seen as the loss of exclusiveness, "traditions" and "stability" at some other technikons and universities. However, the result is that there is very little of a "planning ethos" or "culture of planning" developed at the US: planning has a "stop-start", reactive character, rather than being continuous. There is little self-reflection and no re-positioning of the institution. The attitude to the past is to see it as good and wholesome. The attitude to the future is to see it as threatening. The result is that there is little attempt to define a niche for the US in late 1990s South Africa.

    Combined with these problems in approach is that of conflict. In the last few years, distrust between Council and Management on the one hand, and sections of the staff and student corps on the other has been growing (see section 4.1), with crises like those of the re-appointment of the Rector by the "short process", the leave pay-outs, the new procedure for appointment of Deans, the damage at Mostertsdrif, the amendment of the statute, the closing down of the US Choir and so on. This distrust – and resulting conflict – often paralyses innovation and change, for example on the Strategic Planning Committee and during the Institutional Forum establishment process. Ironically, attempts to prevent the conflict and instability considered typical of institutions such as UWC have resulted in a form of low-intensity conflict which is potentially just as paralysing with respect to the long-term development of the institution. Thus US shows some of the characteristics of Bunting and Cloete’s (1999: 5) Group 4 (unstable-uncertain) institutions.

    A number of dangers lie ahead if serious self-reflection is not undertaken at US:

    1. Conflict paralysing change, innovation and development (this is already happening to some extent at institutional level), leading in a scenario similar to that of UWC of Eastern Cape Technikon;
    2. Super-authoritarian management preventing the development of any kind of institutional direction and leading to loss of staff and student morale (US has some characteristics of this), ultimately leading to a scenario similar to that of the University of Transkei last year;
    3. The development of nation or international perceptions of the institution which become considered "common sense": that US is a backward, lost, racist institution (this is already happening to some extent) – compare this to the "common sense" perceptions about the lack of "quality" at universities such as Western Cape, North West, Transkei, Venda, etc;
    4. Seeing "transformation" as solely a matter of changing the racial and gender composition of the student (and staff) corps, leading to a scenario similar to that which developed at the Vaal Triangle Technikon;
    5. Inefficient financial management, leading ultimately to situations like that of UWC, or even Fort Hare;
    6. Conflict leading ultimately to a collapse in governance, as occurred in the last year at the Universities of Transkei and Fort Hare and the Vaal Triangle and Mangosuthu Technikons.


    3.1 Change in Higher Education at a National Level


    "The political and social context within which each higher education system developed is crucial to understanding the issues facing each system"

    The Future of Higher Education Conference, Florence 1996

    "Responsible institutions will be sensitive to the national agenda and priorities and to the policy objectives of the system, such as redress, capacity building, quality and development." The National Commission on Higher Education 1996

    The drive to transform and democratise South African higher education - and the education system in general - has been part of the struggle to democratise South Africa, since as long ago as the 1940s.

    The National Commission on Higher Education 1996

    In 1995, the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) was established, with a broad frame of reference, to look into all aspects of higher education in South Africa. Its 1996 final report, A Framework for Transformation forms the basis of all subsequent national higher education policy. In its "Higher Education Transformation Strategy", the NCHE proposed the following goals for higher education at institutional levels as part of the initial and second phases of higher education transformation:

    1. Transformation and restructuring of governance bodies and the creation of an institutional forum and a student services council;
    2. Prepare for participation in the new funding system, especially by means of preparation of proposals for earmarked funds;
    3. Start assessing and responding to the implications of massification;
    4. Develop greater responsivity to the socio-economic context, new forms of knowledge production and dissemination and the formation of new partnerships: This may affect the structure of departments and faculties and the content and format of the curriculum;
    5. Address the many issues raised by inhibiting or inflexible and inappropriate institutional cultures;
    6. Develop mechanisms and codes of conduct for governing relationships between institutional stakeholder groupings such as management, staff, students and alumni, etc.;
    7. Prepare and submit three-year rolling institutional plans (NCHE 1996: 9.3.1, 9.3.2).

    The third phase of the NCHE's 'Higher Education Transformation Strategy' begins with the full implementation of three-year rolling institutional plans - which detail an institution's response to national policy priorities for the planning period - and of the new funding system (NCHE 1996: 9.3.3), the latter set for the beginning of the 2001 academic year (DoE 1998: 9).

    The NCHE also spoke of the development of the "learning society":

    "This expression has been introduced to describe the consequences for the individual of a knowledge-driven and knowledge-dependent society, that is of a society in which knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge have become key factors shaping the structures and dynamics of daily life. It indicates the decisive shift from the kind of society where formal learning occurred in a one-off situation to a society where one has to reorientate and reschool oneself repeatedly." (NCHE 1996: 4)

    The Draft White Paper on Higher Education 1997

    Following the 1996 publication of the NCHE Final Report, the department of education began preparing policy. In 1997 first a Green Paper – which was not very well received – and then an extensively revised White paper were published. The White Paper (DoE 1997) combines something of all of the three concepts of 'university': as a tool to universalise and socialise, as a developmental tool, and as an institution offering access to diverse forms of 'knowledge' and 'meaning'. The White Paper (DoE 1997: 1.3) sees higher education as having the role of addressing-

    To address these needs, the White Paper (section 1.28) set out a series of goals for higher education institutions:

    1. To transform and democratise the governance structures of higher education;
    2. To encourage interaction through co-operation and partnerships among institutions of higher education and between such institutions and all sectors of the wider society;
    3. To promote human resource development through programmes that are responsive to the social, political, economic and cultural needs of the country and which meet the best standards of academic scholarship and professional training;
    4. To establish an academic climate characterised by free and open debate, critical questioning of prevailing orthodoxies and experimentation with new ideas;
    5. To demonstrate social responsibility of institutions and their commitment to the common good by making available expertise and infrastructure for community service programmes;
    6. To encourage and build an institutional environment and culture based on tolerance and respect.

    Following the discussion of the Green and White Papers, the Department of Education prepared a new Higher Education Bill, passed in November 1997 as the Higher Education Act (Act No 101 of 1997). This is the highest legislation (other than the Constitution) governing higher education.

    The New Planning System

    "Institutions must develop a clear consultative process that ensures ownership from institutional constituencies. Consultation is important both in the development of the plan as well as in its subsequent implementation."

    Department of Education, First National Higher Education Reflection

    "Planning based on fear for the future, rather than responding to opportunity and mobilising innovation, could be very destructive for the whole sector."

    Nico Cloete

    "Strategic planning is not just a set of projections, but a more profound process whereby institutions are forced to think about themselves."

    Nick Segal

    The new system of planning at a university was initiated by the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE 1996: 9.3) and the White Paper on Higher Education (DoE 1997: 2.13-2.20, see Appendix 1). According to the Planning Requirements (DoE 1998: 3), the key instruments in planning are Comprehensive Institutional Strategic Plans (SPs) and three-year rolling Institutional Plans (IPs). Ideally, the process should flow as follows:

    1. SP prepared, by the Institutional Forum or a Planning Team or Sub-Committee thereof.
    2. SP discussed, amended and approved by Institutional Forum (IF).
    3. SP discussed, amended and approved by Council.
    4. SP submitted by Council to Ministry.
    5. IP prepared from SP.
    6. IP discussed, amended and approved by IF and Senate.
    7. IP discussed, amended and approved by Council.
    8. IP submitted by Council to the Ministry for approval.

    Public funding of an institution is dependant on the preparation of IPs and SPs, as it is intrinsically bound up with strategic planning. A description of the new funding system is given later in this chapter.

    Strategic Plan (SP):

    The SP will define the institution's niche within South African higher education, and should contain:

    1. Mission statement;
    2. Academic development plan;
    3. Staff recruitment; equity and development plans;
    4. Student equity and development plans;
    5. Capital management plan;
    6. Infrastructure development plans;
    7. Quality and performance improvement plans;
    8. Research development plans;
    9. Plans for accessing government-earmarked funding;
    10. The current IP (DoE 1998: 3-4).

    See Figure Overleaf

    The SP must be developed in a "spirit of partnership and dialogue" (DoE 1998: 3). The SP as such will not require ministerial approval (DoE 1998: 3). However, funding of particular projects and programmes will be likely dependant on such projects and programmes falling within the framework of the SP (DoE 1998: 3).

    Institutional Plans (IPs):

    Each public higher education institution must issue a new, 3 year IP, every year. The aim is for IPs and SPs to converge by the third round of planning (2000). IPs give effect to the SP for the next three years, and deal with planned student enrolments and the institution's response to national priorities. An IP is not a report by an institution to central government. It is supposed to guide detailed and day-to-day planning within the institution.

