ATC080619: Report Oversight Visit to Free State University

Basic Education


1.1 Background:

The Portfolio Committee on Education visited the University of Free State on the 17 March 2008. During the visit, the Committee interacted with top Management of the University, Unions and various student organisations. 

The procedure in which the meetings were conducted was that, the various stakeholders were given an opportunity to express their opinions, and Members of the Committee would comment and raise question that need clarity. The programme of the visit was drafted in a manner to accommodate all these different stakeholders an opportunity to raise their opinions. 

The programme of the visit was drafted as follows:
Meeting with Executive Management; (Presentation by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor, and general discussion).
Meeting with management committees of UVPERSU & NEHAWU.
Meeting with: Executive Committee of SRC Main Campus, President of the Central Student Representative Council, Main Campus Residence Leadership, Representatives of Student Association.
Feedback to management.

1.2 Delegation:

The delegation was meant to be constituted of a Multi Party delegation. However opposition party Members had cancelled their participation in the last moment before the visit. The delegation was led by the Chairperson of the Committee; Prof Mayatula (ANC), accompanied by Adv Gaum (ANC), Ms Matsomela (ANC), and Mr  Mosala (ANC) (Joined the delegation in Bloemfontein as the visit of the committee falls within his Constituency). The members of the support staff were; Mr Anele Kabingesi (Committee Secretary), Mr Andile Mphunga (Committee Researcher), Mrs Nocawe Mxinwa (Party Researcher) and Ms Khanyisa Mphunga (Parliamentary Media).

1.3 Terms of Reference/ Purpose of the meeting:

As a response to the volatile situation in the institutions of Higher Learning, the Portfolio Committee on Education decided to send a multi-party delegation to the University of Free State in order to have consultations with its stakeholders and, get first hand information. The main aim was to assist the institution in whatever way to fast–track transformation in the spirit of cooperation. The University of Free State’s Reitz video made headlines in local and international media. The Committee felt very strong to include the investigation and interrogation of the Reitz video as part of its oversight to the University.

1.4 Findings:

The Portfolio Committee on Education identified the following key issues:
The Reitz Video was the symptom of the long existing problem of racism within the University.
 A one day visit to the University could not accommodate all the submissions from various stakeholders.
Division of race was clearly evident from the top Management of the University, the various Unions and even the student’s organisations.
 African and White students do not share the same residences.
White students attend Afrikaans lectures, while Black students who do not understand Afrikaans have separate English lectures for the same Module.
Recruitment policy of lectures requires lectures understanding of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction.
The University’s transformation policy is slow and ineffective.
The students are divided and, they blame each other for the vandalism that took place in the University
The University as whole was shocked and does not support the Reitz video.
Political parties have an impact in the division that exists between Black and White students.

2.1 Meeting at the Main Building, Room 16:
Opening and Welcome:

Prof Teuns Verschoor, Vice-Rector: Academic Affairs welcomed the Committee to the University of Free State and, indicated that, the last time the Committee visited the University was about the Vista University merge with UFS. He further mentioned that, the University had a positive feeling towards the interaction with the Committee in previous period. He apologized on behalf of Prof Fourie Rector: UFS, who was attending a meeting inJohannesburg with the Minister of Education.

The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Education, Prof Mayatula welcomed the opportunity to introduce the delegation. He outlined the responsibility of the Committee as conducting oversight from Grade R to the University level. The Committee is responsible for passing all laws that are affecting education and ensuring that, laws passed are implemented effectively. The Committee is the link between the government and the people on the ground and it is the norm of the Committee to visit Institutions of Higher learning, and not to come only when there is a problem within the Institution. The Chairperson informed the meeting that, Members from opposition parties had withdrawn their participation at the last moment.

The Chairperson informed the meeting, that the Committee was not in the University to judge, and that at the end of the meeting, the Committee would not make any resolutions and recommendations. However, the Committee was in the University on a representative capacity as the delegation of the Portfolio Committee on Education and, they would take their observations to the Committee, out of which the Committee will make recommendations, and recommendations that are more of general nature for the sake of higher education in South Africa in general. After conducting meetings with all other stakeholders, at the end, the Committee will make its observations and recommendations that will be tabled in Parliament.

