Litnet

Frederik van Dyk

Abstract

This statement is the position formulated and held by the Adam Tas Students’ Society (Adam Tas Studentevereniging) which also reflects the basic properties of our organisation’s short-term policy on language and related social struggles on this campus. We hereby express the hope that our view of the issues on campus will be regarded as a thought-through, rational and constitutionally sound interpretation which can serve the purpose of providing support to inclusive solutions to the current crisis.

Who is the Adam Tas Students’ Society?

The Adam Tas Students’ Society (ATSS) prides itself as an independent, progressive and non-political students’ cultural organisation with the aim of promoting, studying and celebrating the Afrikaans language as one of the eleven official languages of the Republic of South Africa, and as an integral part of the history and current social milieu of Stellenbosch University. ATSS, therefore, is not a “white Afrikaans” or “Afrikaans home-language” or “fluent Afrikaans speakers’” organisation, but an all-encompassing society of students with Afrikaans as a common interest, for whatever purpose that interest may exist. Our society boasts members from diverse national, cultural, racial, ethnic and language backgrounds, all united in their common love for and interest in the Afrikaans language. With the diverse membership of ATSS taken into account, it is clear that our organization adheres to an inherent pledge of principle, which is

1. to be inclusive
2. to strive for unity in our diversity
3. to combat ignorance and subsequent irrational fears and hatreds
4. to help bring about reconciliation and inter-cultural acceptance through Afrikaans as a common unifier between students from different backgrounds.

With this first principle in mind, we are ready to take on and question any stereotypical views on the Afrikaans language and on any of the many South African cultures that include Afrikaans as a crucial part of their history, current identity and future. We hold that the right of Afrikaans to exist and thrive on campus and in the broader Republic is a constitutionally guaranteed one, as directly or indirectly stated by sections 6, 9, 16, 30 and 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. In addition, and in particular, we firmly believe in the right to human dignity (section 10) for all students on our campus, which we regard to be unattainable if education, free social communication and critical dialogue in a language of their choice are unjustly and unreasonably denied.

The ATSS will continue to serve its mission by campaigning and promoting the Afrikaans language actively, but with a strict policy of independence, and thus without entering into any formal alliances with any other organisation. This policy does not aim to isolate ATSS from the world, but rather to enable us to work together towards common goals with other parties without getting involved in alliances that may lead to our principles and work ethic being compromised or tainted by certain stereotypical judgements by the greater South African society.

Our interpretations and views on current issues on SU and surrounds

1. With regard to the efforts of the Open Stellenbosch (OS) movement, ATSS recognises the struggles and pain suffered by individuals on SU campus and surrounding areas due to racial discrimination and racially motivated assaults, especially as reflected in the controversial #Luister video. ATSS agrees with the calls for urgent investigation into cases of racist assault and, by extension, into any other cases of discrimination that contravene the right to equality and infringe on the human dignity of our fellow students.

However, by practical principle, we maintain an objective and critically rational stance towards any situation we encounter as an organisation, and we do condemn the way in which some members of OS react to the issues raised, with many engaging in sweeping generalisations, stereotyping on the grounds of race, racially charged language and other unconstitutional reactions which inevitably helped to create the current polarisation crisis on campus.

We thoroughly disagree with the aggressive tactics that OS uses to demand change, as we believe in a tradition of multilateral negotiation to resolve conflicts and to usher in change.

Even though we agree with OS that the implementation of the language policy leads to serious issues for many students, we disagree that the policy itself is totally flawed. We support the view of the university that SU is a “multilingual and world-class university”, and we applaud the aim of management to uphold this ideal through innovative solutions. ATSS is willing to negotiate with OS and any other concerned groups on a way forward that will serve all interest groups equally.

2. With regard to transformation, ATSS agrees with the concept, as it is a necessary process in our attempts to rectify the wrongdoings of the past and to bring about equality, human dignity and reconciliation. However, ATSS remains rational, and we have observed that there is great misunderstanding and disagreement on what the definition of transformation is on campus, and that this in turn fuels irrational fears and even hatred between groups. We disagree with the claims by OS and others that the SU management is inherently racist, based on “white privilege” and should be “decolonised”, and by virtue of the fact that even OS members we have engaged with on these subjects cannot unanimously clarify the meaning of these terms and allegations in the context of the SU, we conclude that we will disregard the use of these terms as being empty rhetoric until a central consensus is reached on what this entails. Despite our belief in transformation, we cannot ally ourselves with the racially charged and radical connotations to transformation that OS advocates, as we view this as being at odds with what the Constitution expects. Instead, we state our willingness to engage with OS and other SU student bodies to find a central, constitutionally sound definition of transformation which the university can put into practice.

3. With regard to the current language policy, ATSS’s stance is that it is both constitutional and practical. We believe that the principle of multilingualism at South African universities is of great importance, for three reasons:

Firstly, an education that may (by choice) include exposure to more than one language of instruction provides South African students with an asset that puts them ahead of many international competitors in the job market. Students who are academically and professionally fluent in more than one South African language except English are better suited to serve the multilingual society we live in, and thus assets in themselves. ATSS therefore argues that building our students into multi-faceted assets will definitely serve this nation by building bridges between consumers and producers from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds and increasing integration. This, in turn, will lead to investment and the distribution of resources along fair lines of inter-cultural trade, instead of uneven distribution along racial or linguistic lines. We firmly agree with the words of former President Nelson Mandela, who said: “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.”

Secondly, we believe that tuition in a language of choice is central to a dignified and well-deserved tertiary education. Students should not be compelled to be taught in a language they do not fully understand or do not know at all. However, by simply introducing English as the only language of instruction, the academic development of Afrikaans and Xhosa is jeopardised. It is regressive and shameful to transformative constitutionalism if a previously neglected language such as Xhosa loses its developmental status at SU, along with Afrikaans, because students were unwilling to concede to the development of SU as a multilingual university. We believe if the reason for multilingualism can be understood, easier and streamlined implementation of policy will follow.

Thirdly, multilingualism provides the opportunity for all South African languages to be developed at an academic level, which serves the principles stated in section 6 of the Constitution, with regard to language. Section 6(2), specifically, is served by multilingualism on a tertiary level of education, since it states, “Recognizing the historically diminished use and status of the indigenous languages of our people, the state must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages.” SU, being a public institution, is mandated by the Constitution to provide for the languages of our nation. The current attempts to develop Xhosa, while at the same time putting Afrikaans and English to practical use as tools of instruction, are certainly examples of positive measures as stated in 6(2). Therefore, despite the lack of sound implementation, the arguments against multilingualism are in fact in contrast to key constitutional provisions.

Conclusion and the way forward according to our policy

ATSS has a policy of taking a fair, rational and thoroughly considered stance of reason towards any issue we encounter. We view the Constitution of the Republic as our guiding document and a rule book to ensure fair play between parties. We firmly believe in the supremacy and final word of the Constitution in all matters that concern language and transformation at Stellenbosch University. As a society that helps to voice the opinions of students, it is also our duty to suggest and formulate solutions along with other student bodies. We call for multiparty negotiations, modelled on the CODESA negotiations of the early 1990s that brought about a peaceful solution to the crises in South Africa following the dismantling of apartheid and helped to create the New South Africa. We call on parliament to give students of SU the space needed to facilitate these negotiations, so that consensus can freely be agreed on and the current conflict resolved. We call on all student bodies at SU to take part in these suggested negotiations, so that no voice will be left unheard.

The ATSS extends its hope that all parties can come to a unanimous decision that is fair and constitutional and satisfactory to all those involved and affected. We commit, as a society, to helping to take the lead in organising peaceful negotiations, as this is in line with our work ethic and first principles. Furthermore, for the sake of our beautiful Stellenbosch University and all its values as an excellent institution, we commit to helping to bring about peace and virtuous character through sensitive and careful negotiation with others.

Masimamelane! Kom ons Luister! Let us Listen!

***

Open Stellenbosch, Transformasie en die US

Die Adam Tas Studentevereniging se perspektief

Die atmosfeer op die Matie-kampus kan met een woord beskryf word: elektries.

Nie net as gevolg van die luide aandrang op verandering deur groepe soos Open Stellenbosch nie, maar ook die sensitiewe gesprekke en debatte tussen studente oor die kampus, die status quo en die geskiedenis laai die Bolandse lenteluggie tot hoogspanning. Adam Tas, as vereniging wat hom sedert 2007 beywer vir Afrikaans se grondwetlike plekkie in die Matie-son, beskou hierdie nuwe tydsgees nie as ‘n armageddon vir Afrikaans en sy behoud op die universiteit nie. Inteendeel, ná deeglike en rasionele ontleding van die verskeie standpunte, besef ons dat die huidige atmosfeer juis geleenthede en pligte van kardinale belang skep.