    The exact contents of an IP depends upon the National Policy Priorities, issued annually by the Ministry. The National Policy Priorities for the 1999 IP (for the period 2000-2002) are not yet set. Those for 1998 (for the period 1999-2001) were:

    1. Institutional responses to national policy priorities:

    1. Data:

    1. Inter-institutional co-operation projects and programmes.

    (DoE 1998: 10-12, see Appendix 2 for the complete details).

    The Planning Process, from DoE 1998:


    An important change in the 1999 planning phase will be the "need to think about earmarked funding for the next years, especially if you [institution] did not include it in this year's [1998] three-year budget and strategic plans" (Hayward 1998). Additionally institutions need especially to think about:

    (Hayward 1998)

    According to a 1999 Centre for Higher Education Transformation workshop (CHET 1999b: 4) "key questions that an institution needs to ask before beginning the process of institutional change are:

    The IP requires ministerial approval. Such approval is on the basis of criteria determined by the Council on Higher Education (CHE), but will include the fit between institutional and national policy and goals, consistency with institutional missions and sustainability (DoE 1997: 2.15).

    The New Funding System

    A crucial change in the national context is the new funding system for higher education. The new funding mechanism, involving funding of subsidised student places, and performance-related funding, will be introduced in part in 2000, the first year of the 1999 Institutional Plan (DoE 1998: 6). Subsidises from central government will be allocated to student places, rather than generally to a university, and are intrinsically bound up with the programme-based approach.

    The system will work as follows: Programmes will be subject to screening and, if approved, will be publicly-funded for a specific number of student places (White Paper, DoE 1997: 2.39, 4.23). In every programme, a 'student cost' shall be calculated, on the basis of expenses incurred in teaching, and using a two dimensional grid: with broad learning field on one axis and level of study on the other (Stumpf 1998: 4-5). Screening of programmes will be very broad: there will be no attempt to infringe on academic freedom by censoring programmes. Funds are likely to be made available on the basis of broad learning fields, such as management sciences, health sciences, social sciences, and so on (Stumpf 1998: 5). Thus it is likely that an individual programme will be slotted into a broad learning field and funded on that basis, possibly after assessing the sustainability of the programme in question.

    The funding shall be made available to each institution on the basis of planned enrolments, following the same two-dimensional grid, published in the 3 year, rolling Institutional Plans (Stumpf 1998: 5). Additional, non-subsidised, student places may be offered by a public higher education institution, but on the basis of the institution's own funds (DoE 1997: 4.24). Funding of places will vary with programme, but not institution. This funding grid will also include funding for academic development and for extended programmes (DoE 1997: 4.26 - 4.28). The funding grid will include funding the administrative costs (supervision, infrastructure, consumables) of post-graduate study, but not the projects themselves - these will be funded from the National Research Foundation. Selectivity will be practised to expand post-graduate training in areas of institutional strength (strategic foci), to develop new strategic foci and to provide for recognition of measurable research output (DoE 1997: 4.26, 4.30 - 4.31).

    In addition to the funding grid, there will be provision of 'earmarked funding', for specific purposes. Such funding will go towards redress of historically disadvantaged institutions (DoE 1997: 4.34 - 4.38), student financial aid (DoE 1997: 4.39 - 4.49), capacity and research capacity building in new areas (DoE 1997: 4.50, 4.53, 4.58), improving student completion (DoE 1997: 4.52), post-graduate training infrastructure (DoE 1997: 4.56), capital works (DoE 1997: 4.57) and regional co-operation (DoE 1997: 4.59). Institutions will be able to apply for specific amounts of earmarked funds for specific purposes, these being related to their institutional strategic plans and three-year rolling institutional plans. The US will not qualify for redress funds, nor will it qualify for much in the way of student financial aid, if the demographics of the student corps remain unchanged (Stumpf 1998: 7).

    In the year 2000, the funding grid for subsidised student places will be initiated, but with only partial implementation. Public subsidy of a university will take into account both what the subsidy would be under the old (current) and new (grid) systems; the aim being that the 2000 public subsidy will not be substantially different from that which would be received under the old (current) system (DoE 1998: 6). The implications of this remain uncertain, until the national policy priorities for 1999 are issued. The new funding mechanism will be fully in place for the 2001 academic year (DoE 1998).

    The White Paper (DoE 1997: 4.60), states that public funding of higher education institutions will be "conditional on their Councils providing strategic plans and reporting their performance against their goals". This statement is direct: failure to prepare a comprehensive institutional Strategic Plan and three-year rolling Institutional Plans can result in cutting of funding. Thus the development and co-ordination of the programme system, and a university's attempts to achieve policy will directly relate to the provision of central government funding.




    Characteristics of Higher Education and of Students in South Africa

    The most obvious legacy of apartheid in higher education is the disparity in access to education among race and gender groups. Although by 1997, gender parity in higher education had been achieved (54% of the student corps is now female, Grobbelaar 1998), racial disparity remains enormous, with whites, who make up 13% of the population, making up 37% of the student corps5 Staff composition remains strongly white-dominated and male-dominated. Thus the achievement of racial and gender equity in the student and staff corps remains a major challenge.

    The nature of the South African student corps is changing, and the nature of the system must, to some extent change to reflect this. This involves the process of 'massification' 6. According to the NCHE (1996: 4.3):

    "The expected expansion of higher education in South Africa is a feature of most industrialised and rapidly industrialising countries in what has been called a move from an 'elite' to a 'mass' system. The term 'elite system' refers in this context to higher education provision for a smaller number of selected individuals from privileged social classes, while the term 'mass system' means a system providing a greater diversity of programmes to much larger numbers of students recruited from socially more distributed or varied backgrounds. "

    Although the National Commission on Higher Education forecast an increased demand for higher education places (NCHE 1996: 4.3), this increase did not take place (Bunting and Cloete 1999: 1). This could be due to a drop in public confidence in higher education, inadequate student financial aid, declining numbers of students with full matric exemptions (from over 88 000 in 1994 to under 72 000 in 1998) and competition from private colleges and further education institutions (Bunting and Cloete 1999: 1, 2).

    An important factor in the pattern of change in the student corps is the large number of 'black' (used exclusively) students applying to historically Afrikaner universities (Free State, Port Elizabeth, Potchefstroom, Pretoria, RAU and Stellenbosch). In 1993, a mere 4486 'black' students applied to historically Afrikaner universities, but by 1998 this had reached 311004 - more than the number applying to the historically 'black' universities of Fort Hare, the North, Northwest, Transkei, Venda and Zululand7. However, it should be noted that this trend has affected Stellenbosch little, with only 5% of 1998 applications coming from 'black' students8. However, if this trend continues, and if it reaches Stellenbosch, it will mean major changes in the demographics of the student corps. According to the National Commission on Higher Education:

    "Linked to increased participation and redress is the universal need for higher education institutions to adapt to the diversity of heterogeneous student populations. Institutions are accustomed to providing only for the needs of relatively homogeneous student bodies. To the extent that the social distribution of new entrants to higher education widens, opening up opportunities for a greater diversity of race, age, gender and class groups, a reorientation in attitude, approach and policy will become necessary. Higher education institutions will be required, not only to tolerate diversity, but to take meaningful steps to accommodate diversity in their social, educational and administrative arrangements on campus. Experience in the United States and elsewhere has shown that formal measures alone, such as a Bill of Rights, cannot guarantee reorientation and that special policies and actions are required to bring about lasting change." (NCHE 1996: 4.3)

    These changes in the student corps require universities to adopt a new, and positive attitude towards diversity.

    Grobbelaar (1998), states that:

    "It is expected that for many years a substantial percentage of first-time students will continue to come from schools that did not adequately prepare them."

    Although virtually all universities offer a bridging programme of some kind, at many institutions these are in need of expansion, to encourage good completion rates.

    An important factor in the national context is the increasing extent to which South Africa exists within the international context. Globalisation could be said to refer to the increasing importance of a developing global context at the national, regional or local level. According to Green (1997: 130), globalisation can be related to:

    Internationally, there is a decisive shift from the kind of society where formal learning occurred in a one-off situation to a society where one has to reorientate and reteach oneself repeatedly. Universities will need expand assessment in programmes from merely testing a student's knowledge to also include testing the capacity of a student to manage their own learning. Universities will also need to develop, much further, a wide range of co-operative partnerships with private companies, government institutions and non-governmental organisations who seek further training in specific areas for their employees or clients (NCHE 1996: 4.4). State influence on higher education at institutional level is now primarily through the setting of policy goals - and through quasi-non-governmental organisations, like the Council on Higher Education.