2.2 Transformation and Increasing Diversity in University of Free State Residence:

Dr Ezekiel Moraka, Vice Rector: Student Affairs welcomed the opportunity to present to the delegation. He informed the delegation that, the presentation was about the implementation of the Council’s decision. He indicated that, this decision was based on the racial integration in the residence of the University. The residences of the University have been separated on the basis of race, and the Council developed approaches that will integrate those residences. The delegation was informed that, the approach of the University has been quite educational, hence the decision of the Council is to foster racial integration in the residences. However, before the Council could make a decision, a consultation process was taken, where various student organisation were consulted. The other presentation was made to management and referred back to the Council and, it approved the decision in July 2007. The Council had to begin with the implementation process and, this process had to involve participation of various students’ in the actual implementation of the Council’s decision.

The outcome of the student’s consultation process was not accepted by all student organisations, such the Freedom Front (FF+). The FF+ organized a march against the consultation process and, they were saying that this process was not appropriate. The FF+ instituted a court case against the University’s decision, that is, to integrate the hostels. The FF+ was claiming that, a proper consultation process was not followed.

2.2.1 Implementation Challenges:

The Council took a decision for the faster integration in the residences. However, there were certain aspects that were critical for the implementation of the actual decision.  A decision was taken to have governance structures in the residences that will foster integration. Committee’s were established in order to assist the University in managing residences effectively. Security personnel were increased in order for the residences to be protected day and night.

2.2.3 Vandalism on Campus, 20 February 2008:

The House Committee’s, handed a memorandum to the management that was signed by 22 primes of the 23 residences of the University. Thememorandum  requested management to have a meeting with the Primes of the residences. Unfortunately, before the meeting was conducted, there was vandalism in the Campus on the night of 20 February 2008. The memorandum stated that, students are not happy with the plans of management of foster integration in the University. Student leadership in residences motivated students to cause rampage and vandalise the University.  The management of the University decided to have meeting with leaders of residences in response to the vandalism. The outcome of the meeting was positive, and management agreed to make repairs to damaged property. 

The University was very shocked and condemned the vandalism. However, the main priority of management was to ensure that, normal academic activities are not disturbed and, that no further distraction to property continues. There were concerns from other quarters that, the University did not handle the consultation process correctly, and other quarters condemned the reaction of students.

2.2.4 Reitz Video: 

The Reitz video was made in September 2007. However, it was the morning of the 26 February 2008 that, the Rector and Dr Moraka were informed about the video, and they watched the video with other staff members the very same day and, it was quite shocking. Dr Moraka, had a conversation that very same day with the staff that was involved in the video. The message as indicated in the video is the resistance to racial integration in the residences. Management decided to have a meeting with the five victims who were involved in the video in order to give them psychological support. On that same day, a meeting was organised between the primes and the SRC. The meeting was very fruitful because, both structures agreed to adopt a position plan to condemn the video and go public about it. The Rector and the Vice Chancellor organized a special executive committee and management meeting regarding the video and, there were positions developed particularly in the executive meeting.

2.2.4 Management’s position:

Dr Moraka, handed the presentation over to Prof Teuns Verschoor Vice-Rector: Academic Operations, to continue with the presentation. The delegation was informed that, management was very shocked by the video. The members of the executive committee were very emotional about the video and, some of them left the venue and didn’t want to watch the video again. There was enormous condemnation of the video by management and, solidarity and counselling was given to the colleagues that were in the video. There were calls from various student organisations for the possible closure of Reitz hostel.

2.2.5 Management’s priorities:

Management proposed the following approaches to calm the situation in the University:
The first priority of management was to give immediate support to the colleagues that were involved in the video.
Disciplinary action was taken against the student’s who made the video.
Prevention of further possible vandalism and disruption of academic activities was taken into consideration and, extra security was deployed in the Campus to ensure safety of students.
Management developed a plan of action to ensure normal academic activities proceed as normal and, they succeeded in doing that.
Massive media coverage was managed in the best possible way.

2.2.6 Image of the University of Free State:

The image of the University was shadowed by the video and, the University has been labelled as a racist institution.
Negative reaction and the view of the University as an Afrikaners and whites institution.
Negative impact on the stature of the University, also from the business partners and stakeholders that are investing in the University.
The University has a R30 million project for small farmers that are sponsored by the Bill Gates Foundation. However, after the video was published internationally, there were enquiries to reconsider the sponsorship to the University.
The ability of the University to attract prospective students is likely to be impacted negatively by the video.

2.2.6 Meeting of the Council: 

After the Reitz video incident, the Council decided to have a meeting that highlighted the following key issues:
A decision was made, either to close the Reitz hostel or change it into a place of non-racialism.
Management should consider the composition of House Committee’s and the role of political parties in the hostels.
There is need for management to observe the problem of drug and alcohol abuse by students in the hostels.
Management should review the structure of the hostels, because there are allegations that, the way the hostels are built, do not promote racial integration. 