Open Stellenbosch (voorts OS) het in die vroeë maande van 2015 as ‘n dinkskrum van studente met standpunte van ‘n soortgelyke aard ontstaan. Die organisasie het binne ‘n paar maande van ‘n klein groepie kritiese denkers tot ‘n magtige populistiese stem op kampus ontwikkel. ‘n Stem wat studente en personeel se diepste en mees gevestigde oortuigings bevraagteken en selfs aangeval het; wat mense met ‘n wye verskeidenheid reaksies – van ‘n ligte bolip-sweet tot knaende irritasie tot ongekende woede en onsekerheid – gelaat het. Die organisasie het sy ideologiese ammunisie en vinnige publisiteitsprong grootliks te danke aan sy makkers in die #Rhodesmustfall-beweging, wat tot groot opskudding op die Ikey-kampus (UK) gelei het. Vir sommige is OS ‘n messias, vir andere ‘n wolf in skaapklere, vir die res ‘n irriterende muskiet wat sy eie brandstof sal uitwoed. Sover is daar grondige bewyse vir die eerste twee perspektiewe, maar OS blyk die standaard vir studentepolitiek keer op keer te ontwyk, juis omdat die groepie vasbyters weier om uit te brand, ten spyte van ‘n reeks taai nederlae!

Hoe maak ‘n mens met hierdie OS-fenomeen? Wat moet ons dink, hoe moet ons rasionaliseer, as “ons” kan verwys na die liefhebbers van en belangstellendes in Afrikaans die taal? Hoe skiet ons hierdie olifant – en indien hy geval het, waar begin mens eet? Moet ons hom in die eerste plek skiet, of hom dalk sy plek in die wildtuin van hoër onderwys gun? En hoe kan ons transformasie laat plaasvind sodat almal met ‘n glimlag wegstap?

Adam Tassers het gou tot die besef gekom dat die logiese reaksie (om OS te beveg) nie vrugte gaan afwerp nie. Indien ons eerlik en rasioneel met onsself is, sal ons weet dat die boublokkies van OS studente net soos ons is. Mense met al die vrese, onsekerhede en angst wat saam met adolessensie as ‘n gemeenskaplike geskenkpakkie kom. Inderwaarheid is hulle einddoel op universiteit gelyk en ewe waardig aan enige ander Matie s’n: om graad te kry en met lekkerkry klaar te kry. Om die werksmark met selfvertroue en kwalifikasie te betree. Om eendag kos op my familie, gesin of afhanklikes se tafel te kan sit. Om my vet studielening af te betaal. Om menswaardig en seker en suksesgedrewe die lewe in te stap.

Opgesom, om mens te word. Om te oorleef, met ‘n tikkie meer fleur. Dit kan dus nooit regverdigbaar wees om ons broeders en susters in die studentestryd die skerp kant van die pistool te wys nie.

Juis daarom het ons die teleskoop waarmee ons OS bekyk het, met ‘n mikroskoop vervang. Ons het OS se status van “vyande” na “medemense” verander. Die onmiddellike gevolg was dat die aard en stemming van ons houding na dié van ‘n volwasse, beskaafde debat verander het. Sonder dat ons ooit ons eerste beginsels, of missie, hoef op te sê. Ons kan dus OS bestudeer en krities oor hulle dink, wat ons ‘n waardiger en eerliker perspektief kan gee rondom dié groepering se doen en late, eerder as om simptomaties en aggressief te werk te gaan en elke daad van OS aan te val. Adam Tas werk dus met die onderliggende, fundamentele bestaansredes en argumente van OS, pleks van hul oppervlakkige kenmerke wat ander organisasies keer op keer onsuksesvol probeer aanvat.

