Why are there so few up-and-coming new career black academics at South African institutions?
South African statistics (2004/05) show that 69,8% of the master’s/doctoral degrees in the country are held by whites. The entry requirement into professional academia is a doctorate, obtainable after 10 years of study. Securing financial support is one of the Âdispiriting battles. Not because of scarcity or the competitive stakes, but because of procedural discrimination and screening encounters with unprofessionalism.
One of the battles inside the classroom for the new career Athena is that her credentials are questioned. The perception among students that white academics embody excellence is partly based on assumptions about the degrees they obtained in the United Kingdom or the United States, whereas a young black academic entering the professional sphere of their national alma mater is a token/redress/equity appointment. Excellence is associated with whiteness because of the opportunities of access white academics have had to processes and funding to study and professionally visit at recognisably branded institutions abroad.
Access to funding — not intellectual capacity — is the deciding factor when pursuing higher qualifications. The application and screening processes to access such funding are one of the structural determinants that influence the number of black professionals with higher degrees. Rarely do we hear about the conduct of this process or the interviewers’ behaviour.
In my own experience with two prestigious scholarship processes, I was not politically, economically or socially discriminated against, but I know I was procedurally discriminated and affronted by callous unprofessionalism.
First, I will mention a prestigious and nationally coveted scholarship for South Africans to undertake postgraduate studies in the UK. The exemplary reputation and culture this scholarship is bound to uphold was not evident in the screening process. At the end of my first interview by videoconference, the exiting interviewer commented to her colleague, “that is the worst one and we did not even have to pay for it”.
The three-tiered screening process is “unintentionally selective” as it targets those who are in a financially viable position, who can most likely afford the costs of attending three screening sessions. Does this design not contradict the spirit and purpose of a scholarship that targets “previously” disadvantaged individuals? I had no recourse but to accept the organisation’s policy that all interview costs were to be borne by the candidate.
I walked into the final interview aware that I was “the feather ruffler”. I was “the one” who asked for clarification about their interview policy on the use of videoconferencing technology (a “request” they said they never entertained in all their history). I was also the one who had recommended they reconsider the financial and physical exclusivity of their screening process and raised instances of miscommunication. I exited knowing I had not made it.
Maybe I just did not act the part of the needy supplicant. The “culture” expected from an organisation that has aligned itself with the reputation and leadership spirit of an inspiring South African was neither felt nor lived out. The unprofessionalism displayed by these recruiters was a disservice to their entrusted task.
Then there is another internationally coveted UK scholarship. Judging by the surnames (and recognising that this is hardly scientific), probably 70% of these scholarships are awarded to whites. Vindicating my crude assessment, it was confirmed that a majority of holders were white and female.
Was I proud or grateful that my name of colour had made it? No. I was just overwhelmed by a sense of conviction to probe. I had the opportunity to “unofficially” broach this issue with the organisation that administers the scholarships. However, it was unable to explain why this was the situation. From experience and the battles fought to apply for it, I believe one factor is procedural access.
Experience suggests that you will not cut it on academic merit alone. You need hair on your teeth, awareness about procedural structures, and consciousness about how individual attitudes can constrain endeavour. Your perseverance and will to challenge such structures is required. It is a fight for a change, not a fight for a win. Considering that there are no oversight mechanism concerned with the Jekyll and Hyde faces of a screening mechanism or the individuals managing it, it is our responsibility to argue for accountability.
Morgenie Pillay is the Andrew Mellon lecturer in the department of politics and international studies at Rhodes University, and a visiting doctoral research scholar at the London School of Economics