Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Opinionistas

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are not that of Daily Maverick.....

There is common ground to be found in the next chapter of Wilgenhof’s history

Noelani King Conradie
By Noelani King Conradie
14 Nov 2024
Facebook
6
The Wilgenhof debate at Stellenbosch University was initiated by photos of archival rooms and objects related to historic past practices. Anonymous allegations from as far back as 1973 were reported. This is often ignored.

Like any historic institution, Stellenbosch University’s Wilgenhof Residence has a complicated past and it has a fundamental responsibility to remain relevant and inclusive. This should be the guiding principle directing the way ahead.

However, the residence should not become a politically convenient scapegoat, and its residents, young people from diverse backgrounds, should not be defamed.

In a recent opinion piece in Daily Maverick, the Stellenbosch University (SU) Council Chair Nicky Newton-King lamented that the response of many in the university community “is not immediately to step in the shoes of others” but to be defensive about Wilgenhof and place emphasis on how reputations have “been impugned”.

Suggestions are often made that any questioning or countering of the university’s decisions on Wilgenhof is immediate proof of being “against change” or “anti-transformation”. This is disingenuous, as it is simply false.

The members of the Association for the Advancement of Wilgenhof Residence (Awir) have embraced discussion and have been open to change. Awir consists of more than 360 current Wilgenhof residents and their parents. Recently they reached a settlement with the university.

Although the settlement is a positive development, given that the students will now stay together as a community and move back to Wilgenhof after six months, I have to state, as one of the parents, that the settlement was made to minimise all forms of disruption and to end the uncertainty and stress that the current residents had to endure, especially as they approached their year-end exams.

In the settlement, Awir fully welcomes being part of a facilitated process to renew the residence. The settlement also states that this process will “be used for the rejuvenation of other residences at SU”.

The “rejuvenation” and “reimagination” of Wilgenhof are important. The question, however, is what is the university’s definition of “rejuvenation” and “reimagination”? Ambiguous and undefined terms are sometimes used to describe SU’s vision.

None the less, the facilitated process will be student-led. The current Wilgenhof students recognise the important work required of them to cherish what is meaningful in the residence’s heritage while ensuring historic practices remain relegated to the past. They are serious about the process.

Transformed


Wilgenhof has transformed significantly over the past two decades. It is not “anti-transformation”. Demographically, it is on par with the levels of diversity on the SU campus. Current residents of colour also rebutted claims of racism and any form of oppression in a submission to the university earlier this year.

The current “Wilgenhof debate” was initiated by photos of archival rooms and objects related to historic past practices. This fact is often ignored, as is the following finding in the much-discussed Wilgenhof investigative report: “The panel found no evidence of physical violence, sexual violence, or sexually inappropriate conduct by the ‘Nagligte’ against Wilgenhof residents.”

Anonymous allegations from as far back as 1973 were however reported by one media outlet, which were repeated without independent verification elsewhere in the media.

It remains inexplicable that the investigative panel acknowledged that there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing, but still recommended the closure of the residence.

The university should perhaps be more sensitive to the fact that current residents’ reputations have indeed been “impugned”. They are caught up in a media frenzy, labelled as “rapists” and “Nazis”, with many ostracised on campus through absolutely no fault of their own.

In her opinion piece, Newton-King does not identify or distinguish between Awir and the Wilgenhof Alumni Association. They are two separate organisations.

The Alumni Association is continuing its court application to have the Wilgenhof investigative report reviewed and set aside. The former residents are deeply concerned about the procedural unfairness and irrational findings of the report, as well as the defamatory accusations made in it. So are the members of Awir.

‘Undue interference’


Recent allegations have been made that there was undue interference in the report process by Newton-King and the Rector, Wim de Villiers. It was made in an affidavit by former Constitutional Court Justice Edwin Cameron. This is deeply concerning and highlights the need for a court to make a rational, fact-based ruling on the entire matter.

Newton-King is correct that there is a “trust deficit” between Wilgenhof and the university. But one must ask why this is the case.

The university chose to ignore the current residents’ experiences and refutations. The only reason SU eventually engaged with parents and students was because of the legal action instituted against it.

The university had multiple opportunities to have “courageous conversations” with the residents, parents and the alumni, but it did not use them. For instance, the first time the university gathered all current Wilgenhoffers to talk to them, was when they announced the closure of their home to them on 16 September.

Trust is earned. Sadly, since January the SU’s senior leadership has not instilled trust in either the residents or their parents. They have not protected the reputations of the Wilgenhof residents. By not speaking out against sensational misinformation in the media, they have implicitly condoned the claims made.

Awir has affirmed its commitment to a facilitated process. I know the students and parents are looking forward to starting a new chapter in Wilgenhof’s 121-year history, to continue to renew the institution and to ensure that a tradition of creating an inclusive community where every resident can find his own voice will endure for decades to come.

As the settlement has already shown, there is common ground to find on Wilgenhof, and as Newton-King herself stated: “It says something about an institution when so many of its alumni reflect that their time there was some of the happiest and most formative in their lives. We should seek to preserve that good.” DM

Categories:

Tags: