top of page

Decolonisation of South African universities

If you are a student or have an interest in student life in South Africa – as a parent or concerned citizen, perhaps – you’ve probably heard about the demands to “decolonise” the curriculum. One of the big problems is that no one seems to know what that means. There is some vague idea of what it implies, but I have yet to meet someone who could tell me exactly what it means and what the practical implications would be for our universities.

Wikipedia defines decolonisation as “the undoing of colonialism, where a nation establishes and maintains its domination over dependent territories.” YourDictionary.com defines it as “the act of getting rid of colonization, or freeing a country from being dependent on another country” or “the act or process of eliminating colonialism or freeing from colonial status”. The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines it as “the process in which a country that was previously a colony (= controlled by another country) becomes politically independent”. Dictionary.com defines it as “1. to release from the status of a colony. 2. to allow (a colony) to become self-governing or independent.” From Encyclopaedia Britannica: “Process by which colonies become independent of the colonizing country”. And the Oxford English Dictionary: “(Of a state) withdraw from (a colony), leaving it independent”.

So, based on all the definitions above, how does one decolonise the curriculum? According to the above definitions, South Africa won its independence in 1909/1910, so does decolonisation still make sense some sort of priority over a century later? Should it not be sorted out already? Taking a closer look at what is said around “decolonisation”, the current outcries aren’t for independence as a nation or a country. The argument is that our educational system is still controlled by the British or (in a rather popular abuse of the term “decolonisation”) white people in general.

Mandla Lionel Isaacs writes: “It makes no sense for African universities to be European in character, grounded in European thought and values. It makes no sense that the few black South African students who are able to attend our leading universities are marginalised once they get there and unable to see themselves, their languages, struggles and histories in the institution and curriculum they are asked to learn from and engage with.” I have many issues with the article written by Isaacs, but I will only point out a few.

Whether the people of South Africa want to admit it or not, South African universities compete internationally. They generally create similar curriculums to international institutions to ensure that students who study in South Africa are not only of the same quality as students from international universities, but to ensure that these students can find jobs internationally, if they wish or need to do so. This certainly does not mean that South African students study ONLY international content.

If one studies English in South Africa, for example, one will spend more than a year studying South African poetry and South African literature. The curriculum lists a novel entitled Black Diamond by Zakes Mda (a wonderful read, by all accounts) and Age of Iron by J.M. Coetzee (a novel that has much to do with the struggles of black people, and white people, during the Apartheid era) or Life and Times of Michael K by the same author. One may even study a play called Boesman and Lena by Athol Fugard (about the struggles of a coloured couple as they wander from place to place due to forced removals – set, unsurprisingly during Apartheid). This tendency to focus on Apartheid era commentary does not start at university level, however; it reaches back to both Afrikaans and English classes in high school education. At university, one is not only likely to read South African literature about Apartheid, but international literature on colonisation and decolonisation, including novels such as Invisible Man by T.S. Ellison, Things Fall Apart by Achebe, Heart of Darkness by Conrad or Passage to India by Forster.

If one studies psychology, one is more likely to focus on Western theories, but one is made very aware of the criticisms – these theories do not necessarily apply to all genders, all races, all economic classes or all cultures. Studies are done to indicate the differences between individual-centred and community-centred cultures. It is pointed out that South African psychological research is still very new (as is psychology as a field itself). One is always made aware that the theories that are being studied are merely that: theories. They are not facts. In psychology, facts are subjective, after all.

A question that arises from my stating that we compete internationally is this: How is South Africa competing internationally, and who are the ones competing? The accuser, in this case, stated that only whites are competing internationally. I would like to point out that, if this is true, white people are the ones keeping South Africa afloat. A nation cannot grow and prosper without competing internationally: like it or not, we rely too much on imports and exports to pretend to be alone on Earth. As for how – it depends on which sector you are referring to. In my case, I am referring to academia. So, how are we competing internationally? By improving our education system. By producing some of the top universities in the world (or attempting to).

Back to Isaacs. Isaacs argues that the black students of South Africa are not taught about their history. My reaction, as politely as I can put it, is: “Have you been living under a rock?” South Africa’s educational system is saturated with pieces about Apartheid, but I had to go to do my own research to find out about the Anglo-Boer Wars, or about the terrorist acts that the ANC took part in in an attempt to overthrow the Apartheid government. South African education barely focuses on anything but the Apartheid era, when it comes to history (though it does take a moment on occasion to showcase “early civilisation” like Mapungubwe). I agree that we should learn more about African history, and focus less single-mindedly on Apartheid. If we do so, however, we must be willing to learn not only about the heroes that rose from our racial groups or our cultures, but also the tyrants and failures. We must also be willing to learn about the history of other cultures, other racial groups, in our country, from the Khoisan to the Afrikaners.

