/ 9 December 2003

‘Let’s not undermine our gains’

You will have to re-apply for the vice-chancellor’s job when Unisa merges with Technikon SA and Vista’s distance learning campus next year. Do you see your future in higher education?

I came to Unisa in November 2001 on a five-year contract and intend to see it through. By then I’ll be 62 and I don’t know that I’ll have the stomach for a new venture.

I cut my teeth in student politics and qualified as a lawyer, but never practised law because I was banned in 1977 and left the country to study theology. Unisa offers me a way of threading together the pieces of my life — law, theology, politics.

Do you still consider yourself a follower of Black Consciousness?

I still believe in looking for the voices, perspectives and experiences of black people; they must be represented more and more in South Africa’s intellectual and ideological discourse. Sometimes I feel black people are taking too much of a back seat, that we are still represented too much as a white country. I experience this in Africa, where I do a lot of work.

Black Consciousness was about cultivating an independent black intelligentsia. How do you see the role of black intellectuals in post-apartheid South Africa?

They complain too much — about whether they’ve got what they’re entitled to, whether they’re benefiting from black empowerment, whether whites are doing what they should … from a BC perspective, they’re not taking responsibility for their lives or exercising leadership in the critical debates of the day.

Yet you’ve criticised the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), which has been very vocal…

I had no problem with the theme of the TAC’s campaign — the focus on treatment was vital and civil society must pressurise the government. But I don’t believe the personal attacks on the health minister and the president, or the civil disobedience campaign, were necessary. I also think the TAC’s stance is one-dimensional and reductionist. They ignore other govern- ment interventions: the condom and education campaigns, the spending on research. There’s too much emphasis on treatment and not enough on personal responsibility.

What lay behind your surprising public stance on the Zuma affair?

This was an example I used in my analysis of the way we conduct public debate in South Africa. Too much effort and resources are being ploughed into finding out whether Bulelani Ngcuka was an apartheid spy. Underlying it all is a fundamental refusal to accept that certain bodies — like Ngcuka’s office and the Human Rights Commission — are vital to the health of our democracy and must be allowed to exercise their constitutional responsibilities.

What else worries you about the South Africa of 2003?

The country is vastly different, and vastly better, than it was 10 years ago. But we need to be alive to things that could undermine our gains. It worries me that we have a democracy in which ordinary people do not seem to feel their voice matters. I see a creeping sense of powerlessness, even among those who are committed to the African National Congress. This has to do with issues around a powerful political voice. But I also think people are reluctant to raise their voices because they are afraid of weakening the liberation movement and appearing disloyal.

You spoke about contri-buting to change at Unisa. What do you consider your main achievement?

In November 2001 Unisa was in crisis. There was conflict and a lack of confidence between the governing structure, the council, and the senate, which represents academics. Management was ineffectual. Managers needed to earn the confidence of the academic sector and work creatively with council.

Isn’t it true, though, that there are serious problems in the management of the university’s finances?

There are no problems. There is, however, a need to introduce efficiencies and to improve the flow of financial management information. Unisa has a budget of more than R1-billion and reserves of nearly R2-billion, as well as enormous facilities and equipment. In the past three years student enrolment has climbed steadily from 120 000 to 148 000, while we have conferred 13 000 degrees and diplomas.

No doubt you’re referring to last year’s external audit, which found our surplus fell to R38-million from R105-million in 2001. A major reason was that we could not repatriate the fees of 5 800 students in Zimbabwe. Also there were escalations in appointments and payments to pensioners.

But the fact is that we inherited financial management that was inefficient in many ways. We’ve improved our information systems, so every cost unit is accountable for its budget. We’ve introduced a performance management system from the principal down. We set up an inquiry into how the finance department runs and we’re implementing its findings.

The merger with Technikon SA and Vudec happens in January. What are your concerns?

All the concerns can be met by Unisa as it is, except one — the government’s desire for a comprehensive institution that allows access to, and exit from, higher education at all levels. I believe we can provide credible standards of excellence in both shorter, career-orientated courses and academic courses. But with the baggage of our history it’s going to be hard.

There may well be people at both institutions who are less than committed to the policy. Some Unisa people say: ‘This is the longest-serving academic institution in South Africa — we must not destroy standards of excellence built up over 130 years.’ At the technikon there are fears of a Unisa takeover. More than 30 years of comprehensive higher education in Germany collapsed because integration failed.

So there’s a lot of fear…

Of course — we wouldn’t be human otherwise. There are very real fears about whether the merger process has been properly conceived and executed. I think the way the ministry is driving the process carries the seeds of failure. We’re being pushed from the top; there’s not enough time for people at the coalface to gain an understanding and have their own commitment.

I fear there’s not enough money to make it work. Execution is worrying a lot of institutions: there are real concerns about academic freedom, about whether the minister is interfering too much in higher education. I don’t agree that if universities are left to their own devices, transformation won’t happen. And I’m worried about mergers as a tool. Transformation is about more than merging two or three institutions; it’s about institutional cultures, research priorities, the character of leadership, the curriculum, how academics should engage with a changing South Africa…

Are academics still in a confrontational mood?

I think that’s over. I serve on the executive of the South African Vice-Chancellors’ Association and there’s a greater desire for accommodation with the minister. In fairness, he has created opportunities for formal discussions with the sector’s leaders.

Unisa faces a number of potentially costly court cases brought by staff. Are you going to take these cases into the merged institution?

Unisa does not have large numbers of cases pending, and only one or two have been initiated since I arrived. Often, council has paid too little attention to procedural issues, and tended to use a sledgehammer approach to transformation without making sure everyone’s on board.

We’ve spent a lot of time refining the mechanisms for dealing with disputes and employment equity. Nearly all the problems have been about appointments, so we’ve moved away from a highly politicised appointments system. We’ve resolved quite a number of disputes amicably. But where we think the applications have no prospect of success, we’re pushing ahead. I spend a lot of time dealing with unions, and I try to operate in an open, fair way. But some of them are hellbent on operating in an adversarial manner.

Your most controversial step predates Unisa — the media racism inquiry launched while you were Human Rights Commission head. Do you now regret that?

I think it was the best thing we ever did. We tried to sensitise members of the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef), despite the furore and resistance, and Sanef was prepared to act on our recommendations.

There are some entrenched issues here. The Zuma saga has shown that some journalists, purportedly in the exercise of their craft, allow themselves to be co-opted into a political agenda.

It was never a black and white issue. The inquiry was about editors and journalists having the discernment to see when an article reflects underlying attitudes that need to be corrected. I’m sorry to say I still don’t see much change.