2.2.7 Questions and issues raised by Members:

The delegation appreciates the presentation and, it has broadened the delegation’s knowledge about the situation of the University.  The delegation is aware that, the whole University was shocked by the Reitz incident and its impact in the University. Why there are misunderstandings between the two Unions and management? What was the general involvement of other residence members of Reitz hostel to the video and where was it recorded. It emerged that, the consultation process of the University was not successful. Why was this so?
A question was asked, if management of the University managed to have a direct discussion with the victims and, what kind of reaction did management get from the victims? What is the University’s placement policy in terms of placing students in residences and, what role of political parties play in the University?
What urgency plan has management put in place with regards to integration of residences? In A press release, it was clear that there were no steps taken to address the problem of transformation. Why was this so? It is clear that, management knew the problem of racial integration in Reitz hostel. However, it has failed to deal with it as a matter of urgency. What are the steps taken to deal with this problem as a matter of urgency? 
It is important to observe the root of the problem that, why the University is experiencing this incident? It is clear that, there was lack of proactiveness from the management in dealing with the transformation plan from the start. The transformation plan 2007-2010 came very late, and this shows that the University has a reactive approach in dealing with transformation. The Reitz incident is a symptom of a larger problem that exists between black and white students in South Africa, and not only in this Institution. 

2.2.8 Responses:

The impression that management got is that, there were only four students involved in the making of the video. This video was shot in preparation for the cultural event within the Reitz hostel. The video was recorded away from the hostel and, the presentation was shown to the entire students of the hostel, therefore technically the entire students of Reitz hostel were involved in the video. There was a competition in the hostel, and there was a prize for those students that have a heart. This video was also shot to participate in that competition.
The Freedom Front (FF+) was not satisfied with the consultation process and, management received documents from the FF+ indicating that, consultation should take place until 100% consensus is reached. The FF+ was also proposing that, whenever management needs to take a decision, it has to consult all student organisations until an agreement is reached. Management often agrees with the students’ organisation. However, when it comes to the topic of racial integration, dissatisfactions persist from the FF+.
The University has student organisations that are the extension of the national political parties. Political parties and leaders of the student organisations, play a vital role in the process of consultation to ensure that, management makes decisions that practically work for the University.
The University has an accommodation services and residence committee that deal with the placement of students to residences. The accommodation service section is responsible for the placement of 50% of first year students to the residence, and the residence committee is responsible for the placement of the remaining 50% to the residence, that is the kind of management of the placement policy.
The challenge of management in placing student in the residences is that, in traditional black student’s hostels there is not even a single white student. However, in traditional white female student’s hostels, a progress has been made to place black students. The problem that management has is that, the onus remains with the student to accept a decision to be placed in a residence of opposite race.
The reaction of the victims. Management had a meeting with the victims on the day the video was shown to management, and the Rector apologized to them. They were shocked and dismayed about the video, and some of them were traumatised and cried.
In early 2005, the Four Phases of Transformation document was developed by the management and, that gives an indication that, management was concerned with the issue of racial integration in the University. 
The Disciplinary Committee has decided to; refuse the entrance to the University premises of the two students who were involved in the making of the video, because the other two are no longer students in the University. 
The University of Free State is the first Afrikaans University to accept black students in the 1970’s. However, at that time there was no transformation policy document developed for racial integration of students. The Council’s decision on further disciplinary measures was delayed by the University’s Advocate, who advised the Council not to take decisions based on emotions. The problem of racial integration is not only the problem of UFS; it’s a national problem that needs constant debate.

3.1 Meeting with management committees of UVPERSU & NEHAWU:
Submission by UVPERSU:

Prof SM Mayatula, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Education, welcomed the Unions to the meeting. He outlined the objective of the Committee, as one of conducting oversights from Grade R to the Highest Institutions of Learning, and passing all legislation that affects education. He further indicated the purpose of the visit of the committee, is to assist the institution in fastracking transformation within the institution.

Prof Johan Grobelaar, Chairperson of UVPERSU led the presentation. He indicated that, there are two major Unions within the University of Free State that is UVPERSU and NEHAWU. The function of the Unions is to, jointly negotiate salary increase and tackle questions that need clarity around the Campus. The delegation was informed that, a memorandum was sent to the management of the University and other stakeholders. This memorandum was indicating the dissatisfaction about the Reitz video. Management of the University was invited by the Unions to the mass personnel meeting held on the 14 March 2008. However management never came to attend because of various reasons. 

3.1.2 UVPERSU highlighted the following key issues for transformation in the UFS:   

The language policy of the University should be changed.
Students should be taught in language of choice.
The University should invest money in buying various interpreting equipment for all languages.
Strong motivation for integration should be promoted among first year students.
The infrastructure of the residences does not support integration, because the hostels were built in the apartheid era, therefore the residences should be rebuilt.
The Department of Education should assist with funds to restructure the residences.

Prof Johan Grobelaar emphasized that, UVPERSU strongly recommends the creation of a unified society within the Campus. The way the Campus is divided delays transformation. There is need for a structure within the Campus, where black and white students meet together. Rebuilding of hostels will definitely create mixed community in the Campus.

3.2.1 Submission by NEHAWU:

Mr Olehile Moeng Chairperson of NEHAWU Main Campus led the presentation. He indicated that, transformation process is the main focus of NEHAWU. The delegation was informed that, the transformation process was impeded because wrong people were appointed to drive it. The diversity office does not function properly. NEHAWU suggests that, the whole office be disbanded and replaced by qualified people. The Council of the University is majority white people, and should be dissolved since it is not representative of all races. 

The Reitz residence was formerly a guest house. This residence has been the problem in the University for many years. Management of the University decided that, as black and white students were constantly fighting, they should be divided into various residences to avoid conflict. NEHAWU believes that, the Council had enough time to do transformation. However, it has failed to achieve it. NEHAWU decided to have an alliance that will address the issue of transformation. However, management of the University did not approve NEHAWU’s proposal. 

3.2.2 NEHAWU highlights the following key issue to assist with transformation: 

There is no need for percentage in the placement of students in residences.
Integration policy must not be 70% - 30%, it must be 50% - 50%.
Ritz residences should be closed, and changed into a centre of non-racism.
The Council should, reflect the demography of the Province.
The Unions should be given an opportunity to fight the problem of transformation on their own.

3.3 Questions and issues raised by Members:

A question was asked regarding the origin of Reitz.
UVPERSU is majority white only, while NEHAWU is strictly black. Have the Unions ever thought of combining as one Union? As the Unions of the University, you do have a say in the appointment of Council members, what are you doing about that? What is the situation in the lecture rooms currently? 
The language policy of the University contributes to the process of transformation, what is your view on that?
The issue of rebuilding hostels to promote integration has a potential for delaying the process of transformation even more. Infrastructure should not be a problem. However, people should decide how to interact with each other. The problem is the attitude of individuals within this University.  The people who populate this University should change their hearts. 
Do the two Unions agree that, Reitz hostel should be closed, and the Council should be dissolved? How do the Unions merge to become one group that will take this University forward?

3.4 Responses:

In 1996, there were fights between Khayalami and Olinwood residences. In that fight, one car was damaged and Olinwood residence was closed and moved to Reitz guesthouse. All white male students were transferred to this residence, and that was the formation of Ritz residence.
The Unions have been negotiating with management, that the University should have a Council that is fully representative. The Unions have no say in the structure of the Council. Management of the University has given a direction that; all inputs to the University should be done through Institutional Forum, which is very unprogressive. 
UVPERSU is against racism. There are black members of the committee as well. The problem is that, UVPERSU consists mostly of lectures, and there are few non white lectures in the University, that is the reason most members of UVPERSU are white.
The idea of integrating as one Union is good and UVPERSU accepts that. However, UVPERSU has no part in political parties at all.
The largest classrooms are conducted in English. About 60% of students in the University attend English lectures. The Unions suggested that, everything that the lecturer does, should be simultaneously translated into other languages to avoid duplication and keep classes integrated.
It is true that, change of heart from individuals of this Campus could fast track transformation. However the infrastructure of this University is not conducive to open and free society.  There is a need for a structure within the University, where students are going to mix and meet each other. 

4. Meeting with: Executive Committee of SRC Main Campus, President of the Central Student Representative Council, Main Campus Residence Leadership, Representatives of Student Association:
Prof SM Mayatula, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Education welcomed the various student organisations to the meeting. He outlined the objective of the Committee as conducting oversight from Grade R up to the Highest Institutions of Learning. He further mentioned the purpose of the visit of the Committee as to assist the University in whatever way to fast-track transformation and maintain stability. He gave opportunity to the student’s organisations to present their submission.

a) Submission by Mr T Mangope, ANC Youth League:
Mr Tshediso Mangope representing the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) led the presentation. He informed the delegation that, what happened in Reitz residence had been an outcome of non-integration in the University. His submission highlighted the following key issues:
The leaders of the Institution are failing to drive the process of transformation.
The current management and council were installed to delay the transformation process.
Prof Fourie and other senior management members are from a racist background, they cannot drive the process of transformation.
The employment equity of the University does not comply with the Constitution.
The Portfolio Committee on Education and the Minister of Education should observe the individuals who are leading the Institution.
The Department of Education, should oversee that, transformation is indeed taking place in the University.

b) Submission by Mr E Kingwill, Prime of JBM Hertzog Residence:
Mr E Kingwill Prime of JBM Hertzog Residence led the presentation. He indicated that, his presentation was based on the Reitz video, and the instability that has been disrupting the operation of the University. His submission highlighted the following key issues:
The Rector of the University, Prof Fourie is fully committed to transformation and should not be dismissed.
Getting rid of Dr Luyt (Dean of students) will be unfair, and if it that happens, Dr Moraka (Vice-Rector: Student Affairs) should also be dismissed. 
The students of JBM Hertzog residence fully disagree with closure of Reitz residence as a solution to solve the problem of racism.
Students of Reitz residence, feel that they should not be affected by a problem caused by four students.
All Afrikaner students support Reitz residence, and feel that it should not be closed.
The Reitz video is totally unacceptable, and some students in the Ritz residence were unhappy with the video.
c) Submission by Mr M Manana Senior Hostel Member, Tswelopele Residence:
Mr Mbuyisa Manana, Senior Hostel Member of Tswelopele Residence led the presentation. He informed the delegation that, the Reitz video proved the manifestation of racial segregation that exists within the Campus. His submission highlighted the following key issues:
Every white student in the Campus is a member of the Freedom Front Plus (FF+).
Black students are disrespected in the Campus.
Lecturers do not offer advice to black students concerning their studies.
The language policy of the University, affects the performance of black students in obtaining better results compared to white students who are being taught in their mother tongue.
Employment of lecturers requires a lecturer to know Afrikaans as medium of instruction before he/she can be appointed.
In hostel meetings, Afrikaner students use Afrikaans to express their opinions.
Most names of the hostels in the Campus are named after Afrikaner leaders of the past.
There should be one language for all students of the University, which is English.
Afrikaner lectures summarize academic books in Afrikaans.

d) Submission by Mr J van Niekerk, Freedom Front Plus (FF+):
Mr Jan van Niekerk of the Freedom Front Plus (FF+) in Kousies residence led the presentation. He informed the delegation that, his submission was based on the Reitz video incident and the vandalism to the University properties caused by the student’s actions. His submission highlighted the following key issues:
Reitz residence cannot be closed.
There are measures in place to prosecute the students who made the video.
Reitz residence cannot be judged by four people who made the video.
There is a need to look closely at the members of top management, and observe where they failed in driving transformation.
Freedom Front Plus (FF+) shares membership freely, and anyone can join the party regardless of his/her race.
He concluded his submission by indicating that, black students are racist as well. The march that took place on the 14 March 2008, had incidents of racism, and there were slogans that indicated “Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer” carried by black students.

e) Submission by Mr D Bouwer SRC Central, President:
Mr Danie Bouwer, the president of the SRC Central welcomed the opportunity to present to the meeting. He indicated that, political parties within the Institution have an impact in delaying transformation. The Freedom Front Plus (FF+), which is majority white Afrikaner students, is against the integration and transformation within the Campus. The Central SRC is the highest decision making of the student organisation. However, it is taken for granted by the management of the council, because majority of its members are black students. The Central SRC believes that, it is the council that delays transformation process, because most of its members are whites and it is not suppose to be like that. 