    Some education theorists, like Usher and Edwards (1994), argue that globalisation will lead to the demise of national education systems with their 'historic functions' of transmitting 'national cultures' (the universalising approach to education, as discussed in section 2.1) and reproducing national labour power. Green (1997: 184), in an argument for less extreme trends, suggests that the impact of globalisation on education is to shift the focus from the formation of identity to the development of skills and the building of economic performance. Green (1997: 175 180-181) cites a number of emerging trends in education internationally, that he views as resulting, at least in part, from globalisation;

    Scott (1997: 39-40) argues that the globalisation of science and technology (and information) leads to "a socially-distributed (and democratic?) knowledge production system that fully reflects national ethnic, class, economic and cultural differences... Globalisation is about the incorporation of 'interior' spaces, previously untouched by elite culture and 'objective' science, as much as (or more than?) competition for 'exterior' spaces, in terms of world markets for science and technology, goods and services." In mechanical aspects of higher education, the key trend related to globalisation is the growth of information technology as an education delivery and resource system.

    Because of the decrease in available state funding, universities must be in a position to expand on a potentially smaller state subsidy (Grobbelaar 1998). Thus increasing the efficiency of delivery is essential. Competition among universities - and between universities, technikons and private colleges - for students has increased enormously (Bunting and Cloete 1999: 4). This compettition has had a number of effects:

    A large number of universities and technikons face major problems with student debt, the total having reached R500 million by 1998 (Grobbelaar 1998). This is a major cause of tension between universities and technikons that desperately need the money, and students who find it difficult, if not impossible, to pay.

    Cloete and Bunting (1999: 6) suggest that institutions which are "at risk" - generally those in Groups 4 and 5 (see section 2.2) - face several issues:

    In the 1996 NCHE report and the 1997 White Paper, there were clear indications that such institutions would be helped to adapt. This was within the context of the Reconstruction and Development Programme. In 1999, both Minister Bengu and Minister Asmal have indicated that major help may not be forthcoming, and that failing institutions face merger or closure. The situation has changed: government does not appear likely to bail out - or continue to support - institutions which are failing to adapt to the modern South Africa. Thus careful, systematic planning and adaptation are key to an institution's very survival.

    2.2 The New Framework: Co-operative Governance


    "The bottom line is that councils, with and through management, should find ways to consult with key constituent leaders on appropriate issues and to keep them informed about the reasons for certain council decisions..."

    Daniel Ncayiyana and Fred Hayward, Effective Governance

    The concept of 'co-operative government' is the cornerstone of government in the Constitution (Act No 108 of 1996), and its principles are spelt out in Section 41 of the Constitution. The concept of 'co-operative governance' is one of the founding concepts of modern South African higher education policy, from its elaboration by the NCHE to its adoption into the preamble of the Higher Education Act .


    The establishment of co-operative governance requires three key assumptions:


    (NCHE Task Group on Governance 1996: 5.6, 5.9; NCHE 1996: 7.4, 7.4.1)

    Consultation and Representation

    Co-operative governance is given effect, to a large extent, through consultation and representation. Cloete and Mohamed (1996) suggest four forms of co-operation:

    1. Sharing Information - passive recipients;
    2. Consultation - a two way exchange of views;
    3. Representation - strong or weak (one or two students on Senate is a weak form; equal representation, as in NEDLAC, is a strong form of codetermination);
    4. Partnership - equality of power with joint agreements and joint responsibility.

    The first model is not a form of consultation, it is closer to a basic form of transparency: interest groups must receive information on issues that affect them. The representation model refers to decision-making structures, such as the Council and Senate. The fourth model, partnership, is one which was adopted by some universities' BTFs (eg University of the Witwatersrand (1991), University of Pretoria (1996). Once again, however, such structures did not function as advisory bodies, but as decision-making bodies.

    The term consultation, defined by Cloete and Mohamed as "a two way exchange of views", covers a lot of ground. In the debates of the Institutional Forum Pilot Committee (IFPC), two main models developed, which can be described as 'thin consultation' and 'thick consultation'.

    Thin Consultation:

    This is the IFPC's Model 1:

    "The decision-making body must make a decision of a certain type after consultation with the advisory body. Therefore, before making the relevant type of decision, the decision-making body must consult with the advisory body. The former may thereafter make a decision without checking that such a decision meets the approval of the latter."

    (USIFPC 1999a: 3.2.4)

    Thick Consultation:

    This is the IFPC's Model 2:

    "The decision-making body must make a decision of a certain type in consultation with the advisory body. The decision-making body therefore has to make the relevant decision "while consulting" with the advisory body. In practice, where the two bodies meet separately, this means that the decision-making body must, before making the relevant type of decision, consult with the advisory body, make the decision and thereafter check that the advisory body agrees with the decision. If not, the two bodies must engage in dialogue to see whether they can reach consensus about which decision is most satisfactory to both. However, the responsibility for making the decision-making body and the decision has legal force in terms of the decision-making powers afforded to it by the [Higher Education] Act." (USIFPC 1999a: 3.2.4)

    These two models can be elaborated considerably, and are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, during the debates on the nature of advice on the IFPC and subsequent to this, a variety of mixed options were worked out, including:

    It would be inappropriate to suggest there is one definite 'solution' to the question of the nature of the advice given by advisory structures to decision-making structures, and how such advice is handled. The question must be discussed openly, honestly, and in good faith, in all situations where it is relevant, and a situation-specific compromise or working method reached.

    A university is a complex system. A complex system could be described in the following terms (Cilliers 1995 1998). It consists of a large amount of components that are richly interconnected so that they can engage energy and/or information. These interconnections are non-linear. The characteristics of the system (emergent properties) are not primarily a result of the nature of the components, but of the nature of interconnections. This means that a complex system cannot be replaced with an equivalent system that is simpler. Furthermore, it means that any attempt to give a complete description will disregard or violate some aspect of the system. Taking complexity seriously also means to realise the limits of any system since a single or complete description of a complex system is impossible. Any description is a limited description. This means that we must be careful how we formulate definitions, rules or any strategy, since they are limited and will always exclude something. We must, therefore, be willing to constantly reconsider the boundaries and the lines we draw / create. Most importantly, as Cilliers (1998) points out, to disregard the complexity of a system is not merely technical or descriptive error, it is unethical. The reason for this is that the reason why a certain description is acceptable mostly has little to do with rationality and a lot with power.

    It is important therefore not to lose sight of the complexity of an institution such as a university. A university consists of many components and a multitude of relations. These components interact in a rich and dynamic way. For the co-operative governance of the complex system that a university is, it is essential that decision-making structures receive advice that is context-based and multi-facetted. Therefore as many constituencies and advisory bodies should be involved as possible. In all structures, both decision-making and advisory, an appreciation for context and a commitment to change are needed.

    Distrust and Transparency

    Distrust is a major problem in higher education in South Africa, and has been cited as one of the key problems in the breakdown of governance at each of the higher education institutions that has been investigated by an Independent Assessor, under Sections 44-46 of the Higher Education Act:

    "[I]nitiatives of the management and Council [are] being viewed with profound suspicion"

    Prof JJF Durand on the Vaal Triangle Technikon, September 1998

    "The history of the University in the last four years is one of confrontation; lack of trust..."

    Adv TL Skweyiya on the University of Transkei, November 1998

    "[T]here is a great deal of tension and lack of trust in the university"

    Prof SJ Saunders on the University of Fort Hare, March 1999

    Distrust is a serious problem at US. Whether distrust is justified or not does not matter, the fact of the matter is that the relationship between decision-making structures and many stakeholders and individuals and groups participating in advisory structures is characterised by mistrust. As Ncayiyana and Hayward (1999: 48-9) point out:

    "The appearance of non-democratic actions are often as damaging as the reality, and council members should understand that one of the greatest threats to their legitimacy and success is the belief (true or not) that decisions are made in advance of discussions, in secret, or at the behest of special interests."



    "At the institutional level, democratic participation and the effective representation of staff and students in governance structures is still contested on many campuses" The White Paper on Higher Education

    Transformation stands in opposition to "evolution", meaning that change is visible and fundamental (Cornell 1992). It does not mean merely "tinkering" with the existing structure, by reconsidering its boundaries, deconstructing it.

    4.1 Distrust

    The distrust that some sections of the US community have in its governance structures has been noted on numerous occasions, for example:

    "[There is a perception that] the US is a place of secrecy which is not transparent, and students have a feeling that something is being hidden."

    (US Committee: the Management of Multi-Culturalism 1998: 17)

    "[The absence of a BTF] has resulted in valuable time lost and a sense of distrust growing between certain sectors of the University community and its governing structures." (USIFPC 1999a: 2.3)

    "[T]he existence of a broad-based suspicion and sense of distrust within the University community regarding the motives of the Council..."

    (USIFPC 1999a: 3.3.2: Viewpoint 1)

    "[T]he present (and previous) climate of distrust and suspicion among various parties, whether based on reality or perceptions." (USIFPC 1999a: 3.3.2: Viewpoint 2)

    "The US.. has failed to demonstrate any significant commitment to transformation. This failure is one of the principle reasons for mistrust of the Council's motives."

