The ethics of current practices in higher education were debated at the Critical Thinking Forum moderated by Marius Oosthuizen of University of Pretoria's Gordon Institute of Business Science.
Public perception plays an important role when it comes to corruption in higher education, as was revealed in a recent Mail & Guardian Critical Thinking Forum and subsequent discussion hosted by Unisa.
At the forum, held on September 23, three panellists laid out their arguments from very different perspectives: ethics, finances, and governance.
Hugh Amoore, long-time registrar at the University of Cape Town (UCT) until his retirement in 2015, focused on the ethical side, namely research integrity, plagiarism and the academic integrity of the qualifications issued by the university.
“We’ve seen a small number of high profile people claiming qualifications that they don’t have,” he said, explaining that despite the belief that there is a glut of false qualifications floating around the job market, the vast majority of the degrees claimed in South Africa are authentic. “Universities are increasingly aware that they have to protect their integrity as institutions.”
However, it’s not just about research and issuing degrees; management also comes under scrutiny.
“We’ve got to get any nepotism or perception of nepotism out of the way,” said Amoore.
He recounted a situation at UCT where the spouse of the vice-chancellor was a lecturer at the same institution. It was important both to avoid the actual possibility of nepotism, and to carefully manage public perception, so neither the vice-chancellor nor his deputies were allowed to make decisions related to the spouse. Instead, a committee comprising three members of the university council made those decisions.
Panel moderator Marius Oosthuizen, lecturer in strategic foresight at the University of Pretoria’s Gordon Institute of Business Science, agreed with Amoore that our definition of what corruption is needs to shift.
“Traditionally we’ve defined corruption very narrowly as theft, while we’ve looked at plagiarism and the like more in ethical terms,” he said in a telephone interview after the panel discussion. “But it is definitely important that we start making it clear that the two are similar. Plagiarism is theft.”
Corruption is broad
For the average South African, certain terms likely spring to mind when the word “corruption” is mentioned, improperly awarded tenders being foremost. While the discussion included suggestions for addressing corruption in the higher education sector, it also included examples of how broad corruption actually is.
“There were three key points that were discussed, I think,” said Oosthuizen.
“There were definitely important conversations about the role of individuals at universities, students and lecturers and the like. Then there was the discussion about universities as institutions, looking at their independence and how corruption plays a role there.
“Finally, we looked at universities and corruption in the broader context of society.”
Oosthuizen pointed out that universities are targeted by individuals, and are as vulnerable to corruption as any other organisation.
“You have the case of individual students and lecturers, for example, who misuse opportunities for corrupt purposes. Universities are public institutions making use of public funds, and as such we need to discuss the extent to which we hold them accountable.”
He added that much more investment is needed from journalists and other investigators in looking into the situation.
Professor Harry Nengwekhulu, director of the school of governance at Unisa, pointed out during his presentation that because universities are staffed with highly educated people, members of the public don’t question them — at least not in the way that schools, municipalities and most other forms of government are questioned.
“The public has lots of information about e-tolls, but not about what is happening at universities,” he said.
Oosthuizen disagreed that this is the main reason for the lack of public involvement.
“Professor Nengwekhulu referred several times to universities’ reputations, but I don’t think that is the crux of the matter. Looking at corruption in other areas, there are very strict regulations keeping the private sector accountable, while government is accountable towards voters. But for the broader community, there is not a direct link to universities. That link is only there when someone has a child at university, for example. So there is not a lot of incentive to scrutinise them as closely [as government].”
During his presentation Jaco van Schoor, deputy vice-chancellor: finance at the University of Johannesburg, focused on the more “traditional”, well-known forms of corruption: tender processes and financial procurement. One of his main points, as reported in Part One, was the importance of “calling a spade a spade” — making it clear that corruption is theft.
Transparency
Van Schoor believes it is necessary that those who call for transparency make it clear what exactly it is they are seeking.
“We talk about increased public scrutiny and transparency, but what exactly do we mean by public scrutiny?” he said in a subsequent telephone interview.
“Universities’ audits and annual reports are already available. They’re public documents. I don’t think that [most] people go to the effort of working through these documents and identifying what it is they still want to know. That’s where you have to start, and request more information if necessary, whether it’s directly from the universities or through a Promotion of Access to Information Act request.”
When it comes to combating financial fraud and corruption, it’s important to have proper tender and purchasing policies, Van Schoor says. Most universities already have these policies on their websites.
“It’s public, so if someone is unhappy with the way a tender has been awarded, it’s easy to refer to the policy. Once again, if you want to talk about transparency, you have to look at what is already open and available to the public.”
After the discussion itself, when the floor was thrown open to questions from the audience, the debate became heated at times. However, Van Schoor was sceptical about the value of the input.
“I don’t know to what extent the questions from the audience contributed to the debate. There were many questions that just weren’t relevant to the evening’s discussion.”
He referred to an audience member relating a news story about children in grades 8 and 9 who had locked their teacher in a classroom because they were unhappy about a test. The audience member had then asked how the question of moral regeneration would be addressed.
“It’s just not relevant to the topic. But there were some questions about tender processes and the like, and there was a decent conversation on blind peer reviewed studies relating to Amoore’s point.”
Oosthuizen agreed that forum discussions have its limits: they are small and tend to attract people who have a very particular interest.
“That being said, they definitely have the potential to lead to broader public discussion. From this forum it was clear that there is a need for greater education about plagiarism and what it is, as opposed to the very limited definition that is taught at schools.”
This is the second in a series on corruption with Unisa