The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 23, 1957. Apartheid Exposes Itself

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28234, 23 March 1957, Page 10

The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 23, 1957. Apartheid Exposes Itself

Fewer than 500 non-white, students will be affected by the South African Government’s proposal to compel the Universities of Cape Town and Witwatersrand to admit only white students. Against the melancholy background of political, Social, and economic injustice to twice as many millidns in South Africa, this may seem a small matter. It is, in fact, one of the meanest and most foolish products of the apartheid philosophy. Its enforcement will damage not only the few nonwhite students who have overcome tremendous handicaps to win admission to these famous universities on the same academic conditions as students lucky enough to have the privilege of white skins; it will damage also the universities and their white students by breaching academic freedom and denying them the right of free association with cultured minds. It will eliminate one of the few meeting-points that can encourage co-operation among the various racial groups of South Africa. Finally, it will more clearly expose apartheid as a bogus policy, adopted by Nationalist politicians, on the most charitable construction, in self-delusion. The administrations, teachers, and students of the two open

universities have combined to oppose this attack on their freedom. In “The Open Uni- “ versities in South Africa ”, recently published by the Witwatersrand University Press, they have made an appeal to the South African conscience not less moving because of its studied moderation. The case

is simply this: that no government should interfere with the right of a university to determine itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. “ The Times ” has commented: “Academic “freedom is the very keystone •of the arch of liberty. If a * university is not free to •dispense learning to whom it •will and to draw upon every •source to enrich its store of • knowledge, then liberty of •thought is denied in its inner-

“most sanctuary, and there is “no ultimate protection against “ complete tyranny over the “ mind ”. The open universities say that this liberty of thought will be denied to white teachers and white students as much as to black students. The resentment African and Asian peoples will feel against the slamming of yet another door in their faces can be imagined. It will do nothing to lessen the tension that feeds the fears of the Nationalists. If segregation in the universities also gives Nationalist voters a bad conscience it would not be

surprising. Theoretically, the educational needs of non-whites are to be met by “ parallel ” universities, a new version of the old fallacy of “separate but “ equal ” facilities which was given up in other fields by specific legislation in 1953. This provided that separate facilities need not be similar in character, standard, or quality. Even if the physical facilities of the proposed non-white universities were equal to those at Cape Town or Witwatersrand, there would be no equality. Because the right of choice is denied, “ separate education facilities “ are inherently unequal ”, in the words of the famous,

unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court. Even giving the South African Government credit for better intentions than its actions imply, are “ parallel ” or separate facilities likely to be physically equal? The Holloway Commission, appointed by the Nationalist Government to help it on this very point, reported that separation of the universities was financially impracticable and therefore it did no* go fully into costs. “ The Opel “ Universities in South Africa ’ estimates that the capital cos of small, separate universities for a total of 1000 student: would be about £ 4000 a student and that the annual expenditure would be much more thar £345 a student. Are ths defenders of white supremacj really prepared to spend monej so freely, or is it to be a cast of all students being equal but of some being less equal thar others?