‘Stellenbosch stands for an idea.” This was the popular intellectual war cry the old Afrikaner Nationalists used to influence and mobilise (rather, immobilise) Afrikanerdom of yore.
But the Stellenbosch University of the 21st century stands for a new idea: of being an agent of change, a transformer in co-creating the country all South Africans deserve to live in, precisely because of the rich diversity it draws to its campus.
Stellenbosch began a sincere transformation drive after the current rector and vice-chancellor, Chris Brink, took over in 2002.
It was almost a case of ”too little, too late”. It took some effort and energy to (try to) re-engineer the inherent Afrikaner nationalist institutional culture into an inclusive new South African campus — an institution that is aligned with the ideals of not only a new South Africa, but also of our subcontinent and continent. Why are there now, 10 years into democracy, attempts to hijack Stellenbosch for a certain ”neo-conservative” agenda?
There is nothing ”neo” about this conservatism. It is pure, undiluted, old-style conservatism.
The saga began with the awarding of an honorary doctorate to advocate Bram Fischer. This, according to some retired Afrikaner males, is one of the biggest sins Stellenbosch could commit in its quest to become part of the new South Africa.
All kinds of arguments are launched, trying to portray the university’s decision-makers as ignorant lackeys of the African National Congress government.
As a starter, dear reader, remember the rooi gevaar? I mean, Fischer was a kommunis, for goodness sake. And remember, that used to be a close second to the anti-Christ.
But, on a more serious note: if Stellenbosch has to award honorary doctorates to more ”communists” to balance the scale with those handed out to apartheid prime ministers et al, we have a couple more to go. And, as far as I know, communism has never been declared a crime against humanity. Apartheid has. Any question of which is the bigger evil?
The much-publicised fact that Fischer was pro-violence is another empty argument. In context, this was the only option. And the counter-argument: was it not the apartheid government that institutionalised violence? What did it do with those poor conscripted white boys as kanonvoer in townships and on the border; and how about legislation to murder those who fought for freedom in the country of their birth? One would think these retirees would come up with better arguments. Do they know what harm they are doing to Stellenbosch? To Afrikaans? To the place where their grandchildren might want to get the best start in an inclusive, diverse Stellenbosch; in a forgiving South Africa?
With the convocation due to meet this week, one would hope that those supporting the motion that the doctorate be withdrawn have come to new insights.
If Stellenbosch stands for an idea, it should ring through our land: not in the name of this new Stellenbosch can a doctorate to honour a true Afrikaner son of South Africa be withdrawn. Precisely in the name of Stellenbosch: be honourable; do the honourable thing.
Lizette Rabe is professor and head of the graduate department of journalism at Stellenbosch University