OS se ideologie kan, kortliks, verstaan word volgens die marxistiese ontleding van die geskiedenis, veral die koloniale verlede, soos geteoretiseer deur skrywers soos Frantz Fanon (1925–1961), ‘n filosoof en psigiater wat die psigiese en (by uitbreiding) politiese gevolge van kolonialisme en postkolonialisme op gekoloniseerdes beskryf het. OS maak egter nie bloot op Marx-gebaseerde teorie staat nie, maar eerder op die breër studieveld bekend as kritiese teorie (“critical theory”) wat daarop fokus om die redes agter ongelykheid te probeer beskryf. Die Feministiese Derde Golf (“Third Wave Feminism”), kritiese genderstudies en kritiese rasseteorie is al drie deel van die verskeie subvelde van kritiese teorie. Hoewel ons nie noodwendig OS se ideologie sommer as onsinnighede afskiet nie, is Adam Tas se liberale oriëntasie met betrekking tot kampuspolitiek en aktivisme dikwels kwaai teenstrydig met die premisse van kritiese teorie. Waar liberalisme hom bemoei met die vrye regte tot assosiasie, kultuur, godsdiens en oortuiging van keuse, is kritiese teorie meer gefokus op die klassestryd tussen groepe wat relatief tot mekaar histories ongelyk is. Hiervoor word die establishment (in dié geval, die US-bestuur) dikwels sonder goeie feitelike ondersteuning blameer. Adam Tas soek eerder vrede en vooruitgang in die Afrikaanssprekende individu, ongeag ras of etniese oorsprong, se grondwetlike reg om Afrikaans as akademiese voertaal en as een van die 11 amptelike tale in die Grondwet te hê. OS soek egter, onder andere, radikale transformasie van die status quo om gelyke behandeling van alle studente te bewerkstellig wat hul akademiese voertaal betref. Engels, alleenlik en deur die bank aan almal, word as die gelykmakende remedie voorgeskryf. Daarmee saam dra die been van kritiese rasseteorie ‘n postapartheid-tipe Afrikanisme of Afrika-nasionalisme by, wat aan OS sy kenmerkende regtervleuel-swartbewussynsretoriek gee. Adam Tas, weer in die liberale tradisie, beskou ras en etnisiteit as faktore wat ons kan verenig in verskeidenheid, soos die Grondwet vra, en ons steun dus nie OS se idee dat die verskille tussen rassegroepe roekeloos uitgehef en beklemtoon moet word om die parameters van ongelykheid te probeer bepaal nie. Veral hul Afrika-nasionalisme, wat radikaal en soms ekstreem uitgeoefen word, het nare reuke van rassisme, soos die optrede van sommige OS-lede al telkemale getuig het.

Die feit dat OS se onderliggende ideologie identifiseerbaar is, maak dit makliker om gemeenskaplike grond tussen ander partye en OS te vind, en om logiese denkfoute in OS raak te sien. Die meeste partye soek gelykheid vir alle studente en droom van ‘n oplossing vir die huidige onstabiliteit, waar regverdigbare transformasie kan plaasvind. Hoe hierdie gelykheid en regverdigheid bereik word, is egter juis waar die grootste wrywing ontstaan. Tans is die wrywing van só ‘n aard dat studentegroepe nie meer na mekaar luister nie, en polarisering die noodwendige hartseer gevolg is. Die feit dat OS hardkoppig weier om met die US-bestuur te praat, maak die situasie nog meer gespanne. Die uiteindelike dooiepunt tussen die partye is nie volhoubaar, gesond of konstruktief nie.

Adam Tas is rasioneel ingestel en krities wat alle groepe se optrede in dié verband, insluitende ons eie, betref. Ons wil leer uit foute, deurlopende introspeksie doen en dus deurlopend ontwikkel. Ons ag die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika as ons vernaamste en gelyke reëlboek in enige konflik of onderhandelingsaangeleentheid. Daarom is ons in die posisie om meer objektief na die US-sage te kyk. OS se werksetiek is eerstens nie aanvaarbaar binne ‘n demokratiese en konstitusionele Suid-Afrika nie. Om klasse te ontwrig, loopbaanuitstallings (privaat ondernemings en werkgewers se eiendom!) te bestorm, toe te laat dat lede “One settler, one bullet” sing en rasgelaaide retoriek rondgooi, is nie regverdigbaar volgens enige van die Grondwet se bepalings of die gees, strekking en oogmerke daarvan nie. Dit is selfsugtig, onverdraagsaam en diskriminerend. Ook die ideologiese terminologie soos “wit bevoordeling” (“white privilege”), “institusionele rassisme” en “dekolonisering” is geheel polariserende, betekenislose, leë retoriek indien daar nie logies-deurdagte definisies, bewyse en konsensus daaroor bestaan nie. Die onsekerheid oor al hierdie OS-jargon is ‘n enorme bron van konflik wat andersins vermy kon word.

OS roem ook graag daarop dat dit ‘n “kollektief” is wat nie sentrale leierskap wil hê nie, aangesien dit strydig is met hul “antihiërargiese” oortuigings. Die kritiek wat Adam Tas hierop lewer, is dat hierdie skynbare leierloosheid geen ruimte vir konsekwentheid of verantwoordbaarheid laat nie. Indien OS-lede dan buite die groep se mandaat optree, maar namens die organisasie praat, is daar geen strukture in posisie om lede tot orde te roep nie. In effek kan enige lid enigiets sê en bloot die verweer opper dat hy of sy namens OS praat. Aangesien daar nie strukture is om welke ? lid te hanteer nie, reflekteer so ‘n lid se houding op die hele organisasie. Aangesien OS-lede boonop nog diverse opinies het, bestaan daar geweldige wisselvalligheid. Hoe kan sulke wanorganisering vertrou word?

