APPENDIXES 1, 3 AND 5

(APPENDIX 2 NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY)

APPENDIX 1: EXTRACT FROM THE WHITE PAPER

2.13 The three-year rolling institutional plans, will be developed within the framework of the national plan1, according to procedures which will be negotiated between the Department of Education and the institutions with the advice of the CHE2.

2.14 Institutional plans will be expected to include the mission of the institution, proposed programmes, indicative targets for enrolment levels by programme, race and gender equity goals and proposed measures to develop new programmes and human resource development plans and developmental plans for new programmes. They will also include plans for academic development, research development and infrastructural development.

2.15 The Ministry will request the CHE to advise on the criteria to be used to assess the suitability and sustainability of institutional plans. In broad terms, there will have to be a fit between institutional plans and national policy and goals, as well as consistency with institutional missions and capacity.

2.16 In addition, emphasis will be placed on regional reviews of institutional plans as an integral part of the national planning process. This will be intended to promote regional co-ordination and collaboration as part of the national plan enhance articulation of programmes, mobility of learners between institutions, the sharing of resources, including scarce academic and technical staff, library and information facilities. It is also intended to reduce programme duplication and overlap. The Ministry will provide incentives to encourage and facilitate regional planning and co-ordination.

2.17 In cases where there is a mismatch between institutional plans and the national plan, adjustments to institutional plans will be negotiated by the Department of Education with the relevant institutions.

2.18 The approval of institutional plans will lead to the allocation of funded student places to institutions for approved programmes in particular levels and fields of learning. Individual institutions will determine student numbers for particular programmes within these levels and fields. They would also have the option of running new programmes or augmenting state-funded programmes from their own resources.

2.19 Institutional redress will play an important role in the planning process to ensure that inherited inequalities between the historically black and historically white institutions are not intensified, but diminished. This will require the Department of Education and the CHE proactively assisting institutions to develop planning capacity and appropriate institutional missions, as well as ensuring that new programmes are appropriately located within the existing institutional landscape. In this respect, redress funding will be allocated where needed to enable institutions to offer the agreed programme mix in an effective manner.

2.20 The planning process will also take into account that the historically advantaged institutions will require additional resources to deal with the learning needs of disadvantaged students as a result of the changing composition of the student body, with large and increasing numbers of black students enrolled in these institutions.

 

 

APPENDIX 3: COMMENTS ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN FRAMEWORK

" 'n Stratigese Raamwerk vir die Eeuwisseling en Daarná", 23 April 1999

by D Love and YH Malan

August 1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The strategic and institutional planning process] "demonstrated how very important being inclusive was to success... Plans written by the senior management, with a consultant or a small group of participants, but without broad consultation and consensus, did not elicit the broad-based ownership necessary to gain support at those institutions."

CHET report on 3 year planning to UNCF/TELP, 1998

 

CONTENTS

1. General Comments . . . . . . A6

2. Specific Comments . . . . . . A7

1. Introduction . . . . . . A7

2. Realities of a Changing Environment . . A7

3. Mission, Vision and Values . . . . A8

4. The Three Core Processes . . . . A8

8. Organisation and Management . . . A8

9. Redress . . . . . . . A9

10. Accessibility . . . . . . A12

11. University Finances . . . . . A12

References . . . . . . . . A12

 

1. GENERAL COMMENTS

The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC), which prepared the Short Strategic Plan / Strategic Planning Framework3 has been widely criticised for being a non-participatory, and non-transparent process, and the resulting document is not widely accepted. A pre-condition for detailed planning should be a broadly accepted mission and a broadly accepted strategic plan (CHET 1999a: 4; our emphasis). The drawing up of a strategic plan does not only mean to plan for the future. It is also a vital opportunity for an institution to ask some itself some important and honest questions. This process needs the perspectives and views of all members of the university community.

As a Strategic Plan (SP), the Document is extremely vague, generally referring to the need to address issues, but not providing any actual plans. According to the Planning Requirements (DoE 1998: 3-4), an SP should define the institution's niche within South African higher education, and should contain:

    1. Mission statement4;
    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.

Throughout the Document, issues are raised, rather than plans. This is consistent with the Document's title (a Framework), but it leaves most of the work in preparing a SP undone.

The Document contains some worrying trends, particularly:

    1. Inadequate appreciation of the context;
    2. Emphasis on commercialisation of knowledge;
    3. Over-emphasis on natural and applied sciences at the expense of humanities;
    4. No acknowledgement of the need to address institutional culture.

The values and visions expressed are generally laudable, but they frequently contradict current practice. It is unclear how the realistic implementation of these values foreseen in the near future. Cases in point include transparency, community involvement and the re-evaluation of governance structures.

2. SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Numbering in this section follows that of the Document.

1. Introduction

The reference in paragraph 3 to "comprehensive planning process in which the University community participated over the course of a year" is problematic: participation was very limited (especially students and workers), feedback via the website was limited by delays in the placing of material and the lack of English translations of all the workgroup final reports except that on Student Affairs.

The reference in paragraph 3 to other planning processes implies that both the Institutional Forum and the Institutional Plan process are operating, transparent and participatory. The 1998 Institutional Plan process was not transparent or participatory in any sense of the word. The Institutional Forum (IF) has yet to be established - the process involved has so far only discussed the establishment of an IF, and no other planning issues have been brought to IF process summits to date.

2. Realities Of A Changing Environment

This section presents a wholly inadequate attempt at contextualisation, and there is no assessment whatsoever of the US context.

2.1 Worldwide Trends

Generally, the trends described are vague, there are other trends too. Some trends not mentioned inclue:

The way in which knowledge is referred to in the first bullet as a commodity is worrying, and strikes at the heart of academic freedom.

 

2.2 South African Realities

This sub-section says nothing of the transformation and restructuring of governance, massification, the drive to socio-economic responsibility and responsivity, addressing issues raised by institutional culture or the new funding system - as described in the National Commission on Higher Education Final Report or the 1997 White Paper. Additionally, the growth in national student numbers referred to in the first bullet has not taken place (Bunting and Cloete, 1999), and although demographic broadening of the student population has occurred at many historically-Afrikaner universities, US is not one of these, and there is no evidence to suggest a major broadening will occur. For example, the 1998 Institutional Plan targets a demographic broadening of the student corps form 82% in 1998 to 79.2% by the end of 2001. The general disregard for the broader context and South African realities is shown in several other recent US policy documents: the 1998 Institutional plan and the Uni-ed Discussion Document are good examples

2.3 The Necessity Of Self-Renewal

Reference to being "firmly positioned with regard to market share" also implies commercialisation of knowledge and academia - a "paradigm" that management seems to accept uncritically.

3. Mission, Vision And Values

3.2 Mission

Reference to "excellent scientific practice" is worrying. The term "scientific" has not been defined, and implies use of methods typical of natural and applied sciences across all faculties. "Scientific" must be defined in an inclusive manner or an alternative term used.

3.3 Values

4. The Three Core Processes

4.2 Research

 

 

8. Organisation and Management

9. Redress

Consideration of the genealogy of US is relevant at this point. US has something of a history of being the "universalising" kind of institution to which Green (1997: 95, 101) and Rust (1991: 619) refer. The recent report of the US Committee: Management of Multiculturalism (1998: 11.3) refers to a perceived identification of the US with the Afrikaner community's "norms, standards and ideals". This phrase carries with it enormous historical baggage, especially in the context of the US. In 1965, the then rector - and later chairman of the Broederbond - Prof HB Thom proclaimed :

"Soos die Afrikaanssprekende gemeenskap is hy [University of Stellenbosch] behoudend van aard; soos die Afrikaanssprekende gemeenskap dra hy 'n godsdienstige karakter; en soos die Afrikaanssprekende gemeenskap het hy baie besliste vaderlandsliefde. Mense wat vir hierdie groot dinge minagting toon, sal op Stellenbosch nie tuis voel nie."5

When Thom says "Afrikaanssprekende" he means white Afrikaners; when he says "godsdienstige karakter" he means NGK ; when he says "vaderlandsliefde" he means Christian-Nationalism6 Only the naive and those ignorant of history can argue otherwise. Thom clearly states that those not subscribing to these values will not be at home- and by implication, not made to feel at home - at the US. The US' function was to inculcate these values in the young Afrikaner elite. The close identification of the US with a specific population group, theology and ideology was personified in the election of BJ Vorster and PW Botha as US Chancellors. Furthermore, all leaders of the (former) National Party received honorary doctorates from the US.

Thom, and his successors-in-viewpoint, set up an ideal "perceived Afrikaner", who has a certain set of views on language, culture, religion and politics: primarily separate development, calvinist christianity of the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk (NGK) and Christian-Nationalism - and a loyalty to the Afrikaner elite. They continue to use the US to further the development of this 'perceived Afrikaner' in white Afrikaner students. Throughout most of its history, US as a university has served to universalize (primarily within the Afrikaner community) this set of ideals and viewpoints.

Thus, the US had a very close relationship with the previous regime, supplying the presidents and ministers who decreed apartheid policy, the officials who implemented it and the theologians and academics who justified it. Thus the former chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Education declared that the US trained "intellectuals for Apartheid" (Die Burger 2 February 1996).

Since 1994 there has been a uncomfortable relationship between the US and the new government, at times even hostile - for example the rector’s response to President Mandela’s address on campus in 1994, and his reaction to Prof Bengu when he visited the campus in 1997. At the same time the University has developed a very close relationship with the Afrikaner corporate sector (including the Afrikaner media) - who are very well represented on the US Council.

