Benoni, Thursday 23 November 2000.
Professor Wiseman Nkuhlu
Dr Saleem Badat
Members of the CHE
Ladies and Gentleman
I have just returned home from a brief but highly productive visit to the United States where I met with the heads of various major foundations. I was struck by the continued interest and level of engagement with the democratic process in South Africa, especially in relation to education generally and higher education in particular. This interest is matched I am pleased to say by a commitment to provide technical and financial support to enable the success of democracy in South Africa. In this regard, the Carnegie Foundation has pledged support for my Ministry to mount a major project to develop new history textbooks, which is vital if we are to successfully forge a new nationhood, with shared values and aspirations.
You might well ask of what relevance is the interest of US Foundations in South Africa to the concerns of the assembled leadership of South African higher education. Surely there are more important issues and concerns that need to be addressed? And no doubt there are. However, my engagement in the United States brought home to me that the passion and excitement that the South African experiment in democracy generates beyond our shores is sadly lacking nearer home. And this is most clearly demonstrated by what can only be described as a deafening silence and lack of engagement of the academic and institutional community on the transformation challenges that face us not only in education, but in social and economic development more generally. I fear that higher education constituencies have become more introspective and bound up in their own, sometimes parochial concerns, instead of engaging more energetically and critically with the burning issues of the day.
Our higher education institutions should be at the vanguard of intellectual engagement with issues of social transformation, especially at this crucial stage in our country’s history. The scope for research and innovation is boundless. But where are the forums for rigorous debate? And I am not referring to the empty rhetoric that masquerades as serious debate in the pages of our popular press. Where are the academic voices engaging with the role of history in an emerging democracy? Why are there no proposals emanating from the academic community for writing history textbooks? Indeed where are the academic contributions to the debate on curriculum restructuring more generally?
Even as I look more closely at what is going on in our universities and technikons, I am taken aback by the lack of initiative. It does not require a national plan or other edicts or advice from government for institutions to further their own transformation agendas. Yet, in many areas, we are seeing slow movement. I have no doubt that unless higher education constituencies become more actively engaged and responsive to broader societal issues, you may find yourselves left behind and harshly judged by history.
The lack of responsiveness has not helped the public image of higher education, which is not particularly favourable. And it is certainly not assisted by the unacceptable behaviour that surfaces from time-to-time in our universities and technikons. Just this week, I was angered to hear that striking members of the Staff Association at the University of the North-West disrupted the year-end examinations. This sort of behaviour has no place in an educational institution. The core work of higher education cannot be sacrificed for individual or sectional interests.
Two weeks ago I hosted the Palestinian Minister for Higher Education, Professor Munthir Salah. It was astonishing to learn that in the midst of all the killing and suffering that is taking place, the Palestinian Authority has instructed its higher education institutions to remain open, and to ensure that the academic programme is not disrupted. This is truly remarkable – it shows foresight and leadership. Why can we not do the same, given our more favourable circumstances?
The challenge that the higher education system faces therefore is to move out of the ivory tower and the navel gazing that academics specialise in into the real world. However, moving into the real world does not mean losing sight of the transformation challenges that are internal to the higher education system. I want to emphasise however, that in dealing with the internal transformation challenges, it is the important to move beyond the current focus and obsession with governance structures and funding mechanisms. These are clearly important, but equally important and more so are the educational and academic challenges that underpin the higher education system. In this regard, I would like to highlight two issues, which require urgent attention. First, the need to transform institutional cultures and identities, which remain rooted in the apartheid past. It is unthinkable that six years after the introduction of a new constitution, higher education institutions have not yet begun to grapple with how to create institutional cultures and identities that reflect the values of the new South Africa, in particular, non-racialism and non-sexism. Second, the need to address the challenges that flow for the alleged imperatives of globalisation, in particular, the changes in information and communications technology and the coming of the new messiah in the form of the virtual university.
In a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Arthur Levine identifies nine changes, which he believes will inevitably shape the future of colleges and universities. One of these is that higher education providers will become more numerous and more diverse. He identifies three major types of institutions: “They are “brick universities” or traditional residential institutions; “click universities”, or new, usually commercial virtual universities, like Unext.com and Jones International University; and “brick and click” universities, a combination of the first two.”
Levine suggests that the “brick and click” institutions may be the most competitive in the future. He asks the important question of who will control the “brick and click” institutions. “Will the for-profit sector buy “bricks” - build physical plants - before traditional colleges develop the capacity to operate in the “click” environment? Or will just the opposite occur?”
In the United Kingdom plans are underway for the launch of the e-university by 2002. Ron Cooke, Vice-chancellor of York University, reporting in the Times Higher Education Supplement (October 13, 2000), explains that “The e-university will not be a new, independent university with degree-awarding powers. Rather it will be a facilitator, working with a wide range of institutions to invest in developing programmes for e-delivery”. It is seen as an opportunity for “UK higher education to contribute to the rapidly growing global market for electronically based distance education.”
What relevance does this discourse have for us, as we grapple with repositioning our higher education system to respond to the intellectual, economic, cultural and human resource needs of the 21st century? Clearly, we cannot bury our heads in the sand and wish it all away. But, at the same time, we cannot allow ourselves to be blindfolded by these alleged global imperatives. We must interrogate the notion of the virtual university; what promise can it hold for South Africa and indeed for our Continent? What perils does it bring with it?