    (USIFPC 1999a: 3.3.2: Viewpoint 3)

    "[T]he distrust that currently exists..." (USIFPC 1999a: 3.3.2: Viewpoint 4)

    "[T]rust, which is currently lacking, between the University community and the Council..."

    (University of Stellenbosch Student Societies 1999)

    This issue must be acknowledged for any process or procedure to have any hope of being accepted by the broad US community. This means that processes must be open, transparent and clearly democratic and participatory. Without such attempts, the current mistrust cannot be addressed, and the relationship between sections of the US community and the Council and management will continue to deteriorate.

    4.2 Developments With Regard to Broad Transformation Forums, an Institutional Forum and the New Statute

    "It is evident that the main difference between the US and other universities is the absence of a Broad Transformation Forum at the former. This has resulted in valuable time lost and a sense of distrust growing between certain sectors of the University community and its governing structures."

    The Institutional Forum Pilot Committee 1999

    "Dit het vir ons baie duidelik geword dat ons besig is met 'n soort noodoperasie"

    Prof JJF Durand on the process to amend the US statute, April 1999

    From the beginning of the 1990s, it became that major change in the structure, operations and culture of public higher education institutions, as part of the national democratisation process. At most universities, the beginnings of such changes were facilitated by bodies that became known as Broad Transformation Fora (BTFs). The BTF of the University of the Witwatersrand was established in 1993 (University of the Witswatersrand 1993: 1). Many other universities followed suit, particularly after the 1994 national general elections.

    1995 - 1997: Calls for a Broad Transformation Forum

    From as long ago as 1995, the student leadership of the University of Stellenbosch has pressed the University Rectorate and Council for the establishment of a BTF. This was done through the Student Transformation Forum (STF). The calls became more urgent, as the publication of first the 1996 National Commission on Higher Education Final Report, and then the 1997 Green and White Papers on Higher Education emphasised the fundamental need for fora like the BTFs, and the future institutional fora. Still the management of the University of Stellenbosch refused to consider establishing a BTF, opting instead for the creation, in late 1997, of a Strategic Planning Committee (SPC). The SPC has been burdened from the start by its lack of representivity (for example, there are only three students on the SPC), and the perception that it operates in a top-down style of management. In the view of the Institutional Forum Pilot Committee (IFPC - see later for an explanation of this body) "It is unjustified to make comparisons between the SPC and BTFs" (USIFPC 1999: 4).

    On 26 November 1997, the Higher Education Act was passed. It contained requirements for far-ranging changes in, among other things, the structure of higher education governance. Universities and technikons were given 18 months to comply. The University of Stellenbosch finally decided to direct its attention to creating an Institutional Forum (IF). The University of Stellenbosch - alone out of the historically white, Afrikaans universities - had never had a BTF, which is crucial to understanding the current position. Neither the Rectorate nor the Council have ever had the benefit of the broad-based advice, viewpoints and expression of concerns that BTFs provided at other institutions. Also, to quote 'Viewpoint 1' of the IFPC, "the absence of a BTF at the US places the institution in a unique position where expectations focused at other institutions on BTFs are focused here on an IF" (USIFPC 1999: 8).

    1998: the Institutional Forum Establishment Process

    On 30 March 1998, a broad summit, including, for the first time ever, all major interest -groups at the University, was called to discuss the creation of an IF. At this meeting it was noted that the University had until 26 June 1999 to comply. At a public meeting in April 1998, the Rector, Prof AH van Wyk, promised that the future IF would deal with the matter of a new statute.

    The summit on the IF set up first an Ad Hoc Committee and then a Pilot Committee (the IFPC). The IFPC was set up on 26 August 1998, and charged with preparing recommendations on how to set up an Institutional Forum (IF), and how the IF would be composed and operate. From the start, the members of the IFPC disagreed fundamentally, mostly on the issue of the nature of advice that the IF would give to the Council. At a meeting on 27 November 1998, the IFPC reported to the summit on the IF that this area of serious disagreement remained unresolved, and also that a major problem was the serious lack of trust that many members of the IFPC had in the motives of the Council (IFPC 1998: 2-3). The IFPC continued its work, but, ultimately, was unable to resolve the disagreement on the nature of advice. The main problem on the nature of advice is that some stake-holders in the US community do not trust the Council enough to approve a form of governance where the IF would advise the Council without guarantees about how the advice would be considered. This is to a large extent because of the undemocratic and unrepresentative nature of the Council.

    One problem which has not helped trust of the Council has been the misrepresentation (deliberate or otherwise) of parts of the legal framework by members of management. For example, Prof HC Viljoen, then Vice-Rector (Operations), stated that if US fails to comply with the Higher Education Act in time, it will fall under a standard statute, which "can never be amended". This is directly contradicted by sub-paragraph 33(3) of the Higher Education Act, which states that the standard statute will apply only "until such time as the council of such public higher education institution makes its own institutional statute".

    However, it was also clear that work was needed on a new statute, covering all aspects of University governance. The 1997-1998 Students Representative Council (SRC) and the Student Alliance for Transformation (SAFT) was aware of this from 30 March 1998, and a written proposal was put to them on 5 May that students should start work on a draft statute. Nothing, however, was done.

    November 1998 - March 1999

    Some time shortly after the 27 November 1998 meeting of the IF establishment process summit, the Rector, Prof AH van Wyk, directed the chief of the University's legal division, Mr W Vermaak, to begin work on a draft new statute. However, this decision was not made public, nor was the matter raised at the Council meeting on 5 December 199810.

    Through December 1998, the IFPC continued its deliberations, including some discussions with representatives of Council. During these discussions no mention was ever made that Vermaak was working on a draft statute, at that time. This matter has contributed substantially to the widespread distrust of the US Management and Council.

    On 4 February 1999, the Department of Education, realising that many universities and technikons would not be able to make the 18 June deadline for compliance with the Higher Education Act, agreed with the South African Universities' Vice-Chancellors' Association to only affect changes to three key areas of the institutional statutes: the composition and operations of the Council, Senate and Institutional Forum (DoE 1999). This information was only communicated to the student leadership on 18 February 1999, over a fortnight after the Rector was officially informed by the Department. The Rector still made no mention that Vermaak was working on a new statute.

    On 24 February 1999, Die Matie, the student newspaper, "broke" the story that Vermaak was working on a draft statute in secret - and had, in fact, finished this. The Rector, aware that the story was breaking, issued a memorandum, dated 22 February, but only distributed on 24 February. In this memorandum, the Rector blamed the IFPC for delays, and stated that another process was needed to develop a new statute. The implication was that he had been surprised by the IFPC's failure to reach consensus. However, the Rector had been aware of the situation on the IFPC since the summit of 27 November 1998 - and probably earlier as the Vice-Rector (Academic), Prof W Claassen, sat on the IFPC and presumably kept the Rector informed of the IFPC's progress, or lack thereof.

    In his memorandum, the Rector advised all interested parties to prepare proposals on the statute to be submitted through an 'independent and expert process'. In the memorandum, the Rector referred to the statute that he had had written by Vermaak as "Dié van die Bestuur", rather than as coming from himself, and indicated that this statute proposal would also be submitted through the 'independent and expert process'.

    A series of stormy meetings between the Rector and the SRC followed, accompanied by a series of press statements from the SRC, the student societies, and the Rectorate. On 1 March, the Rector promised that the proposals would be handled by three independent experts, nicknamed "the Three Wise Men". The "Three Wise Men" would work through the proposals and prepare a draft statute.

    On the evening of the 1 March 1999, the summit on the Institutional Forum met for its last meeting. The IFPC report (USIFPC 1999) was presented, and the four main viewpoints on the nature of advice to be given by the IF to the Council, and how such advice would be handled (USIFPC 1999: 8-13) were spelt out. A majority recommendation was made that-

    1. The report of the IFPC (USIFPC 1999) should be submitted to the Council;
    2. The summit approved sections 4,5 and 6 of the IFPC report - though crucially not section 3 'Legal framework', which remained contentious on the matter of the nature of advice;
    3. The IFPC should work with the "Three Wise Men" on considering proposals on the statute and formulating a draft statute;
    4. A broad transformation summit should be called, to look at the meaning, approach and way forward for transformation at the University of Stellenbosch.

    The recommendation was opposed by those members of management present.

    At a meeting of the Executive Committee of Council, also on 1 March, the process the Rector had suggested was approved, with a deadline of 17 March 1999 for making submissions. A further memorandum was issued confirming this decision. Interestingly, in this memorandum, the draft statute prepared by Vermaak is referred to as "deur myself [i.e. the Rector] opgestel", rather than as coming from Management in general - as the Rector claimed on 22 February. The draft statute prepared by Vermaak for the Rector was made public on the same day.

    On 15 March 1999, the Council met, named the "Three Wise Men"11, and approved a modified process, which is that which was followed.

    It is important to consider the role that student leadership has played in the events of the last year, as several serious mistakes have been made. Firstly, the successive Students' Representative Councils have not taken the issue of the statute seriously, or as a matter of urgency. Student leadership was aware of the deadline for compliance with the Higher Education Act by 30 March 1998, at the very latest. The point was made to the SRC and to the Student Alliance for Transformation (SAFT: a body consisting of the SRC and all residence committees, student societies, and faculty societies of committees on 4 May 1998 that work should begin on a student proposal for the institutional statute. This call, and repeated later ones, were ignored. Following the election of a new SRC in August 1998, calls were once again made for work to be done on a draft statute. The SRC continued to prefer a wait-and-see attitude, and to concentrate solely upon the IF establishment process.

    When Die Matie broke the story of Vermaak's statute on 24 February 1999, the SRC took a very strong position against the Rector - but still did not start any work on a student proposal on the statute. Finally, on 10 March 1999, the SRC advised all student groups to start work on their own proposals on the statute, but to wait until after the Council meeting of 15 March 1999 to decide on participation or otherwise. In terms of consulting with the broader student community, the SRC, rather than working on concrete proposals, held a series of emergency late-night meetings, where the situation was discussed in general terms, but little productive accomplished. Even these meetings left out the Academic Affairs Council. In the event, the SRC felt that participation was appropriate and sent out a memorandum to that effect on 16 March. To expect all student interest groups to each prepare their own proposal was extremely unrealistic, given the lack of legal background in most student groups. The SRC drew up their own proposal, as did the Student Societies and the Academic Affairs Council.

    4.3 The Strategic Planning Committee and the Strategic Planning Framework

    The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) was set up in 1997 by the US Council. There are major concerns with the Strategic Planning Process: Firstly, student representation is limited, there are only three students on SPC. Secondly, although participation in SPC workgroups was more broad-based, the SPC is not required to accept the recommendations of the workgroups. Thirdly, and crucially, many aspect of strategic planning would be far better discussed and planned by the Institutional Forum than the SPC. To date, the process to set up an Institutional Forum is still underway, but it could have been possible to design the SPC on the basis of the Institutional Forums or Broad Transformation Forums of other universities. However, this was not done and the SPC remains a narrowly-based body. To suggest that the Strategic Planning Process involved "representatives from the entire University community" is misleading. With only three students on the SPC, and participation in the workgroups being ad hoc, not on constituency basis, the Strategic Planning Process is not broad-based, and student participation is limited. A pre-condition for detailed planning should be a broadly accepted mission and a broadly accepted strategic plan (CHET 1999a: 4). It remains unclear what status policy documents and recommendations from the SPC have, including the SPC's final document, " 'n Stratgiese Raamwerk vir die Eeuwissing en Daarná". It is also unclear what status the SPC currently has. The current short framework document covers the following areas:

    1. Realities of a changing environment (an attempt at contextualisation);
    2. Mission, vision and values;
    3. Core areas and strategic focuses;
    4. Growth;
    5. Human resources, organisation and management;
    6. Redress and accessibility;
    7. Financing.

    As an SP, the document is extremely vague, generally referring to the need to address issues, but not providing any actual plans - compare the list above to that given for SPs on page 13 of this document. The document contains some worrying trends, particularly inadequate appreciation of the context, emphasis on commercialisation of knowledge and over-emphasis on natural and applied sciences at the expense of humanities - see Appendix 3 for more detailed comments.

    Currently, Council has apparently decide not to approve the SP until the IF has commented upon it. It is therefore to be hoped that the IF - once established - will be able to discuss, amend and ultimately approve the US SP. The Minister has not yet received the US SP.

    4.4 The Student Transformation Forum and the Student Alliance for Transformation

    The Student Transformation Forum(STF) was formed at the end of 1994 at the initiative of ANC-Maties. Many residences, most registered societies as well a number of people in their individual capacity took part. It was chaired by a student facilitator and a proportionate executive committee (STEC/STUK) was formed. The STF also formed six working groups, e.g. on language policy, financing, gender issues, which reported back to the STF. Copies of these reports are still in possession of the SRC. It was later (1996) decided that the SRC would, for pragmatic reasons, chair the STF, since the rector refused to recognise the STF. It was chaired by SRC chairpersons Bradbury (1995-1996), Fourie (1996-1997) and Gazendam (1997-1998), but the current status of this arrangement is unclear. Various letters were also sent to the Department of Education to plead for a Broad Transformation Forum at the University of Stellenbosch. None of the letters were answered.

    During 1997 the STF was reconstituted as the Student Alliance for Transformation (SAFT). Soon after this event, the minister of education, Prof Bengu, visited the campus as an invited guest of the chairperson of the SRC and, therefore also the chairperson of the STF. He publicly stated his dissatisfaction with the lack of transformation at the University of Stellenbosch and the manner in which the language policy was used to keep non-Afrikaans speaking students (read : black students) away from the University of Stellenbosch. At the same meeting the rector, in front of journalists, screamed at the SRC chairperson for daring to invite the Minister to the campus.

    During 1998 SAFT died a slow death, partly due to the withdrawal of the National Party and most of the christian organisations - and a lack of initiative from the SRC. The sole activity of SAFT since early 1998 was the participation by the SAFT representative, Naudé de Wet, in the Strategic Planning Committee, and the Institutional Forum Pilot Committee (the latter in his personal capacity). In the last twelve months, SAFT has met only three times, on all but one occasion primarily to hear de Wet’s reports.

    4.5 The 1998 Institutional Plan (for the planning period 1999-2001)

    The 1998 (for the period 1999 - 2001) US Institutional Plan (available on the web, or from the office of the Deputy Registrar), the first IP, was composed of five parts:

      1. An introduction;
      2. The institutional response to the national policy priorities;
      3. The institutional policy underlying the above;
      4. A conclusion;
      5. The dataset and targets requested.

    The 1998 IP was prepared by the submissions of faculties being collated into the second chapter and the dataset, and the writing of chapters 1, 3 and 4. This was done by Profs Groenewald and BC Lategan. It is unfortunate that the actual plan co-ordination was assigned to only two persons, whose primary role at US is research facilitation. It has generally been recommended (CHET 1999a: 4; Cloete 1998) that planning co-ordination achieves better results when done by teams, with an appropriate skills profile across the team, or through a full time planning office.

    There was no opportunity for discussion of the compiled chapter 2, or of any other part of the IP. Chapter 3, the institutional policies, does not really belong in an IP, it should form part of the SP. It is very worrying that the only document covering institutional policy that was submitted by US to the Minister - that is chapter 3 of the 1998 IP - was drawn up without consultation of any kind. The importance of developing a consultative process has been stressed many times at national level, for example in the March 1999 national workshop on IPs (CHET 1999a: 2). Additionally, since a keen understanding of the institutional context is essential for strategic planning (Ngara 1999), broad consultation is needed to acheive such understanding.

    The Vice-Rector (Academic), Prof. W. Claassen, said that the process in compiling the plan followed "an extremely broad democratic process within the academic framework of the University" (Die Matie 14 October 1998). In reality the process was neither broad nor democratic, with minimal consultation of students or academic staff. Students were only involved in the early stages of the process, at faculty level. Restricting consultation of students to faculty level was based on the assumption (implicit in Prof. Claassen’s statement above) that the Institutional Plan only concerns strictly academic matters. This is not the case. The Institutional Plan covers much broader issues than strict academic interests. Critically, the Institutional Plan includes race and gender equity goals (DoE 1997: 2.14) and other major aspects of University policy. There are student representatives on each faculty council, and such representatives were able to give input into the process at faculty level - up to a point. However, the process at faculty level was only the beginning. The plan itself was compiled at management level, with no consultation of students. This means that students had no input into the process beyond the very early stages: there was no input into the actual shape of the Institutional Plan. No attempt was made to enable students or student bodies to discuss and make input into the final document before it was presented to the University Council. No student structures were consulted before the Institutional Plan was submitted to Council. There was no consultation in the Institutional Plan process with end users.

    Management has only consulted anyone other than senior University staff during the initial (faculty level) stages of the process. Once the consultations at faculty level were complete, there was no input from anyone other than senior University staff. Since consultation was so limited, the Institutional Plan process was not participatory, as required by the White Paper on Higher Education. The limited consultation process calls into question the legitimacy of the Institutional Plan.

    The content of the 1998 IP is also, in our view, flawed by what appears to be a marginal enthusiasm for and capacity in responding to many of the national policy priorities, as well as a trend towards commercialising knowledge and a general assumption that US is doing really well and therefore only a few minor adjustments are needed.

    A claim is made that the "major principles, standpoints and approaches" (presumably the whole of Section 2.1) are ones on which the University community has reached consensus. This is not the case. The University management has not consulted enough, neither in the Institutional Plan Process nor in the Strategic Planning Process to have achieved any kind of consensus in the University community. Such consensus can only be established through a truly broad-based and participatory body such as the (as yet unformed) Institutional Forum. This does not mean that consensus is not possible, but rather that (as yet) no real attempts have been made to achieve it.

    Mechanisms for broadening access to the university outlined in the plan ( a) involves slightly less than 6% of the student body. Mechanism f) (and to some extent mechanism d) do not affect access to the Stellenbosch and Tygerberg campuses. With a total increase of some 1760 Black students (see 2.2.1c) over the last seven years, it is suggested that the existing mechanisms are far from sufficient. Once again, it must be pointed out that none of the mechanisms relate to the institutional culture or character of the University. The mechanisms mentioned all relate to finding recruits. What should be addressed is why so few prospective Black students (in the Western Cape and at a national level) consider Stellenbosch an attractive university to apply to.

    Throughout the Institutional Plan, reference is made to the various ways in which management hopes to transform the University. However, there are no plans to look at institutional and residence culture, which are in themselves (in part) products of the former policies of the University, which have now been officially rejected. Essentially, all that the Institutional Plan offers with respect to transformation is some mechanisms for broadening access, and even this is fairly limited, with the student profile not expected to change substantially during the period of the Institutional Plan. By the end of the year 2001, the student body is still expected to be almost 80% White.

    It terms of planning, not only does the Institutional Plan not provide for any substantial mechanisms for transformation, it predicts its own failure to deliver substantial changes over the period of 1999 - 2001. But this is not the only problem. The process involved in drawing up the Institutional Plan was flawed from the beginning. The 1997 White Paper on Higher Education characterises the process of drawing up an Institutional Plan as "a participatory, multi-year planning process [which] will avoid the inherent defects of the old top-down central budgeting system" (DoE 1997: 2.9). Such a process was not followed at the University. Consultation and participation were severely limited, and this could conceivably deny the Institutional Plan legitimacy.


    In terms of the amended US statute (Government Gazette, No 14407 of 1992, as amended by Government Gazette, No 20096 of 1999, hereafter 'the statute'), the Higher Education Act, the following areas of institutional governance require urgent attention:

    1. The Council;
    2. The Senate;
    3. The Faculty Councils;
    4. The Institutional Forum (IF);
    5. A Student Support Services Structure;
    6. Institutional Rules;
    7. A new Private Act and statute.

    5.1 The Council

    The following additional members of Council must be elected/appointed - see Table 2.

    Table 2. Persons to be appointed to Council.





    1 Vice-Rector (Operations)

    By Council, after consultation with IF and Senate

    5 years

    5 (1)

    1 rep. of permanent non-professorial academic staff

    "Elected from their number"

    2 years

    9 (2)(d)

    1 rep. of permanent non-academic staff

    "Elected from their number"

    2 years

    9 (2)(e)

    1 (additional) student

    "Elected by the students' representative council (SRC)"

    1 year

    9 (2)(f)

    1 rep. of the IF

    Elected by the IF

    1 year

    9 (2)(g)

    1 rep. of the National Research Foundation

    "Appointed by the council of the" NRF

    4 years

    9 (2)(m)

    1 rep. of Stellenbosch business bodies

    Bodies identified "by resolution of council"

    4 years

    9 (2)(n)

    2 reps. of civic (means 'civil'?) society

    Bodies identified "by resolution of council"

    4 years

    9 (2)(o)

    The Executive Committee of Council must be recomposed. According to the 1999 US Calendar (US 1999: 5), the current Executive Committee - whose term of office expires at the end of 1999 - is composed of:

    1. The Rector and Vice-Chancellor (who is the chairperson);
    2. The Chairperson of the Council;
    3. The Vice-Rectors;
    4. Five additional members, of whom one is employed by the University.

    According to paragraph 14 of the statute, the Executive Committee must consist of:

    1. The chairperson of the Council (who is the chairperson);
    2. The Rector and Vice-Chancellor;
    3. Five additional members, of whom at least three are not employed by the University.

    Thus the Vice-Rectors ex officio positions are eliminated. The chair is transferred from the Rector to the chairperson of Council. Additionally, a secretary must be elected, in terms of paragraph 17 of the statute.


    5.2 The Senate

    The following additional members of Senate must be elected/appointed - see Table 3.

    Table 3. Persons to be appointed to Senate.





    5 associate professors

    Elected from their number


    28A (f)

    2 (additional) members of the SRC

    Elected from their number


    28A (g)

    2 non-professorial academic staff

    Elected from their number


    28A (h)

    2 administrative staff

    Elected from their number


    28A (i)

    2 technical staff

    Elected from their number


    28A (j)

    Additional persons

    Declared members of Senate "by resolution of the senate, approved by the council"


    28A (k)

    A chairperson, deputy chairperson and secretary of Senate must be elected in terms of paragraph 34 of the statute. However, Section 9(7)(a) of the University of Stellenbosch Private Act (Act No 107 of 1992) provides for an Executive Committee of the Senate comprising only the Rector, one or more Vice-Rectors and the Deans of the faculties. Neither the 1992 statute nor the amended (1999) statute contain any provisions regarding the Executive Committee of the Senate. This means that although a person other than a Rector, Vice-Rector or Dean could be elected as chairperson, deputy chairperson or secretary of Senate, they would not necessarily serve on the Executive Committee of the Senate.

    Although paragraph 32 of the amended statute over-rides the provision of Section 9(1)(a) that defines the Rector as chairperson of the Senate, there is no explicit provision to over-ride the Rector's chairing of the Executive Committee of the Senate.

    The Senate must determine what additional members should be appointed to the Senate in terms of sub-paragraph 28A(k): this should include at least one student representative from each Faculty – such persons being appointed by the respective faculty student committees.

    5.3 The Faculty Councils

    Faculty Councils can be expanded in terms of paragraph 28 of the statute, to include persons other than teaching staff. In terms of sub-paragraphs 37 (2), (3), (4) and (6) of the statute, a minimum of three students must be elected to each faculty council. At Faculty Council level, student representation should be effective: student representatives should be taken seriously and should contribute directly to planning and policy-making. The Faculty of Arts is a good example in this area, where students are represented on, in addition to the Faculty Council, the Faculty Committee, the Academic Planning Committee, the Student Report-back Committee, the Academic Development Committee, the Timetable Committee and the Marketing Committee.

    5.4 The Institutional Forum (IF)

    The IF must be set up, with composition in terms of paragraph 41C of the statute and an executive in terms of paragraph 41D of the statute. The bodies of civic (means 'civil'?) society referred to in sub-paragraph 41C (n) must be designated. See Table 3.

    Input from the IF is essential in many areas of the restructuring of governance. It is our viewpoint that the Institutional Forum (IF) should drive the development of a coherent approach to change by all sectors of the US. This is not an attempt to usurp the functions of decision-making bodies such as the University Council, the Senate, Academic Planning Committee, the Students’ Representative Council, the Prim Committee and Academic Affairs Council. The IF is the correct place for integrated, strategic planning to be considered, and it must provide input. The IF is a broad, representative body, unlike any other structure at a university. Because of its representivity, the IF has access to a much wider spectrum of viewpoints an advice than any other structure. For this reason it is ideally suited to advise decision-making structures on the institutional context, to provide a situation-specific response to the US situation. The functions of the IF include:

    The IF, through consideration of the institutional, regional and national contexts, should drive transformation at the US, by advising the University Council to the best of its ability. See Table 4 overleaf).

    5.5 A Student Support Services Structure

    A student support services structure must be established under section 27(3) of the Higher Education Act: a pilot committee for this purpose is in operation.

    Table 4. Persons to be Elected/Appointed to the Institutional Forum





    Elected from their number



    Elected from their number



    Designated from their number



    Designated by registrar


    Permanent non-professorial academic staff

    Elected from their number


    Academic support services

    Elected from their number


    Trade unions

    Elected from their number


    Administrative support services

    Elected from their number



    Elected from their number



    Elected from their number


    Student societies

    Designated by the student societies


    Academic Affairs Council

    Elected from their number



    Designated by the president of the Convocation


    'Civic' society

    "designated from their own members by representative bodies of civic society, without the exclusion of any sector thereof"


    5.6 Institutional Rules

    The institutional rules of the US (under Section 32 of the Higher Education Act) require modification in a number of areas: see Table 5.

    Table 5. Required Modification of the US Institutional Rules




    Appointment of Rector



    Appointment of Vice-Rector(s)



    Appointment of Acting Rector



    Procedure by which IF advises Council

    Council, in consultation with IF


    Procedure by which SRC liases with Council

    Council, after consultation with SRC

    41H (41G and 9(2) (f) refer)

    It would be expected for the Council to consult with the IF on the development of all institutional rules, since such development constitutes implementation of the Higher Education Act - a function upon which the IF must advise the Council, under Section 31(1)(a)(i) of the Higher Education Act.

