Wits could take a leaf from UCT’s book on managing transformation, writes Philippa
THE embattled vice-chancellor of the University of the Witwatersrand must be glancing enviously from his turbulent empire to that picture of tranquillity nestling in Table Mountain’s aprons — the University of Cape Town.
As Wits struggles to contain the crisis around accusations that deputy vice-chancellor William Makgoba embellished his CV, and in the process comes under attack from all sides for its perceived recalcitrance over its transformation (a word that sends some scuttling for cover and prompts others to mount the soap box), UCT is basking smugly in the glory of its latest success: the appointment of a politically credible vice- chancellor in Mamphela Ramphele.
What is the magic recipe behind the university’s seemingly smooth transition into a “new South African” institution, where students, staff and the administration seem relatively happy with the direction it is taking?
The geography, say some, has a lot to do with it. The idyllic surroundings, the atmosphere of peace, are in direct contrast to the seething pace of Gauteng, whose rough townships many disgruntled Wits students return to each day, unlike the bulk of UCT’s black students, who live in attractive residences on or near campus.
But UCT has had its share of conflict — of worker strikes and student boycotts — in the past. Much more lies behind its current triumph over Wits in the race for legitimacy.
Requests for information about the transformation of UCT — a broad term embracing governance, admissions policies, racial composition of students and staff, academic development programmes and more — were met with the smooth delivery of a booklet entitled The Transformation of the University of Cape Town: 1984-1994, Ramphele’s recent speech to convocation and the university’s new mission statement is the product of months of “intense debate” as Ramphele, who convened the university’s mission statement working group in the transformation forum, described it in her speech.
Similar requests about transformation from Wits were met with a flurry of unco-ordinated activities, passing the buck and hastily faxed statements. This is partly due to Wits’ current image problem created by a communications department in disarray — itself indicative of internal problems. But the biggest problem for Wits is that overt victories in the transformation department appear to be lacking.
Different leadership styles underpin UCT’s triumph, and Wits’ faltering, say many. UCT’s outgoing vice-chancellor Stuart Saunders is described as a man with keen vision and sophisticated leadership skills who has a knack for “putting the right people in the right places”. He saw the writing on the wall years ago and nurtured Ramphele as a vice- chancellor-in-waiting by surrounding her with administrative support.
He and his deputy, Martin West, kept abreast of students and workers pressuring for a transformation forum to negotiate broader participation in decision-making, a more inclusive campus culture, more flexible admissions procedures and effective academic development programmes.
This they did by adopting a co-operative rather than confrontational stance and so began the transformation process in 1993. This led to the establishment of a forum a year later, and several achievements this year: Ramphele’s appointment, the renegotiated mission statement and significant progress in working groups addressing the demands for change. Despite enormous suspicion on both sides and hours of often acrimonious debate, the readiness of key people on council and senate to participate has undoubtedly yielded successes, say those involved.
Negotiations at Wits, however, have been marked by months of bitter fighting over the name of the forum (Forum for Further and Accelerated Transformation — Ffact) and its terms of reference. Regular meetings take place, and the forum is “gradually reaching consensus on the probable numbers that will represent the various constituencies”, according to deputy registrar Derek Swemmer, yet tangible victories appear to be lacking.
Wits vice-chancellor Robert Charlton is described by those who know him as a fair, diplomatic man, but lacking both vision and strong leadership. He lacks the ability to steer his council, and allows it, and senate, to steer him instead, say insiders.
This would explain management’s reactive stance on transformation and its inability to put the brakes on the current crisis plaguing the institution, with Charlton allowing factions within the power bloc to further their interests at any given time, at the expense of a clear and united direction for the institution as a whole. No equivalent nurturing process for a successor to Charlton has taken place: when Makgoba came on to campus last year, he came as an outsider and has — through his own and others’ doing — – remained an outsider.
While academic development may be a less overt symbol of change at a university than its leader or its transformation forum, it is probably a far better barometer of change where it really counts — in the classrooms and lecture halls.
What has to be asked is how academic development programmes (ADP) at UCT and Wits have transformed to cope with new realities: the recipients are no longer a marginalised student minority but the bulk of the student population and ADP is less about extra lessons for disadvantaged students and more about developing staff to cope with new challenges in mainstream classrooms.
While academic development programmes at both institutions are broadly on a par, UCT’s leadership displays a greater commitment to its goals, say sources in the field.
UCT’s transformation booklet gives extensive information on its programmes, financing and its alternative admissions research project. While UCT’s ADP deputy director Nan Yeld believes academic development and curricula change is not being accorded the high priority it needs in the transformation process (the transformation forum is still trying to establish a curricula working group), she nevertheless acknowleges a broad commitment and understanding at leadership level of the need for fundamental change.
As is often the case at Wits lately, its successes are often obscured by controversy, and ADP is no exception. Many of the ADP staff are disgruntled and their future hangs in the balance. Moves to disband its central unit and devolve ADP to the faculties, described by some staffers as “top down” and an attempt to marginalise ADP, have been put on hold until a senate working group makes a finding next year. Deputy director of Wits’ ADP Sue Starfield describes leadership’s stance towards ADP as “lacking in vision”. While staff see no inherent problem in devolving ADP to the faculties, they believe it could signal the marginalisation of ADP by removing the ever-important focus away from staff back on to students.