The memories of xenophobic labeling are still fresh from December 14 2009 when, at the Kempton Park taxi rank on my way to the Johannesburg CBD, I was refused admission into a public taxi because of my inability to answer a question posed to me in Isizulu. Having spent four years of my life conducting research that will enhance South Africa’s knowledge base and studying under despicable, torturous conditions for a degree for which Wits University will receive about half a million in government subsidy when it is completed, I have never felt so unwanted in any clime, talkless of home—in Africa. This personal experience pushed me into a reflection on the conceptual meaning of xenophobia. Having only been verbally brutalized without any shed of physical violence to my person, it became apparent to me that xenophobia has to be encoded beyond just the physical: it can be either verbal, written or physical. The incidents in Alexandra and other townships in Gauteng and the Western Cape where foreign nationals were brutalized, their homes burnt to ashes, and their shops looted are an expression of physical xenophobia. Xenophobia can therefore be ambiguously defined as the normalization of discriminatory measures, policies or practice, whose effects affect people differently based on national lines. In this regard, any university or institutional policy which differentiates on nationalistic lines or treats non-nationals as sub-human beings is guilty of written xenophobia, irrespective of the wit used to justify its policies. It is not uncommon to find that outrageous practices get not only biblical but scholarly justification in South Africa. For several decades, the country was subjected to the apartheid regime which justified its discriminatory policies with carefully chosen bible verses.
For many intellectuals, xenophobia is a practice which is perpetrated by people who do not know the value of foreign skilled immigrants or who have not schooled abroad and received the hospitality that persons of certain climes had to offer. They contemplate that such a practice is prototype of the townships or normal in the taxi ranks where survival of the fittest is at its optimal. To them, the foreign ‘hustler’ is often the prime suspect of any outlawed practice (theft, rape, murder, etc…), ensuing largely from the locals’ intuitive perception that their social and economic condition (no jobs, inadequate accommodation, overcrowding at school, etc) is caused by the presence of foreign nationals.
This widespread (mis)conception amongst intellectuals which is deeply rooted in several academic circles inhibits profound reflection on the contribution of colleges and universities in fighting against the nefarious xenophobic resentment to which foreign nationals in South Africa are subjected. The consequence of this is that the inadequate resource pandemic which has gripped tertiary institutions has created a caveat for academic boards (University Councils and Chancelleries) to condone discriminate policies which justify why foreign students should be charged excessively high tuition and other fees than their local counterparts with whom they share similar lecture rooms, laboratories, libraries and study space.
It has to be stated that most, if not all, South African universities charge foreign nationals more fees than they do local students, under the pretext that its done all over the world. The Wits vice chancellery contemplates that local students’ education is subsidized by government, hence the decision to charge local students less fees to make up the balance from government subsidy. While hypothesizing that xenophobic violence which is brewed in the townships is familiar to many, this article engages a conceptual reflection of non-violent xenophobia which is virally incubated in South African tertiary institutions. The article further reflects on the substantive merit of South African universities’ discriminatory policies which categorise students into ‘ours’ for local students and ‘them’ for foreign students.
In frowning against the xenophobic violence perpetrated by township dwellers, academic institutions took to the streets in May 2008 in what has come to be known as anti-xenophobic protest matches. In my opinion, however, the protest match was hypocritical because it was not preceded by a necessary self-examination in which the protesters reflected deeply on whether they were morally blameless to carry the torchlight or to stand on the pulpit and preach anti-xenophobic sermons. The same institutions which perpetrate discriminatory policies against students, with the most lynching of such policies targeted at foreign students, carried placards which read “NO TO XENOPHOBIA!”, “XENOPHOBIA = RACISM” etc… Perhaps to these ones, their justifications for discriminatory policies can win blessings in certain corridors, but certainly not from persons who still believe in the equality of all humans and the universality of the right to education.
The guilty South African institutions have ceaselessly remained blinded to the fact that government subsidy is derived from taxes. In South Africa, nationals and non-nationals all pay taxes and everyone irrespective of age contributes to VAT when (s)he effects a payment at any registered service shop in the country. The contribution in taxes by everyone, including foreign students who take part-time duties in the country, accounts for part of government revenue which is used to subsidise education in the country. It will therefore be unreasonable to contemplate that the latter (foreign nationals and student taxpayers) should be side-lined from benefitting from that which their tax contribution provides.
More so, it is public knowledge that South African universities derive certain defined amounts from government for any one postgraduate student they graduate. This amount does not differentiate local from international or foreign students. So, why do universities charge foreign students exorbitant amounts or three times what local students will pay for some universities? Reflecting on the country’s labour force which is in dire need of skilled professionals in the fields of engineering, science and technology, it is apt to point out that about two-thirds of postgraduate students at South African tertiary institutions are foreign students. These are the cornerstone of South Africa’s potential to compete adequately with the international community of skilled professionals. De-incentivising access to studies for foreign students often thirsty for knowledge which their own countries cannot provide due to inadequate facilities is a substantive setback to a country (South Africa) which aspires to grow postgraduate numbers as a means of filling the skills shortage in the country, a country once maimed by apartheid which disenfranchised the majority of its population and prevented large numbers of blacks from attaining higher education levels.
It should also be noted that universities have not only been home to written xenophobia as depicted through the discriminatory fee structuring above, but have equally been home to non-negligible verbal xenophobic protests, as evident in 2004 when a lead local student political movement – the Progressive Youth Alliance – chanted hymns of “AWAY WITH NIGERIANS, AWAY” after an inquiry was made by the then Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment on the abuse of funds by a South African university lecturer. The said Dean, being a Nigerian, was booed by an organized mass of students who chanted and danced on campus, requesting the expulsion of Nigerians and their foreign counterparts from the university!