Adam Tas het ‘n mate van begrip vir OS se weiering om met die US-bestuur te praat, aangesien daar nie altyd genoeg moeite in die vroeë dae van die OS-beweging gedoen is om dialoog uit te roep nie. Ons argumenteer dat OS se beskuldigings van “institusionele rassisme” ernstige klagtes is wat bewyse benodig. Dié wat beweer, moet bewys. Ongelukkig was OS se houding in dié verband nie sover van veel waarde nie. Geen moeite is al gedoen om bewerings van “institusionele rassisme” te staaf nie. Die duidelike gebrek aan “apartheid”-tipe regulasies in die universiteitsreglemente help nie juis om hierdie bewerings te ondersteun nie.

Klagtes van rassisme binne sosiale kringe en koshuise, soos in die opspraakwekkende #Luister-video, is kommerwekkend, en Adam Tas is dit met OS eens dat gevalle hiervan dringend aangepak en diskriminasie uitgewis moet word. Dit is egter ‘n logiese denkfout, en ‘n bitter gevaarlike een, om te beweer dat enkele gevalle van rassisme noodwendig spreek van ‘n groter, geïnstitusionaliseerde rassevooroordeel. Sonder bewyse is hierdie blote spekulasie, en Adam Tas verwelkom enige regverdige, objektiewe bewyse vir of teen hierdie bewerings. OS het hierdie denkfout ongelukkig al so erg geïnternaliseer dat sommige lede amper paranoïes raak daaroor, en die radikales het telkemale al dié denkfout as regverdiging gebruik om lelike veralgemenings rondom wit studente, kleurlingstudente, apolitiese swart studente, Afrikaners of Afrikaanssprekendes te maak. Slagspreuke soos “I feel like I’m in Europe” en “I can’t breathe – all this whiteness!” spreek daarvan.

Die feit dat die US-bestuur juis deur OS as die grootste klip in die pad van transformasie beskou word, is te wyte aan misverstande deur beide kante. Min dialoog is in die begin van 2015 aangebied, en OS se ongeduld het gelei tot die knellende dooiepunt wat tans bestaan. Adam Tas is van mening dat dié wantroue nie ‘n bilaterale oplossing tussen die bestuur en OS gaan toelaat nie. Wyer deelname is nodig.

As oplossing glo Adam Tas dat die pad na transformasie aangepak kan word slegs indien multilaterale rondetafelonderhandelings die model word om die huidige konflik te hanteer. As OS vra dat mense moet luister, is hulle reg.

Ons moet begin luister, en begin onderhandel, met die Grondwet as ons hoogste rigtingwyser.

Ons as studente, as makkers in die stryd.

Op hierdie manier, en hiermee alleen, sal ons gemene grond en blywende oplossings kan vind. Slegs so kan ons konsensus vind oor wat transformasie behels, sodat ons dié grondwetlike plig kan nakom sonder dat die regte van enige persoon of groep ingedoen word. Slegs so kan Stellenbosch-universiteit die hele land, ander universiteite en die wêreld wys dat ons konflik beskaaf kan hanteer, en dat ons die lesse van die Kodesa-onderhandelinge ernstig opneem. Tans is daar ‘n studentegedrewe inisiatief aan die groei op kampus, bekend as Kodesu (Konvensie vir ‘n Demokratiese Stellenbosch Universiteit), wat mik om die onderhandelings by Kodesa as voorbeeld te gebruik vir probleemoplossing op Maties. Adam Tas, tesame met verskeie ander studentegroepe, ondersteun hierdie inisiatief. Die begin van die einde, of altans, die geleentheid daarvoor, het gekom.

Die atmosfeer by Maties is meer gelaai as wat Eskom se kragopwekkers ooit sal kan droom om te wees. Ons gun alle studente die interessante tye, maar ons gun hulle ook vrede en voorspoed in hul studies. Dié wense kom egter teen die prys dat ons almal, ook OS, na mekaar moet begin luister en saamwerk na ‘n goue middeweg.

Masimamelane. Let us Listen. Kom ons luister.

>>>Back to The Open Stellenbosch Seminar