I cannot remember when last I have seen such a provocative and sensational banner front page headline as in last week’s M&G, “Spoiling for a fight”. The fight is allegedly between “two education heavyweights”, the Minister of Education, Professor Kader Asmal and Professor Malegapuru Makgoba. The boxing analogy is carried over into David Macfarlane’s article “Round 2: Asmal vs. Makgoba?”
Rumour has it that the M&G may be experiencing some financial difficulty but surely this is no way to increase the paper’s circulation.
Let me repeat what I said to Macfarlane. The Ministry of Education has only expressed views concerning senior appointments with respect to those institutions earmarked for merger in the National Plan for Higher Education, that is the merger of ML Sultan and Natal Technikons and the merger of Unisa, Technikon South Africa and the distance learning centre of Vista University, Vudec. There have been no requests to any other institutions recommended for merger by the National Working Group, which was appointed by Asmal to advise him on the restructuring of the institutional landscape in higher education.
The recommendations of the group are exactly that. There are “no done deals” and the government has made no decisions about the future institutional configurations in higher education. I also clearly stated that the minister has had no engagements with Natal University with regard to the selection of a new vice-chancellor and that the matter was entirely within the prerogative of the university itself.
On what basis could the ministry then ask institutions “earmarked for merging” to “refrain from making senior appointments” as suggested by Macfarlane? To furthermore extend this to a looming fight between Asmal and Makgoba, who is a candidate for the vacant post of vicechancellor at Natal University is grossly irresponsible for a number of reasons.
Firstly, why bring Makgoba into the frame? If Macfarlane wanted to debate the matter of senior appointments at the University of Natal, then surely this would centrally concern the council of the university and not somebody who is merely a candidate for a selection process, yet to reach conclusion. The relevance of Magkoba’s involvement at both the University of Witwatersrand and the Medical Research Council to the matter at hand also remains allusive. The appointment of a vice-chancellor is a very weighty matter that should not be sidetracked. Both Magkoba and the University of Natal deserve better.
Secondly, this headline and article follows close on the debate which has raged in the media about the appointment of Dr Barney Pityana as vice-chancellor of Unisa. The Minister of Education did request the council of Unisa either to not make an appointment or to consider a short-term appointment, in the light of the government’s declared intention to proceed with the merger. Never has the minister opposed Pityana’s candidature or his subsequent appointment. Unfortunately, this has been distorted in some quarters to imply the minister’s opposition to a highly qualified black leader for Unisa. Similarly, the tone of last week’s headlines, either intentionally or otherwise, plays into this highly racist and destructive agenda. This is insulting to Asmal, to Pityana and to Magkoba. Incidentally, Asmal’s confidence in Magkoba is borne out by his appointment to the National Working Group.
Thirdly, as a country we have come to the historical moment where we either restructure our higher education system for the benefit of future generations or retain the status quo. The real debates around restructuring should not be clouded by sideshows.
The report of the group follows more than a decade of research, consultation and debate on the need to restructure and the modalities of such restructuring. The need for restructuring has been accepted by all constituencies in the sector. The current inefficiencies and shortcomings cannot be perpetuated. To do so would threaten the viability and sustainability of the entire system.
The hard decisions have therefore to be confronted. These decisions will not be easy, as they will affect, to differing extents, staff and students in the higher education system. There are contesting interests and agendas. Large-scale educational change is never easy at the best of times but poses particular challenges to a country ravaged by apartheid.
However, in arriving at the decisions, the government will have to keep at the fore the interests of not only future generations of students and staff but of the country as a whole. The Human Resource Strategy, adopted by the Cabinet last year, places major responsibility on the higher education sector to deliver on South Africa’s high-level human resource needs. These goals, among others identified in the National Plan for Higher Education, simply will not be realised given the current constraints of the higher system.
It is clear that the stakes are high in the unfolding restructuring exercise. What is needed to take the debate forward is an informed media, willing to mediate often highly complex issues of public policy for a broader audience. There is no place for sensational headlines and point scoring in this discourse. Nasima Badsha, deputy director general, Department of Education
The Editor replies: We have revisited sources and retraced our steps in compiling the story and front page in question. Our reasons for thinking that Professor Asmal would not approve of the appointment of a vice-chancellor of the University of Natal at this stage remain as compelling this week as they were last. That being so, our suggestion last week that Asmal and Professor Makgoba, sole remaining candidate for the vice-chancellorship, could soon find themselves in conflict if Makgoba was appointed was a reasonable and credible deduction notwithstanding differences between this situation and that at Unisa. We did not intend to convey an impression of personal enmity between these two men, and we accept that none exists.
The nub of the matter is that senior University of Natal officials are adamant that Asmal told them he was opposed to the appointment of a vice-chancellor until there was clarity over their institution’s possible amalgamation with the University of Durban-Westville. For his part, Makgoba, who felt unable to talk to us when the story was being compiled, is equally adamant that he was told equally authoritatively that the Education Minister favoured an appointment at this stage which is the basis on which he pursued his candidacy. We cannot other than speculatively account for these contradictory understandings of the ministry’s attitude.
We accept that Makgoba acted with integrity in pursuing his candidacy, and that he declared to the university his membership of Asmal’s National Working Group advising on merger of tertiary institutions. Likewise, we accept Asmal’s integrity in this affair. The M&G is aware of attempts in some quarters to suggest that this affair indicates some resistance by Asmal to the appointment of Africans to top academic posts. We encountered nothing to support this allegation which is plainly mischievous.
Finally, the M&G derives no pleasure from a clash with two individuals whose contribution to our institutional and intellectual life since 1994 has been exceptional.