One of the greatest challenges that faces us in higher education is to ensure that the system nurtures the next generation of critical intellectuals and leaders, who must guide our young democracy towards maturity. I very much doubt that this leadership can emerge out of universities and technikons that are narrowly driven by market imperatives. Nor are they likely to be nurtured by e-universities. There surely has to be a place for the universities and technikons where scholarship, teaching and service is valued, where there is space for a range of disciplines and for the full spectrum of research possibilities. But more importantly, where knowledge generation and intellectual development is itself the product of social interaction and engagement, rather than the sterile and passive learning, driven by the bottom-line of the profit margin that masquerades as the virtual university. This certainly does not imply a retreat into ivory towers or academic luddism. On the contrary, it requires us to embrace new technologies, new partnerships and new approaches, but not at the expense of the social values and moral purpose that is the defining characteristic of humankind.
Let me now move to some of the issues that you will be addressing at this Consultative Conference.
A number of initiatives and discussions in the course of this past year have contributed to clarifying what is required in order to reconfigure our higher education system. The CHE report and recommendations on the size and shape of the higher education system have helped to sharpen our understanding of many of the critical issues at stake. I welcome the report as a socially committed attempt to build a new landscape and congratulate the Council on its efforts. The Council has risen to the challenge that I presented it with and I trust that, equally, stakeholders will rise to the challenge and seriously grapple with its arguments and recommendations. The issues of the contribution of higher education to social development, equity and redress require less rhetoric and posturing and more rigorous analytical and strategic work from all role players.
I had intended to release my response in the course of this year. However, this has not been possible given the need for consultations on the report. I have now received, and am studying, the responses of stakeholders to the report. I anticipate releasing a national plan early in the new year, which would include my response to the restructuring proposals. My Department is also finalising the details of the new funding formula which will be released for consultative purposes in the new year.
I am also examining ways in which the capacity of my Department can be strengthened as a matter of priority so that we are better positioned to address the multitude of tasks that lie ahead of us.
I do believe that we are now closer to an understanding of the hard choices that have to be made in order to put higher education on the road to the 21st century. However, whatever the details and substance of the choices, there are certain critical issues which have to be addressed in any reconfiguration of higher education.
The demands of equity and quality within a development paradigm rooted in our history and our current circumstances are among those issues which need to be addressed.
It would be foolish to imagine that we could - or even want to - choose between equity and quality, and arrange institutions within the system according to such a differentiation. There are likely to be different development trajectories for different public higher education institutions in our country. But, especially given the legacies of the past, the requirement to facilitate equitable access to high quality provision will be common to all higher education institutions. The only acceptable equity strategies should be those premised on attaining high standards of provision in order to deliver the multiple social and economic benefits of higher education.
What in our context constitutes high quality of provision in higher education? The issue of quality is a contested one, even in education contexts which are more stable than ours. In our country, the quality issue for a long time was entangled in the debate about standards, especially at historically advantaged institutions. It is time to reclaim quality as a critical component of a new higher education dispensation – to break its link (whether real or imagined) with privilege and connect it with the progressive aspirations of the majority who seek equitable access to high quality outcomes in education and training.
What does this mean? For one thing, it means that the aspirations to quality must inform and be informed by the quest for a more equitable dispensation in higher education. We cannot replicate a system where quality becomes the fault line between different types of higher education institutions. A higher education system for the 21st century must be built on a commitment to quality for the whole system.
But a meaningful relationship between quality and equity requires that the notion of equity be very carefully conceptualised and operationalised. Such rigour of understanding will make it possible for us to squarely address the issue of the legitimate redress claims of our past and present. We require a multi-pronged approach to addressing inequality and the forging of new opportunities for redress. A multiplicity of equity strategies must be identified to address the empowerment needs of individuals, institutions, groups of individuals (women, those with ability who lack financial capacity, etc.). The equity debate must encompass the needs of black students who are in the majority at historically advantaged institutions as much as it includes the claims of historically disadvantaged institutions. It must address the claims on higher education of those who come from rural and geographically isolated backgrounds as much as those of working class adults who missed out on earlier opportunities for higher education.
Furthermore, the demographic shifts in student enrolments between historically advantaged institutions and historically disadvantaged institutions also require us to think of equity in a system wide way. Unless we do so, we will remain trapped in the racial landscape and mindset of the past. We have to think of all higher education institutions as part of a national system that must deliver what the country requires by way of well-educated and highly skilled graduates.
The state may not be able to address the needs of all those with redress claims in higher education but the development of a redress strategy requires an understanding of what the claims are and whether they would indeed lead to clear educational gains for the formerly disadvantaged. In this regard, it is important to emphasise equity means more than just student access, but includes retention and success rates, graduate employment rates, staff composition in teaching and research, as well as issues like the development of institutional cultures that include the values of tolerance, diversity and empowerment.
The different dimensions of equity and redress have to be specified more clearly and a range of strategies put in place to address them – sober analysis is required and unsentimental judgements have to be made about which strategy or combination of strategies best serves the equity needs of the country in relation to higher education.
In short, we require a comprehensive understanding of redress needs in higher education and the formulation of appropriate strategies and indicators to best serve our equity needs. To be meaningful, the requirements for quality must underpin the shaping of a more equitable dispensation in higher education. Otherwise, we will be selling short the aspirations of the disadvantaged and marginalized for educational opportunities which can bring genuine social advancement and empowerment.
I am relying on the CHE to take the lead in stimulating debate on redress and equity in higher education and providing me with appropriate advice on this matter. I am pleased to see that there is a commission at this conference on redress policy and commend the Council for being proactive in this regard.
I have no doubt that your discussions in tomorrow’s commissions will take forward some of the themes that I have touched on this evening. I look forward to receiving feedback from your deliberations.
In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairperson of the CHE, Professor Wiseman Nkuhlu for his leadership and unstinting commitment. My thanks also goes to all the members of the CHE and the staff for their continued hard work.