4.1 Responses from the Portfolio Committee on Education:
Racism is still evident in this meeting room that we are in. There is no unity among the student organisations. The students of this University should unite in fighting racism in this University. As long as the students are not unified, there is no way that this Institution will progress.
Racism in this Institution comes as no surprise at all. It is clearly evident that, racism is among the student organisations. There are lot of sweeping statements among the student’s organisations, such as, lecturers not helping black students, that is impossible. It is important that, various student organisations should work together to fight this problem jointly. It is very disappointing that, in the year 2008, almost 13 years after democracy, the University has to solve the problem of racism. The Committee is not supposed to come to this Institution to discuss matters relating to racism, there are many other important issues that need to be addressed. Young students of this Institution were supposed to be at the forefront to take this country into another level. 
The Reitz video is a symptom of a deeper problem that exists within the Institution. The problem of this University is not new at all; it has been a problem for a number of years. It is important to note that, the Committee might not be able to address all the issues which arose in the meeting. However, whatever complaints that the students might have against this Institution, they should be forward to the committee, and will be attended. 
The delegation proposes that Reitz hostel should be closed. The closure of this hostel would send a good message to the world. Reitz hostel can be turned into a place of unity and non racialism. 

5. Feedback to management:
In the meeting with the two Unions, the delegation discovered that, UVPERSO was represented by only whites, while NEHAWU was predominantly black. Issues came out clear from both Unions that; the transformation process was driven by wrong people. The meeting with the students was very interesting, because students express their feelings freely. Students also felt that, the transformation process was driven by the wrong people. On the issue of language, a concern was raised that, English should be a medium of instruction for all students. The delegation informed the students that, the University is not about the management or the council. However, it is all about the students, who are the future of the country.  The allocated time for the delegation to engage with the students was not enough and, many students could not raise their opinions due to time limit.
 UVPERSO indicated that, indeed they were working close with NEHAWU, even though the Unions are separated in terms of race. UVPERSO raised a concern that, the infrastructure of the hostel was not conducive to transformation. They recommend that, the hostels should be reconstructed to form a unified society. NEHAWU clearly indicated that, the council was not representative enough. The way the council operates was not proactive enough to drive the transformation process quickly. It emerged that, students from all organisations were not supporting the Reitz video. The Freedom Front Plus (FF+) indicated that, it did share membership freely with anyone who wants to join the party. Another key point raised was that, it was not only white students that were vandalizing the Institution. A concern emerged indicating that, the language policy of the University affected the performance of black students negatively towards their studies. The SRC, highlighted that, the Dean of Students, Dr Luyt should be removed because, and he was racially biased. 
NEHAWU raised a concern that, composition of the council was not representative at all. Prof Grobelaar, the chairperson of UPVERSO proposed that, all students were supposed be taught in the same classroom. The students proposed that, the whole management and council be removed. The Unions highlighted that, the Institutional Forum of the University was very weak and inconvenient. The SRC proposed that, that the names of the residences should be changed, because they reflected apartheid. Majority of the white students were against the closure of Reitz hostel. It was clear that, students blamed each other for the vandalism that took place in the University. 

6. Visit to the Reitz Hostel:
The delegation was accompanied by the University management to observe the Reitz hostel. Prof S Mayatula, Chairperson of the Committee conducted a conversation with one of the student from the hostel. In his conversation, he wanted to know about the Reitz video incident and integration in the hostel.

The student responded by saying that, Reitz is a Afrikaners hostel, therefore black students who wanted to be part of the hostel should be able to play rugby as it is a mutual aspect of the hostel. He further mentioned that, the rituals were part of the hostel’s culture of accepting a new individual to the hostel. People out of the hostel may be harsh against these rituals. However, to those who lived in the hostel, it is part of their culture. In responding to the Reitz video, he informed the delegation that, he would not be happy at all, if that incident was done to his mother.

7. Conclusion:
In concluding the meeting, Prof SM Mayatula, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Education expressed his gratitude to the management of the University of Free State for giving the delegation time to interact with various stakeholders. He further indicated that, what was happening in theUniversity of Free State was also happening in other Higher Institutions of Learning. He further mentioned that, a one day visit to the University was not enough to tackle all issues raised. However, observations made by the delegation will be taken to the Portfolio Committee on Education for consideration and; it is the committee that will decide what to do next with those recommendations.

7. Recommendations:
Having conducted a number of meetings with various stakeholders of the University, the committee recommends that the University should give consideration to the following key issues:

The Reitz hostel should be closed and be transformed into a symbol of non-racialism.
The representivity of the University Council needs urgent and special attention.
The problem of the Institution can only be solved by change of heart and attitude from each individual.
The University should come up with a proper plan to deal with the problem of the language policy.
The transformation plan is not effective, and management needs to deal with the problem of integration urgently.
The student organisations and unions should forward their complaints to the Portfolio Committee and they will receive attention.
Management cannot achieve integration alone, therefore a good relationship with students is needed to achieve integration
Unions and student organisations leaders cannot expect integration among students to take place, if they themselves are not integrated.


No related documents