In the year he celebrates his 50th birthday, Professor Loyiso Nongxa reaches another milestone. Last week he was appointed vice-chancellor of the University of the Witwatersrand, the institution’s first African leader. He spoke to David Macfarlane.
Why has Wits had such a troubled leadership history over the past few years? Is there indeed an anti-transformation cabal that sets out to frustrate any attempts at serious change? A recent news report quoted a Wits academic referring to “the so-called ‘Wits untouchables'”. Do they exist?
Different vice-chancellors and senior management members have left for different reasons. With [former deputy vice-chancellor] Professor Malegapuru Makgoba, I believe there were intellectual differences over issues like curriculum content, for example, and other leadership issues. In the case of Sam Nolutshungu, it was very unfortunate he couldn’t take up the post for health reasons. [In 1997 Nolutshungu died of a rare blood disease shortly after turning down the offer of the post late the year before.]
I worked closely with Professor Colin Bundy at the University of the Western Cape [while Bundy was vice-rector]. I spoke to him about his leaving Wits [in 2001]: I believe he chose to leave because maybe he saw it [the offer to head the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London] as opportune — a chance to tackle the last big job of his academic career.
The Norma Reid Birley case was unfortunate. I have observed on a number of occasions that this was avoidable.
When the public puts all this together, I can appreciate why Wits is perceived to be ungovernable and a difficult place to survive at. But my message is: governance and leadership problems are not unique to Wits. As you know, the minister of education has power and authority to appoint administrators to run higher education institutions. In recent years he has exercised this option on at least two occasions. You also remember that there have been fallouts between senates and councils at other institutions. Transformation is a complex process, especially at higher educations institutions.
Wits comes into the spotlight maybe because some people have described Wits as the jewel in the crown of the higher education sector and it has a reputation as the premier university in South Africa.
There is no cabal. As you know, in terms of the Employment Equity Act, Wits has to develop equity plans. Our first plan went through and was approved by 2000. We set numerical targets to change the demographics of our staff. The fact that such plans are in place doesn’t support the cabal idea. It’s true that some might be uncomfortable and feel threatened by change, and this is true of many organisations.
And the “untouchables”?
How does one interpret that? There are powerful and influential people in any institution and, in debates, they tend to sway others. But to suggest there might be people one wouldn’t dare touch — no. I wouldn’t have considered applying for this position if I believed that there were so-called untouchables, if I thought that there were “no-go” areas at Wits or if I believed that some topics were taboo.
In the now defunct Southern African Review of Books, Robert Thornton (of the Wits anthropology department) argued seven or eight years ago that Wits was extraordinarily “inbred”. For example, he cited figures showing how many Wits academics were themselves graduates of Wits and had never taught or researched elsewhere. Is this still a problem?
Yes, there is still a high proportion of such academics, although again I would like to point out that this is not unique to Wits. Of course we need to be conscious of it. It is desirable for any institution to have a sizeable proportion of academics from the outside; they bring new ideas and different perspectives.
You’ve made reference recently to “Wits’s exposure to financial risk” and that Wits “could be living beyond its means”. Can you expand on this?
First of all, Wits is not in any financial trouble. We have used — more than in previous years — some of our reserves to improve staff salaries and for restructuring. But there’s been no borrowing, we don’t have people or banks knocking on our door or suppliers lining up complaining that they’ve been unpaid.
The background is restructuring in 1999 of faculties, and departments merged into schools. It’s a devolved model with faculties and schools having more authority and power to take decisions. But, as you know, academic decisions have financial implications. For example, appointments and promotions are now faculty decisions — but they have financial implications for the whole institution’s budget.
There is right now a moratorium on the filling of posts until we reach agreement on our budget, which we expect to do this week. Personnel costs account for 65% to 70% of the budget, so it’s critical to get this right.
By “living beyond our means”, I meant that when we invited different units to submit their requests for extra funding, the requests received far exceeded the resources we had available to support these new initiatives.
In a context of fundamental national restructuring of tertiary education, can you define Wits’s optimum role for participating in the process?
We must be responsive to these developments. As with all institutions, the government invited us to comment a few years ago for input to the 2001 National Plan for Higher Education [NPHE]. When the government asks us to comment, I believe we shouldn’t see it merely as a compliance exercise, but as an opportunity that should inform strategy planning within the institution. We must also now revisit our priorities in terms of the NPHE. For example, on research, I believe we need to take into consideration the recommendations in the National Research and Development Strategy.
Although we’re not involved in a merger, another priority in terms of the NPHE is our programme and qualification mix. We were asked to come up with a regional response around certain programmes — mining engineering, certain disciplines in health sciences, media studies and so on. We are in discussion with universities in the region to look at this.
So our optimum response is to look at how national developments can inform our internal planning.
Institutional autonomy has been under the spotlight. Do you think there’s too much, or too little, control from the government?
The concept of institutional autonomy is addressed in a report on governance that was commissioned by the Council on Higher Education. I am persuaded by its conclusion around “conditional autonomy”, in which higher education institutions are guaranteed substantive independence on what I would call the academic project but the state has a steering role, ensuring that higher education institutions are responsive to societal needs.
It’s often said that the major change in university governance over the past decade has been a sharp move towards “managerialism” — universities being run like businesses — with a consequent loss of some traditional academic freedoms. The diminished role of senates is often cited here. Would you agree?
This is complex. The compositions of senates have changed: in terms of the Higher Education Act there now have to be certain groupings (students, workers, non-professorial staff) represented on senate. It’s no longer academic standing — full professors — that automatically wins membership of senates.
I believe that senate must be both the custodian and driver of the academic project — it must reassert those roles. Managers like myself should not be providing academic/intellectual leadership. I don’t know if we create enough space for professors and senior academics to provide academic or intellectual leadership. Senates can still play an active role in anticipating changes and even challenging developments that impugn institutional autonomy. It would be sad if a senate of a research university like Wits were to be or feel marginalised.
Related to this, can you expand on your comment in your address to the university community two weeks ago about your “First Law on Academic Leadership” — namely, “that thou shalt not attempt to exercise authority or influence over academics”. Do you intend to enact this “law”? Isn’t there a tension between the freedom of academic self-governance your “law” advocates and the new managerialism?
Yes, there is a tension — but it can be a creative one. I can enact that “law”. Academics are independently minded. If I try to get things done by taking the position that “By virtue of the powers invested in me as vice-chancellor …”, I’ll be in big trouble. If you’re seen to use the authority of your office, you’ll get resistance.
Will you be able to pursue your own academic interests while vice-chancellor? And would you risk trying to explain to the Mail & Guardian what “Abelian Group Theory” (the subject of your doctorate) is? Or “Universal Algebra”, another of your research interests?
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to formally contribute to my discipline. My reading has changed — I read a lot about international trends and developments in higher education. I think I’d need another 30 minutes to give you enough background to appreciate the definition of “Abelian Group” or “Universal Algebra”.
Biography: Loyiso Nongxa
Born in the former Transkei in 1953, Loyiso Nongxa received his schooling in the area and went on to study for a BSc at the University of Fort Hare. He received a BSc (Hons) cum laude in 1976, and an MSc (also cum laude) in 1978. Oxford University conferred a doctorate in mathematics on him in 1982. Lectureships followed at the universities of Fort Hare, Lesotho and Natal. He was appointed professor of mathematics at the University of the Western Cape in 1990, which he left as dean of natural sciences to become deputy vice-chancellor (research) at Wits in 2000.