DieMATIE
DONDERDAG 10 AUGUSTUS 2017 GR ATIS SES-EN-SEWENTIGSTE JAARGANG | NO 9
WENNER VAN DIE ATKV-MEDIAVEERTJIE VIR BESTE KAMPUSKOER ANT
Sêrseisoen in volle swang bl.4
Victim of ‘h****t’ attack speaks out 2
SRC ‘abused power’
3
Die Kartel roep vaarwel 6
Foto: LUKE VAN NIEKERK
VERRASSING! Venustia is een van die vrouekoshuise wat vanjaar in die semi-finaal is. Lees meer op bl.4.
Jessica-Anne Mole on own empire 5
De Villiers and team accused of misleading council about language policy
Alleged reason to fire SU rector EUGENIE GREGAN
P
rof Wim de Villiers, rector of Stellenbosch University (SU), and his management team misled the university council in matters pertaining to the language policy, providing enough reason to fire them. This is one of the allegations made in the latest court documents filed to reverse SU’s language policy that was approved in June last year. The latest allegations are included in university council member Johan Theron’s defence after he was accused of violating the council’s code of conduct. In an interview with Rapport last year, Theron said De Villiers’s behaviour before the current policy was accepted was “dishonourable”. Another council member, Prof Usuf Chikte, submitted a complaint to council a year after the interview was published. Theron’s defence against the complaint also states that the head of the council, George Steyn, said De Villiers “has no credibility left” and that their behaviour “would’ve lead to dismissal if they worked in the private sector”. Steyn apparently changed his
viewpoint afterwards, which Theron stated is because it was the path of least resistance. Theron further states that a cunning plan was formulated to keep the council in the dark about their plan to make SU primarily English. According to Theron, his interview with Rapport was “fair comment” and is supported with facts. Gelyke Kanse’s case against SU Netwerk24 reports that, should the allegations against De Villiers and his management team be true, it could have a remarkable influence on the court case of the group Gelyke Kanse against SU. In Gelyke Kanse’s application to the high court in Cape Town, the group is asking that the new language policy be set aside and that SU should be ordered to implement the language policy that was approved by the council on 22 November 2014. According to Gelyke Kanse, the policy approved in 2014 was clear, unambiguous and provided for the measurable implementation of multilingualism at SU. Language policies
are usually revised every five years. “Sadly in early 2015, De Villiers gave an undertaking to the Open Stellenbosch movement (which no longer exists) that SU will abolish multilingualism by getting rid of Afrikaans and moving to an English only university,” said Gelyke Kanse’s Danie Rossouw. “In the wake thereof and with the approval and even encouragement of the rector and his management team, whole sale deviations from the 2014 policy took place during the latter part of 2015 and in early 2016.” The policy approved in 2016 states that effect is given to section 29(2) of the Constitution which states everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. According to Rossouw, reasonably practicable means whenever it is reasonable to expect the State to provide such education and in the case of SU it is reasonably practicable to offer both Afrikaans and English. Afrikaans is the third biggest language in South Af-
rica and biggest in the Western Cape. “However, what happened at SU involves a move towards English domination, a development that would reinforce an already overwhelmingly dominant language, which is the mother-tongue of only a particularly privileged minority of white South Africans,” Rossouw explained. “The decimation of the Afrikaans lecture offering is not justifiable, particularly since there is only one other option for Afrikaans learning in South Africa and none in the Western Cape. “The people of this province have a legitimate expectation that SU will cater primarily, although not exclusively, to students from the province.” Rossouw said that the 2014 policy was quite sufficient and provided for multilingualism reflecting the Western Cape society, with sufficient measures for accountability to ensure that it is properly implemented. Response from SU Martin Viljoen, SU spokesperson, referred Die Matie to a piece by SU’s vice-rector Prof Arnold Schoonwinkel that was published in January.
This piece explains how the new policy is practically implemented and states: “The expansion of the English offering for the sake of greater access does not mean the abolishment of Afrikaans as a language of instruction.” It doesn’t however answer Die Matie’s question about the transparency of the procedure leading up to the approval of the new policy, although it states that the vice-rector reports to council annually on faculty’s feedback about their language implementation plan. Council retains an oversight role and approves the policy with the concurrence of senate. Gelyke Kanse filed an application on Thursday, asking the court to allow them to call in Theron to testify. The university is appealing the application and had until yesterday to provide the court with reasons as to why Theron should not testify against them. According to Viljoen, SU is confident that he can oppose Gelyke Kanse’s application successfully and will release a statement when the verdict is known. The hearing is scheduled to start on Monday.
10am,5pm& 6.30pm