Conrad Steenkamp responds to Jonathan Jansen’s article: https://www.heraldlive.co.za/opinion/2023-03-23-commission-report-should-be-tossed-on-grounds-of-skimpy-evidence-alone/:
Loathing and hatred with Jonathan Jansen
Trust Jonathan Jansen (HeraldLIVE, 23 Mar), known for his anglocentrism and disdain for Afrikaans, to take his usual sledgehammer rhetoric onto sensitive and nuanced terrain. In this case, he is targeting the HRC’s recent report on language rights at certain residences at Stellenbosch University (SU).
The HRC’s report found that students’ linguistic rights were disregarded by the imposition of English-only practices at certain residences. They held the university responsible for this and recommended that measures aimed at inclusion should be balanced with the protection of students’ language rights.
Jansen, however, considers the HRC report to be “incompetent”. According to him, there is “slim to no evidence the complaints are valid”. He denies any discriminatory language practices in the SU residences or thinks them to have been ephemeral at best.
When the English-only story broke in 2022, the Afrikaanse Taalraad (Afrikaans Language Council) interviewed several students from four residences who explained in detail how they were prohibited from using Afrikaans in common areas – even in the privacy of their own rooms or when with their parents or on cell phones. We know for a fact that English-only was yet again imposed on at least one residence in 2023 as well.
In other words, contrary to what Jansen claims, English-only practices did (or do) exist at several residences. After all, the residence leaders concerned admitted as much and thought there was nothing wrong with imposing English. So, why deny that linguistic discrimination happened, Professor? Insisting that the Earth is flat does not make it so.
The HRC’s refusal to make public any details about interviewees is not vagueness, Professor, but makes sense under the circumstances. A common feature in our interviews with the students was that they – sometimes their parents as well – often felt too intimidated to make public statements about their experiences – just like the HRC reported.
Why try to misrepresent matters so, Professor? Why deny that English-only practices could make at least some Afrikaans-speaking students feel stigmatised and unwelcome at SU?
Jansen, however, chooses to blame the victims. He questions the motives of the complainants, arguing they are “driven by an undisguised effort to restore the Afrikaans dominant culture at a university established for Afrikaners.” In other words, any dissatisfaction with language at the university is the work of ideological “right-wing (white) activists”.
Says who? I don’t know of a single Afrikaans organisation that pursues this objective, a demeaning stereotype that also Khampepe rejects in her report on racism at SU.
Contrary to Jansen’s portrayal, the speakers of Afrikaans are a diverse group. And many of them, regardless of background, feel alienated and stay silent when confronted with English-only – a mirror image of the experience of some black students regarding Afrikaans.
English is a useful language that we should all strive to master – which does not make it the “common language” as Jansen claims. English does not include everybody and English-only constitutes a major threat to inclusion in sectors ranging from education, through to the legal system and our economy.
Jansen seems oblivious to this because of his obsession with the spook of Afrikaner nationalism. Even vestigial traces of Afrikaans seem to offend and lead Jansen to question the competence of the HRC. According to him, it has been “captured by the narrow interests of ideologues”, becoming “the handmaid of Afrikaans right-wing activists.” Accordingly, SU should challenge the HRC report in court.
How absurd.
Jansen claims to have “checked in” with a few “senior judges in SA”, who uniformly find the HRC report “laughable”. I find myself laughing at this laughable statement. A few judges? How many exactly? Who are they? Why do they find the finding laughable? Might other judges disagree with them? What vagueness from a man who cried vague about the HRC report.
One would expect a senior academic like Jansen to work hard at bringing people together, to promote mutual tolerance, and to seek mutually satisfying solutions. But no, Jansen instead promotes a rigid zero-sum game, the kind of brutal win-lose scenario that the HRC ruling manages to avoid. He demonises and stigmatises. He drives people apart and inspires mutual loathing and hatred.
His campaign for the hegemony of English runs in the face of a global trend towards multilingualism and the revival of indigenous languages. Flexible multilingual solutions are needed for the proper inclusion of those who are marginalised by imperial monolingualism.
This holds for inclusion at SU as well.
Conrad Steenkamp is the CEO of the Afrikaanse Taalraad (Afrikaans Language Council), an A 185 organisation that promotes Afrikaans in its full diversity.