If we acknowledge that xenophobia can be verbal, physical or written, then we can conclude that it is brewed at South African universities, processed in the townships and consummated by certain forces of law and order which watched in silence and with smiles as foreign nationals burnt to ashes after the Diepsloot xenophobic outburst of May 11, 2008. Saddening though and most painful is the fact that xenophobia in South Africa, whether in universities or in the townships, often targets the African. Where have ubuntu and ujama gone?
For many intellectuals, xenophobia is a practice which is perpetrated by people who do not know the value of foreign skilled immigrants or who have not schooled abroad and received the hospitality that persons of certain climes had to offer. They contemplate that such a practice is prototype of the townships or normal in the taxi ranks where survival of the fittest is at its optimal. To them, the foreign ‘hustler’ is often the prime suspect of any outlawed practice (theft, rape, murder, etc…), ensuing largely from the locals’ intuitive perception that their social and economic condition (no jobs, inadequate accommodation, overcrowding at school, etc) is caused by the presence of foreign nationals.
This widespread (mis)conception amongst intellectuals which is deeply rooted in several academic circles inhibits profound reflection on the contribution of colleges and universities in fighting against the nefarious xenophobic resentment to which foreign nationals in South Africa are subjected. The consequence of this is that the inadequate resource pandemic which has gripped tertiary institutions has created a caveat for academic boards (University Councils and Chancelleries) to condone discriminate policies which justify why foreign students should be charged excessively high tuition and other fees than their local counterparts with whom they share similar lecture rooms, laboratories, libraries and study space.
It has to be stated that most, if not all, South African universities charge foreign nationals more fees than they do local students, under the pretext that its done all over the world. The Wits vice chancellery contemplates that local students’ education is subsidized by government, hence the decision to charge local students less fees to make up the balance from government subsidy. While hypothesizing that xenophobic violence which is brewed in the townships is familiar to many, this article engages a conceptual reflection of non-violent xenophobia which is virally incubated in South African tertiary institutions. The article further reflects on the substantive merit of South African universities’ discriminatory policies which categorise students into ‘ours’ for local students and ‘them’ for foreign students.
In frowning against the xenophobic violence perpetrated by township dwellers, academic institutions took to the streets in May 2008 in what has come to be known as anti-xenophobic protest matches. In my opinion, however, the protest match was hypocritical because it was not preceded by a necessary self-examination in which the protesters reflected deeply on whether they were morally blameless to carry the torchlight or to stand on the pulpit and preach anti-xenophobic sermons. The same institutions which perpetrate discriminatory policies against students, with the most lynching of such policies targeted at foreign students, carried placards which read “NO TO XENOPHOBIA!”, “XENOPHOBIA = RACISM” etc… Perhaps to these ones, their justifications for discriminatory policies can win blessings in certain corridors, but certainly not from persons who still believe in the equality of all humans and the universality of the right to education.
The guilty South African institutions have ceaselessly remained blinded to the fact that government subsidy is derived from taxes. In South Africa, nationals and non-nationals all pay taxes and everyone irrespective of age contributes to VAT when (s)he effects a payment at any registered service shop in the country. The contribution in taxes by everyone, including foreign students who take part-time duties in the country, accounts for part of government revenue which is used to subsidise education in the country. It will therefore be unreasonable to contemplate that the latter (foreign nationals and student taxpayers) should be side-lined from benefitting from that which their tax contribution provides.
More so, it is public knowledge that South African universities derive certain defined amounts from government for any one postgraduate student they graduate. This amount does not differentiate local from international or foreign students. So, why do universities charge foreign students exorbitant amounts or three times what local students will pay for some universities? Reflecting on the country’s labour force which is in dire need of skilled professionals in the fields of engineering, science and technology, it is apt to point out that about two-thirds of postgraduate students at South African tertiary institutions are foreign students. These are the cornerstone of South Africa’s potential to compete adequately with the international community of skilled professionals. De-incentivising access to studies for foreign students often thirsty for knowledge which their own countries cannot provide due to inadequate facilities is a substantive setback to a country (South Africa) which aspires to grow postgraduate numbers as a means of filling the skills shortage in the country, a country once maimed by apartheid which disenfranchised the majority of its population and prevented large numbers of blacks from attaining higher education levels.
It should also be noted that universities have not only been home to written xenophobia as depicted through the discriminatory fee structuring above, but have equally been home to non-negligible verbal xenophobic protests, as evident in 2004 when a lead local student political movement – the Progressive Youth Alliance – chanted hymns of “AWAY WITH NIGERIANS, AWAY” after an inquiry was made by the then Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment on the abuse of funds by a South African university lecturer. The said Dean, being a Nigerian, was booed by an organized mass of students who chanted and danced on campus, requesting the expulsion of Nigerians and their foreign counterparts from the university!
If we acknowledge that xenophobia can be verbal, physical or written, then we can conclude that it is brewed at South African universities, processed in the townships and consummated by certain forces of law and order which watched in silence and with smiles as foreign nationals burnt to ashes after the Diepsloot xenophobic outburst of May 11, 2008. Saddening though and most painful is the fact that xenophobia in South Africa, whether in universities or in the townships, often targets the African. Where have ubuntu and ujama gone?
No comments:
Post a Comment