There is little evidence that the role of the US in universalising this value system in young Afrikaners has changed much, beyond the dropping of public arguments in favour of separate development7 . Although the composition of the University's student community is no longer as monolithically Afrikaner as it once was8 the US is still seen today, by many students, staff and by individuals and groups associated with the US (Convocation, "student churches" etc), as having a christian and Afrikaans-speaking "culture" and one of strong traditions, especially in the residences. It is seen the function of the US to preserve these ideals and viewpoints and to instil them in students.

"Other" people (people who do not share these ideals and viewpoints or who come from "different" background) are permitted to attend the University, as long as they do not interfere with this process of preservation and instillation. There is an attitude, similar to that expressed by Thom above, among some members of staff, that students (or staff members) who do not share the ideals and viewpoints of the "perceived Afrikaner" are only here on sufferance. The exclusion of " others" is dangerous move since, as Susan Opotow (1990: 1-2) points out,

"when individuals or groups are perceived as outside the boundary in which...rules and considerations of fairness apply...[they] are perceived as nonentities, expendable, or undeserving...[c]onsequently harming or exploiting them appears appropriate, acceptable, or just."

This could explain why the US management never - or only under extreme public pressure - take charges of racism or religious intolerance seriously and why a Nazi incident on campus in 1995 could be dismissed as "studentepret" ; it simply does not occur to the US that this is a grave injustice.

 

This history stands in contrast not only to the idea of what a university should be , but also what the role of the intellectual should be. Edward Said (1994), following Gramsci, argues that it is the duty of the intellectual to "speak truth to power". He pays some attention to Julien Benda (1969) who argues, in The Treason of the Intellectuals, that intellectuals are supposed to be burned at the stake, citing Emile Zola’s fearless defence of Alfred Dreyfuss9 as the role model.

Said’s (1994: 9) plea is that the intellectual is an individual with a specific public role in society that cannot be reduced simply to being a faceless professional. This role, says Said, is to ask "embarrassing questions, to confront orthodoxy and dogma.. rather than produce them". There is a specific duty to address the authorised powers of one’s own society/community (Said 1994: 79). Said’s idea of the intellectual is perhaps a combination of Gramsci’s non-elitist organic intellectual and Benda’s intellectual "as a being set apart, someone able to speak the truth to power...eloquent, fantastically courageous...[an] individual for whom no worldly power is to big and imposing to be criticised and pointedly taken to task" (Said 1994 : 7). At the US those who did speak truth to power, both academics (e.g the saga of Prof JJ Degenaar and the two philosophy departments10) and students (e.g. numerous members of Die Matie, Lesley Durr11) paid a price.

The US has recently started to emphasise the concept of ‘academic freedom’ more and more. This is somewhat ironic. In 1987, when some universities took the then Minister of Education, FW de Klerk, to court, for undermining academic freedom, the US supported the Minister. The US seems to view academic freedom as being solely a matter of the relationship between institutions of higher education and the state. In other words, the state should not interfere at all. Yet it pays no attention to academic freedom on campus (see, for example, notes on Degenaar above).

Chomsky makes a similar argument when he argues that intellectuals have a responsibility to evaluate the "truth-claims" of those in power (Wilkin 1997: 112-113). Chomsky (1969: 324) also argues that "intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of government, to analyse actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions."

Seen it the light of the above, the US has a very specific responsibility to redress and transformation.

10. Accessibility

The role of institutional culture (in general) in the accessibility of US must be investigated. The role that institutional culture plays in hampering accessibility is generally disregarded by the US (see for example the 1998 Report of the Committee on the Management of Multiculturalism). The matter of language policy must be discussed and investigated, thoroughly and unemotionally.

11. University Finances

There is no reference to the changes that must come about as a result of the new funding system.

References

Benda, J 1969. The Treason of the Intellectuals New York: Norton

Bunting, B 1969. The Rise of the South African Reich London: Penguin

Bunting, I and Cloete, N 1999. Higher education in South Africa in 1999: Towards a single co-ordinated system? Paper presented at a CHET/UNCF/TELP workshop Leadrship and Institutional Change in Higher Education 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

Chomsky, N 1969. American Power and the New Mandarins New York : Pantheon Books

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

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

 

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

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

Opotow, S 1990. "Moral Exclusion and Injustice" in Journal of Social Issues Vol 46 No 1 (Spring)

Rust, V 1991. "Post-modernism and its comparative education implications" Comparative Education Review 35 (4)

Said, E 1994. Representations of the Intellectual : The 1993 Reith Lectures London : Vintage

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

Universiteit van Stellenbosch 1999. ’n Strategiese Raamwerk vir die Eeuwisseling en Daarná