Alarmingly, the calls for decolonisation recently are not only directed at social sciences, but at hard sciences as well – mathematics, chemistry and physics. I have heard cries that “logic” is a white thing, or a Western thing. And I would like to point out that logic is meant to be a human thing. Shall we not teach out learners about Newton’s laws because Newton wasn’t black, or African? Shall we ignore Einstein and the Wright Brothers because they weren’t African? Whether they were white, black, pink or purple, the laws that they described and the discoveries that they made will remain true. The laws of physics don’t change because a white man described them first – and if anyone wants to claim that gravity is invalid because Newton was white, feel free to ascend to the nearest roof and demonstrate how rejecting that theory allows us to fly.

One of the arguments I have come across, is that because black students’ parents were affected by Apartheid, the students themselves are affected psychologically. How? Well, apparently, because their parents tell them about the suffering they endured during Apartheid, the students are psychologically traumatised. So, leaving aside the fact that this opinion implies that it's the parents' fault their children are suffering, let’s assume it’s true (so, say my mother was raped – she told me about it, now I am psychologically traumatised). If telling us about the suffering of the past keeps us from growing, pushing forward and reaching our full potential, does it not then make more sense to hide the history from today’s youth, as impossible and unethical as that would be? Changing the system NOW will not change the history of our country.

There is very little difference between an American university, and a European one, or a European one and an Asian one. So why, then, would we want a radical difference between African universities and the universities of the rest of the world?

It is said that our curriculum and system still perpetuates “black inferiority”. I would like to ask you how. If your answer is that not enough black knowledge is taught at university, then I disagree. Yes, not enough black knowledge is taught at our universities, but that doesn’t perpetuate black inferiority. It means that the system can be more inclusive. And that is part of what I would like to emphasis: inclusivity. Decolonisation is not about rejecting that which is white, or that which is Western, or that which is not African. It is about the merging of all knowledge. It is about including all knowledge that can lead to growth, based on merit instead of colour.

Recently, with the Afrikaans Must Fall movement at the University of Pretoria, there was a demand that the Afrikaans names used for some of the venues on campus be changed – specifically the names Louw, van der Bijl, Roos and Muller in the Chancellor’s Building. My question is: “Why?” These names are not Afrikaaner folk heroes, as some students seem to believe. These are names of past chancellors of the University of Pretoria, who made large contributions to the University as an institution. Why then, would you want to the change the names to the names of struggle heroes? It is a building at the University of Pretoria, is it not fitting that the names of the building correspond with the University’s history? Is the suggestion really that acknowledging contributions is wrong if the contributor is white... and, if so, how is that not racism of the worst degree?

Another question was about Oom Gert. I recall a Tweet I saw at the time that read something like “Who is Oom Gert and why does his statue preside on campus?” My answer: Google it before you talk about it. Oom Gert is the University of Pretoria’s mascot. He is no one’s hero, no historical figure. He is a fictional character. If you would like petition to change the university’s mascot, feel free to exercise that right, but do not pretend as if the mascot being called Oom Gert is being dehumanising, or that his statue idealises Afrikaner history at the expense of African history. To claim such serious things with no foundation can do nothing good for South Africa.

The recent loud preoccupation with rejecting and removing Afrikaans culture disgusts me as much as it amuses me. How ironic, is it not, that students claiming that their own culture is being suppressed seemingly want nothing more than to oppress someone else's? I have heard far too many arguments that progress a little like this:

Person A – We must decolonise the university, and get rid of this Afrikaans culture!

Person B – Why not bring in more African culture instead? How is taking away going to help more than adding in?

Person A – No, white culture offends me!

Person B – How is it oppressing you? And are you talking about white culture, or Afrikaans culture? Not all white people are Afrikaners, you know.

Person A – Because my parents were oppressed, and white culture is a symbol of their oppression!

And so on it goes. Rarely is an “activist” willing to discuss exactly how Afrikaans culture offends them; I have also not yet heard any serious suggestions for how to include African culture. At best, the lack of support for adding African culture is embarrassing for anyone who claims to be part of an African culture. At best the hate towards Afrikaans culture, and the passion of those who are campaigning for its removal, show that we as South Africans are all too willing to perpetuate and widen racial divides in a time and situation where it makes ever less sense for us to be divided.

The focus on "decolonisation" seems odd to me. It has so far been centred around a destructive approach and a narrative that has much to say about what must go away, but almost nothing about what must come in. Even those who are unashamed about their childish hate of certain cultures must surely understand that removing something without something else to replace it will diminish us as a nation? Until the discussion is as about "Africanising" and adding rather than "decolonising" and discarding, nothing good will come of it for South Africa.

If you found this piece insightful or useful, please subscribe and share, because it is literally the only way my message gets out there.

Sources and other links:

Join our mailing list

Never miss an update

bottom of page