The Press TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1956. Apartheid in African Universities

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28130, 20 November 1956, Page 14

The Press TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1956. Apartheid in African Universities

Academic freedom and especially I the independence of the universities ■ have long been traditional in the Western world. During the colonial period, these rights were upheld by the European founders of new nations overseas. Now, however, the Nationalist Government of South Africa is seeking to impose apartheid, with its discrimination against non-whites, upon the open

universities of the Union. Four of South Africa’s nine universities are historically white. Rhodes University does not normally admit non-whites, and its associate college, Fort Hare, is predominantly nonEuropean; Natal University is segregated into sections for whites and non-whites. But at the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town—two of the largest in the country—segregation is not practised, except in an agreed allocation of white and non-white medical students as between the two faculties. This system, though it satisfies the student body and responsible educationists, does not please the South African Government,. The Minister of Education (Mr Viljoen) recently told a party congress that legislation to enforce university apartheid would possibly be introduced at the next session of Parliament, opening in January, 1957. This announcement has prompted teachers and students to reiterate their opposition to the Government’s interference with university freedom. The National Union of South African Students, which speaks for 10,000 members, has supported the Students’ Representative Councils of the two open universities in an appeal for world endorsement of their stand against forced apartheid. “ None of the “ arguments against the open “ universities has been borne out in “ fact, and the universities are “ defending their right to admit “non-whites as students with every “ means in their power ”, says a joint statement by the union and the councils.

Though heavily subsidised by the Government, the universities are autonomous. Throughout South Africa, there are about 20,000 fulltime students, 1000 of them nonwhite. About 200 non-whites, or 5 per cent, of the student body, study at each of the open universities—this in a country with a white population of 2,750,000 and nearly 10.250,000 non-whites. Since its foundation in 1909, the University of the Witwatersrand has nevei practised segregation; the University of Cape Town has been open to all races at least since the early 1900’s. Non-segregation was repeatedly endorsed by staff, students, and parents. Dr. Malan, on becoming Prime Minister in 1948, immediately charged the open universities with causing racial friction and educational nonconformity. Between 1948 and 1950, in the teeth of students’ and teachers’ opposition, the Government introduced administrative changes to restrict the pitifully small intake of non-white students at the open universities. In December, 1953, it appointed the Holloway Commission to report on the practicability of providing separate university training for nonAfter taking evidence from university administrators, staff, and students throughout the country, the commission reported in February, 1955, that apartheid in the South African universities was financially and practically unfeasible. But the Government was still not satisfied; in November, 1955, four public servants were constituted an inter-departmental committee to reexamine the matter, and to consider a proposal, already rejected by the Holloway Commission, to establish segregated tribal colleges for nonwhite groups. The committtee’s report is not yet available, but, according to the National Students’ Union, the universities must expect apartheid legislation early next year.

Students and staff at the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town have met the Government’s apartheid campaign with two main arguments; first, enforcement of apartheid against the clearlyexpressed wishes of the universities would violate in the grossest manner the independence of those universities; and, second, non-segregation is not only workable, but serves the best interests of South African University education. The student representatives are commendably aw’are of the menace of State control to freedom of thought and expression; they rightly oppose the implied threat of indoctrination, and conformity to a political ideology. Also, on humanitarian as well as economic and practical grounds, they fear that complete isolation of non-white university training will result in inferior educational opportunities and facilities for non-whites, creating an impassable gulf between European and non-European students. After recalling that segregated universities are often noted for their extreme and bigoted nationalism, the Union of Students, in its appeal for world support of its policy, says: “ The open universi- “ ties have made a notable contri- “ bution to better race relations in “ South Africa. . . . Any move which

“ prevents this contact between “ students and staff of different races “at the open universities must be “ seen as a threat to racial peace in “ South Africa and eventually the “ whole continent Though they have shown no compunction in fomenting racial hatreds, the South African Ministers appear, until recently, to have had misgivings about interfering with the open universities. In 1951, the Minister of Education categorically rejected a suggestion that apartheid should be forced upon them by legislation. But in July this year the same Minister said that “ the provision of “ separate facilities is the declared “ policy of the Government ”, and refused to receive a deputation to discuss the question. It is to be hoped that, at this late hour, student pressure, added to expert educational and ethnological opinion, will sway the Government from a policy which seems fatal to true scholarship, and, indeed, to elemental decency.