Universiteit van Stellenbosch Komitee: Bestuur van Multikuturalisme 1998. Verslag van die Komitee Bestuur van Multikulturalisme

Wilkin, P 1997. Noam Chomsky on Power, Knowledge and Human Nature London : MacMillian Press

 

 

APPENDIX 5 . PROPOSAL FOR AN APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE FOR A RECTOR OR VICE-RECTOR, AS ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF SOCIETIES’ CHAIRPERSONS

1. The post is advertised, following the issuing of a post description by the US Council, after consultation with the Senate and Institutional Forum (IF).12

2. A Selection Committee of six members is formed as follows:

a) Two representatives of the governance and management sector, elected by a panel comprising two representatives of the Council, three representatives of the Senate, one representative of Management, and the registrar or his or her nominee;

b) Two representatives of the staff sector, elected by a panel comprising two representatives of the permanent, non-professorial academic staff, two representatives of the administrative support services, one representative of the academic support services and two representatives of the recognised trade unions;

c) Two representatives of the student sector, elected by a panel comprising two members of the Students’ Representative Council (SRC), elected by the SRC, two members of the Prim-Committee, elected by the Prim-Committee, two members of the Academic Affairs Council (AAC), elected by the AAC and one representative of the student societies, elected by the Committee of Societies’ Chairpersons;

3. The Selection Committee receives all applications for the post, may conduct interviews with any candidate, may request policy statements from any candidate, and prepares a short list of of not less than five candidates.

4. The IF receives from the Selection Committee the short list of candidates, and all records and documents pertaining to short-listed candidates. The IF, acting under paragraph 41(1)(a) of the US statute and under section 31(1)(a)(iii) of the Higher Education Act, then may conduct interviews with any candidate, may request policy statements from any candidate, and prepares a short list of candidates, with a maximum of five names, and a minimum of three names.

5. The Senate receives from the IF the IF’s short list of candidates, and all records and documents pertaining to short-listed candidates. The Senate, acting under paragraph 5(1) of the US statute, then may conduct interviews with any candidate, may request policy statements from any candidate, and prepares a short list of candidates, with a maximum of three names, and a minimum of two names.

6. The Council receives from the Senate the Senate‘s short list of candidates, and all records and documents pertaining to short-listed candidates. The Council then may conduct interviews with any candidate and may request policy statements from any candidate.

7. The Council then votes on the candidates. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and a second round of voting held.

8. The Council, acting under section 27(1) of the Higher Education Act, section 7(1) of the US Private Act, and paragraph 5(1) of the US statute, then appoints the vice-rector.

NOTES

No national plan will be in place for the opening years of the planning process.

2 Council on Higher Education

3 Hereafter referred to as "the Document".

4 It does not exist, except as a proposal in the Document. One of the requirements when evaluating teaching programmes was whether they linked (‘aansluit’) with the US’ mission statement, which does not exist. Since there is no mission statement, there is no indication of where the University is heading or how it will position itself in future. A report on the CHET workshop on strategic plans comments: "Plan should say something about the mission statement, the institution’s vision and how the institution sees itself. In addition the plan should also say something about the niche that the institution is trying to create".

5 Speech made at the opening of the academic year, 24 February 1965.

6 BJ Vorster’s definition by association of Christian Nationalism is important at this point:

"You can call this anti-democratic principle dictatorship if you want. In Italy it is called fascism, in Germany, German National Socialism, and in South Africa, Christian-Nationalism" (BJ Vorster 1942; quoted in Bunting 1969: 96)

It is worth remembering that the University still had a building named after BJ Vorster until 1998 - and that the change of name was strongly opposed by management.

7 Support for separate development still runs close to the surface. Occasionally it comes out in public. The rector, Prof AH van Wyk, in a public speech in April 1998, made reference to the possibility of different residences for people from different "cultures".

8 Currently, the US student community includes approximately 55% white Afrikaans-speaking students, based on 82% white students (US Institutional Plan 1998) and 65.2% Afrikaans-speakers, published in US statistics.

9 Szacki (1990, quoted in Said 1994) points out that the term "intellectual" first came into use during the Dreyfuss Affair. The defenders of Dreyfuss, a Jewish officer in the French army falsely accused of treason, called themselves "intellectueles".

10 In 1961 the US created two philosophy departments (Philosophy and Political Philosophy). This was done because theology students were required to take Philosophy, and the seminary ("kweekskool") was furious with Prof Degenaar because of the questions he asked in class and his highly critical views of the NGK’s justification of apartheid. Thus, in order to prevent Prof Degenaar from influencing the theology students, a second department was created. The two departments were reunited the year Prof Degenaar retired.

11 Lesley Durr was expelled from the US in 1989, because she lead a protest march on campus. However, she took the US to caught, and won the case. The court found the US to have acted ultra vires.

12 This has been done – though without consultation