    The institutional rules governing the procedure for the election of the Students' Representative Council (SRC) and student discipline are referred to in paragraphs 41L and 61A of the statute respectively.

    5.7 A New Private Act?

    It shall be necessary for a sub-committee of the IF, or a joint sub-committee of the IF, Senate and Council, to be established to advise Council on the drafting of a new Private Act (to bring the University of Stellenbosch Private Act into line with the Higher Education Act) and a new institutional statute (to give effect to the new Private Act). Much of this would involve revision and consolidation of the work done on institutional governance during 1998 and 1999.

    It should be noted that a new Private Act is not essential, given the precedent of Rand Afrikaans University, which ruled their Private Act no longer applicable by stating in their new statute (Government Gazette, No 19629 of 1998) that the university exists only in tmers of the Constitution, Higher Education Act and new statute. Additionally, some constitutional queries have been raised on Private Acts.

    5.8 The Higher Education Amendment Bill

    Section 1 of the Draft Higher Amendment Education Bill (May 1999) includes the abolition of the positions of Secretary of Council and Chairperson of the Senate, and their functions being carried out by the Registrar and the Rector, respectively. If passed in its current form, the bill will necessitate the adjustment of the institutional statute and rules to take this into account.


    6.1 Strategic And Institutional Plans At US

    Manner of Planning

    "Planning by senior management without reference to the rest of the institution was not successful... In many cases the role of students is a major problem that will require further attention... The processes for developing institutional ownership for the plan needs considerable further discussion."

    Nico Cloete

    Consultation and participation are key to the planning process.

    "[M]uch more than the technical process of developing a plan, the issue of process was critical to the legitimacy and thus acceptance of the institution's plan."

    CHET 1999a: 4-5

    Planning at US is repeatedly treated as a technical process involving a few "experts". Broad shared vision and ownership of the planning process is critical to the success of an institutional planning exercise (CHET 1999a: 5). However, the planning processes at US for developing the strategic planning document and the 1998 IP have both been criticised for the minimal consultation involved (see for example, Die Matie 14 October 1998, November 1998, and Appendixes 3 and 4). Neither of the planning processes enjoy the broad ownership - and resultant legitimacy - that is needed for success.

    The approach that appears to have developed in US planning is one of a few 'experts' identifying a few measures and solutions, without acknowledging that problems exist. This is potentially disasterous. Eckel and others (1999):

    "Change leaders who framed concerns as a set of solutions to be implemented frequently had difficulty gaining support... On most campuses, individuals tend not to see the "same" problems, let alone the "same" solutions. Without a process to discuss the problems in depth and tap into the creativity and intelligence of the community in generating solutions, change initiatives rarely get off the ground."

    Planning at US takes place at a specific institution, with specific problems, and in a broader regional and national context, or as the former chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Education described at "concrete institutions, caught in particular historical moments". It is not a matter of producing technically good plans and proposals, but of planning as situation-specific responses to the US, Western Cape and South African contexts. Consideration of the institutional context must come by way of multi-facetted planning, from the inclusion of as many viewpoints and perspectives as possible, through the Institutional Forum as well as other advisory and decision-making structures.

    "The development of a strategic plan should be based upon a good understanding of the environment within which the institution is located. Understanding the reality, both within and without the institution, should be based on a solid scan of the environment. This, in turn, will alow the institution to strategise around, and ultimately devlop, a niche for itself."

    CHET 1999b: 3

    Serious effort must go into research into the US context: far too many policy-developing structures start from the departure point that all is well at US, or from fear of the future. This is partly because of the lack of detailed information on problems in the US context, although a limited amount of information is available in the 1998 reports of the Strategic Planning Committee workgroups, and the 1998 Report of the Committee: the Management of Multi-Culturalism. However, these reports only scratch the surface, and the processes were flawed. A through assessment of the US institutional context, involving all stakeholders, should be made. The assessment should be performed by an independent commission, headed by an external individual(s) who is/are reasonably trusted by all sectors of the US and appointed through the Institutional Forum.

    In all structures, both decision-making and advisory, an appreciation for context and a commitment to change are needed.

    The two main advisory structures at the US are the Institutional Forum and the Advice Forum on Student Services. It is our viewpoint that the Institutional Forum (IF) should drive the development of a coherent approach to change by all sectors of the US. This is not an attempt to usurp the functions of the University Council, the Senate, Academic Planning Committee and Academic Affairs Council. The IF is the correct place for integrated, strategic planning to be considered, and it must provide input. The IF is a broad, representative body, unlike any other structure at a university. Because of its representivity, the IF has access to a much wider spectrum of viewpoints an advice than any other structure. For this reason it is ideally suited to advise decision-making structures on the institutional context, to provide a situation-specific response to the US situation. According to the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE 1996: 7.8.3),

    "These forums would be advisory bodies for restructuring and innovation where representatives of all stakeholders could meet, identify problems, mediate interests and advise relevant structures such as the SRC, senate and council."

    The Advice Forum on Student Services has an important role to play in providing input on planning and policy. The Student Alliance for Transformation (SAFT) has an important advisory role to play also. SAFT is the only forum where all student interest groups are represented12.

    The advisory structures provide input into policy development and planning. However, the making of policy and its implementation remains the role of the decision-making structures: the Council, Senate and Faculty Councils. It is up to these bodies to effect transformation by implementation of the advice of the advisory structures. At all levels, a commitment to the "massification" "paradigm shift" is needed: from an elitist education system to an open, accessible and democratic one, where the sense of quality is not derived from exclusivity.

    Institutional report-back at a 1999 Centre for Higher Education Transformation workshop (CHET 1999a: 6) recommended institutional planning teams:

    "A recurring theme throughout the workshop was the importance of the institutional teams set up in the process of developing an institutional plan. Most institution’s teams were set up in an ad hoc manner, without sufficient consideration of issues such as the skill profile of the team, whether the members of the team worked well together, etc."

    Strategic Plan

    The US Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) has prepared a short SP: A Strategic Framework for the Turn of the century and Thereafter. This framework must be discussed by the IF, then expanded into a proper SP, and then discussed again by the IF and Senate, prior to adoption by Council. This must precede work on the 1999 IP.

    Institutional Plans

    The status of the 1998 IP - and for that matter the short SP document - remains unclear. As Nico Cloete (1998) comments:

    "Another aspect that requires much more attention is the implementation of the plan. If it is not implemented, the whole process will be delegitimised."

    It is to be hoped that there will be consultation through the Institutional Forum during preparation of the 1999 IP - indeed Prof WT Claassen, vice-rector (academic) implied this would be the case (Die Matie 14 October 1998). The process for developing the 1999 IP is probably:

      1. Faculties assemble data;
      2. Ministry releases the 1999 Policy Priorities;
      3. Management issues to the faculties the 1999 Policy Priorities with a fleshed-out framework;
      4. Faculties make submissions;
      5. Compilation;
      6. Discussion at IF;
      7. Discussion at Senate;
      8. Approval by Council.

    It must be stressed that before the 1999 IP is prepared, the full SP must be prepared, discussed and adopted. Otherwise the 1999 IP is being prepared in a planning vacuum.

    The Independent Facilitator of the Institutional Forum, Prof JJF Durand, has indicated that he will request the Rectorate to make the framework available to all constituencies as soon as possible.

    A major part in the planning process should be dialogue between institutions in a region (Bunting 1999) - it is hoped something of this nature can be arranged with the other higher education institutions in the Western Cape for the 1999 planning work.

    6.2 The Appointment of a Third Vice-Rector

    The US Council decided, in April or May this year13, to appoint a third vice-rector, and to redivide the responsibilities of the current vice-rectors completely. This decision was taken against the opposition of the Senate, who argued that the current vice-rectors had been appointed to particular job descriptions14. The post description was decided upon by the Council, and advertised. These actions were valid in terms of section 7 of the US Private Act, and predate the coming into effect of the Higher Education Act and the US statute on 26 June 1999.

    Under paragraph 5(1) of the US statute, the US Council can only appoint a vice-rector, after consultation with the Senate and Institutional Forum (IF). The IF advises Council on appointments to senior managerial positions under section 31(1)(a)(iii) of the Higher Education Act and 41A(1)(a) of the US statute.

    The result of this is that although when the process began, it was legally valid, it must now be amended otherwise any appointment will be ultra vires. The Committee of Societies’ Chairpersons has adopted a proposal on this issue (see Appendix 5).



    There is an enormous amount of work ahead in the next twelve months:

      1. The new Institutional Forum must be established;
      2. The Council and Senate must be expanded;
      3. The new Rules of how these bodies interact must be worked out;
      4. The comprehensive Strategic Plan must be developed;
      5. The 1999 3 year rolling Institutional Plan must be prepared;
      6. A third vice-rector is to be appointed;
      7. The US Private Act needs completely revising (or abolishing), and a new statute developing, since the work done in the last 6 months was an emergency interim measure.

    Commitment is needed from all student leaders: to be informed, to be involved and to take initiative. It is to be hoped that student leaders can provide more effective participation in the next 12 months than was managed in the last year. The crisis-management way in which the statute amendment was approached should not be repeated. Student leaders must be informed and must be prepared.


    Bunting, I 1999. Presentation on three-year rolling institutional plans to CHET workshop. In Report: 3 Year Rolling Plans - UNCF/TELP Capacity Building Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

    CHET (Centre for Higher Education Transformation) 1999a. Report: 3 Year Rolling Plans - UNCF/TELP Capacity Building Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

    CHET (Centre for Higher Education Transformation) 1999b. Report on leadership and change in higher education workshop Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

    CHET (Centre for Higher Education Transformation) 1998. Reflections on 3 year planning at the historically disadvantaged institutions Report by CHET for the UNCF/TELP Program. Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

    Cilliers, P 1995. Postmodern Knowledge and complexity (or why anything does not go) South African Journal of Philosophy Vol. 14 No 3, pp. 124-132

    Cilliers, P 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex systems New York: Routledge

    Cloete, N 1998. Some lessons learned. In Reflections on 3 year planning at the historically disadvantaged institutions Report by CHET for the UNCF/TELP Program. Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

    Cloete, N and Mohamed, N 1996. "Transformation Forums as Revolutionary Councils, Midwives to Democracy or Forums for Reconstruction and Innovation" Report for the Transformation Indicators Project. Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

    Cornell, D 1992. The Philosophy of the Limit. New York: Routledge

    DoE (Department of Education) 1997. White Paper on Higher Education 1997 Pretoria: Government Printer

    DoE (Department of Education) 1998. National and Institutional Higher Education Planning Requirements

    DoE (Department of Education) 1999. "Message: Institutional Statutes" Memorandum from Ms S Boshoff, Directorate: Higher Education: Management Support

    Durand, JJF 1998. "Investigation of the Situation at the Vaal Triangle Technikon by the Independent Assessor, appointed by the Minister of Education" Government Gazette 11 September 1998, No. 19239

    Eckel, P, Hill, H, Green, M and Mallon, B 1999. On Change: Reports from the Road: Insights into Institutional Change Washington: American Council on Education

    Green, A 1997. Education, Globalisation and the Nation State London: Macmillan

    Grobbelaar, JW 1998. Country Paper: A Profile of South African Higher Education London: Centre for Higher Education Management Studies

    Hayward, FM 1998. Background to the three-year planning and budget exercise. In Reflections on 3 year planning at the historically disadvantaged institutions Report by CHET for the UNCF/TELP Program. Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

    Ncayiyana, DJ and Hayward, FM 1999. Effective Goverance: a Guide for Council Members of Universities and Technikons Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

    NCHE (National Commission on Higher Education) 1996. Final Report: A Framework for Transformation Pretoria: Government Printer

    NCHE (National Commission on Higher Education) Task Group on Governance 1996. Summary of the Work of the Task Group on Governance Pretoria: National Commission on Higher Education

    Ngara, E 1999. A strategic framework for action. Presentation on three-year rolling institutional plans to CHET workshop. In Report: 3 Year Rolling Plans - UNCF/TELP Capacity Building Pretoria: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

    Nzimande, B 1996. "Academic Freedom in the New South Africa" University of the Witwatersrand Senate special lecture, 22 August 1996, published in Wits Alumni E-Mail Forum Newsletter, Vol 19 (A+B)

    Saunders, SJ 1999 "Report to the Minister of Education, the Honourable SME Bengu, by Emeritus Professor SJ Saunders " Government Gazette 12 March 1999, No 19842

    Scott, P 1997. "Changes in knowledge production and dissemination in the context of globalisation" in Cloete, N, Muller, J, Makgoba, MW and Ekong, D (eds) Knowledge, Identity and Curriculum Transformation in Africa Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman

    Segal, N 1999. Restructuring and refocusing organisations for effective change: strategies from the private sector and higher education. Paper presented at Leadership and change in higher education workshop, Centre for Higher Education Transformation, Gordon's Bay

    Skweyiya, TL 1998. "Investigation of the Situation at the University of Transkei by the Independent Assessor, appointed by the Minister of Education" Government Gazette, 20 November 1998, No. 19501.\

    Stumpf, RH 1998. Die Finansiering van Universiteite in Suid-Afrika: Veranderings en Uitdagings. Speech to the University of Stellenbosch Convocation, 26 November 1998 Published on University web site:

    University of Pretoria 1996. Agreement to Establish a Broad Transformation Forum

    University of Stellenbosch 1999. Jaarboek 1999 Deel 1: Algemeen

    University of Stellenbosch Committee: the Management of Multi-Culturalism 1998. Report of the Committee on the Management of Multiculturalism

    University of Stellenbosch 1998. University of Stellenbosch Institutional Plan (1998 for the period 1999-2001)

    University of Stellenbosch 1999. 'n Strategiese raamwerk vir die eeuwisseling en daarná.

    USIFPC (University of Stellenbosch Institutional Forum Pilot Committee) 1998. Progress report of the Institutional Forum Pilot Committee Regarding the Establishment of an IF at the University of Stellenbosch

    USIFPC (University of Stellenbosch Institutional Forum Pilot Committee) 1999a. Report of the Institutional Forum Pilot Committee Regarding the Establishment of an IF at the University of Stellenbosch

    USIFPC (University of Stellenbosch Institutional Forum Pilot Committee) 1999b. Draft Outline of a Final Report of the Institutional Forum Pilot Committee

    University of Stellenbosch Student Societies 1999. Submission to the Panel of Independent Experts on Amendments to the Statute of the University of Stellenbosch

    University of the Witwatersrand 1991. Draft Statement of Agreement: Forum for Further Accelerated and Comprehensive Transformation

    Usher, R and Edwards, R 1994. Postmodernism and Education: Different voices, different worlds. London: Routledge

    Wolpe, H 1991 Education and social transformation: problems and dilemmas In: Unterhalter, E, Wolpe, H and Botha, T Eds. Education in a Future South Africa: Policy Issues for Transition Oxford: Heinemann

    Newspaper Articles

    Die Matie 25 February 1998 "Transformasie en probleme met bestuurstyl"

    Die Matie 14 October 1998 "Institutional plan adopted by Council, but process criticised".

    Die Matie November 1998 "Spanning laai oor SBK se besprekingsdokument"

    Die Matie 21 April 1999 "Nuwe statuut "noodoperasie" - Durand"

    Die Matie 4 August 1999 "US moet verandering nou wys bestuur"

    Independent Online 12 August 1999 "Students choose technikons over varsity"



    Draft Higher Education Amendment Bill, May 1999

    Higher Education Act (Act No 101 of 1997)

    Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act No 108 of 1996)

    University of Stellenbosch (Private) Act (House of Assembly) (Act No 107 of 1992)


    "The University of Stellenbosch: Amendment of Statute" Government Gazette, 21 May 1999, No 20096.

    "Statute of the Rand Afrikaans University" Government Gazette, 21 December 1998, No 19629.

    "Statute of the University of Stellenbosch" Government Gazette, 20 November 1992, No 14407.


    1 The term ‘US community’ is used solely to refer collectively to all constituencies within the university. No form of internal coherence is implied.

    2 The right to basic and further education is enshrined in the Bill of Rights (in Section 29 of the Constitution) as well as by organisations such as UNICEF.

    3 This ignores some of the primarily national-level changes, eg from a fragmented system to a single co-ordinated system.

    4 It is questionable whether US strutures have asked themselves these question.

    5 From statistics supplied to the Academic Affairs Council.

    6 See section 2 of this document for definition of this term.

    7 From statistics supplied to the Academic Affairs Council.

    8 From statistics supplied to the Academic Affairs Council.

    9 The development of this trend in the South African context is clear, see sections 5.3 and 5.4 above.

    10 The complete lack of transparency in this process has contirbuted substantially to the distrust between sectors of the staff and student corps and managament.

    11 Prof JJF Durand, former Vice-Rector of the University of the Western Cape and member of the panel of Independent Assessors, Prof Erasmus, a former US law Professor and Ms D du Plessis of the Student Court.

    12 The following are represented on SAFT: the SRC, the Tygerberg SRC, all Hostel Committees, all registered student societies, all faculty societies and committees, and all student-run service structures (Die Matie, Carnaval, Maties Community Service etc).

    13 Statements made by the Rector, Prof AH van Wyk, suggest that the idea may have been arrived at as long ago as early 1998.

    14 The financial justification for the appointment of a third vice-rector has not been debated.