Decolonizing the Curriculum: Workshop at the University of Johannesburg

Cheryl Hendrick's opening address

A successful workshop was held at the University of Johannesburg on 24 May 2016, on the subject of decolonizing the curriculum. There were over 60 attendees from eight of the nine faculties as well as members from the Academic Development Services and Academic Planning. A more detailed report is at the end of this posting and two slide presentations are posted below. The debate was lively and there was clearly a passion for the topic amongst many there, as well as a sense of lack of clarity from some quarters, about what we are doing, or about

Vanessa Merckel spoke about the pedagogical implications

how we understand colonization in the first place.  Cheryl Hendricks, chair of the decolonising the curriculum task team, gave a very useful lead-in presentation. Each faculty present shared what they are doing, and it is clear that there have been many discussions, some formal and some informal, about how to decolonize the curriculum. There were also examples of good practice, for example the need to engage in discussion with students in smaller groups, to give a greater variety of voices to emerge. Points made repeatedly were that this is not just about changing content, but about power relations as well. Many felt strongly that the issue of global competitiveness and chasing global rankings inhibits the decolonization process. Many of the colleagues also made the point that to decolonise the curriculum requires engagement with other role-players, especially the international professional  associations that have a strong influence on some of the more professionally-oriented programs, but in addition, with community members or workers.

Hendricks workshop on decolonising the curriculum may 24 2016 from Brenda Leibowitz

An issue that was returned to many times in the morning, is that 'local' and 'contextual' applies just as much to engineering and accountancy as it does to the humanities, and some wonderful examples were given for example of how even something like a turnstile is typically designed with a certain prototype (white, male) in mind. The issue of race and color came up, with some saying that we should be prepared to talk hard and robustly with others, and others saying that referring to race makes it personal. We should be able to participate in robust debate and hear comments about the evils of the past and present institutioal practices, without taking them personally. Likewise there was a discussion about the fact that this is not an easy conversation, and one should be prepared for tension and contestation. The group were asked whether they think some kind of guiding document would be useful, and it was interesting that many participants indicated that this would be useful, although what exactly the shape such a document would take, is not clear, since there is a permanent tension between 'decolonizing' and unwittingly returning to colonising behaviour. In an interesting  presentation by Bongani Mashaba from academic development, he shared his own previous experiences as a student from Mpumalanga. He was affirming a point made by several students in previous forums at the university, that  much of the current unease from students is about a lack of recognition of who they are and what they experience. Further meetings at the University will be to generate a Charter, and views of this workshop were recorded to inform future processes.

Van rooyen decolonising the curriculum may 2016 from Brenda Leibowitz

Here is a more detailed report on the workshop, by Razia Mayet:

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

REPORT ON WORKSHOP ON DECOLONISATION OF THE CURRICULUM

Tuesday 24^th May 2016

SESSION 1 : Setting the Scene

Cheryl Hendricks and Brenda Leibowitz opened the proceedings. They set the scene with the following reminders.

1.     That there was no set definition of decolonization. That the definitions were wide and varied and encompassed everything from social justice, black thought, indigenous knowledge, Africanisation, social justice and many others.

2.     That the terrain is deeply contested and deeply political; and that even the process has been likened by some colleagues to a type of colonization.

3.     That we must all ask ourselves whether we want to be here. It should be a collective move and is preferably not one where people are doing it out of compliance.

       1. That there are no templates on how to do it.

 2. That there was a nationwide drive to start the conversation but there was also contestation     

       about who owns these conversations.

 3. What is becoming clear is that decolonization intrudes into the terrain between the

       individual academic and what is being taught. How can we as lecturers influence that private             space?

  4. At the outset we know that  there is no straight road and it is not always an easy discussion.     The   debate is vibrant in all South African universities and faculties.

OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE TASK TEAM

Cheryl gave an overview of the work of the Ad Hoc senate task teams on the decolonization of knowledge. (Refer to power point presentation for details)

4 task teams were formed. They are tasked with the following:

Diversity ; institutional culture and tradition

Decolonization of knowledge

Protest and academic freedom

Promotion of staff and student access

The task teams have hosted a series of panel discussions that address the meaning of, and methodology for, decolonizing knowledge, teaching and learning at UJ.   5 panel discussions were planned:

What do we mean by decolonization of knowledge?

 Is knowledge universal?

Best practices for the decolonisation of knowledge

The relationship between and social justice and decolonization

 The thorny issue of language usage at universities.

The intention was to have as wide a debate as possible on these issues at the university (at all the campuses). But, these have primarily been attended by students and so they remain the ones who are engaged on the topic, yet it is academics that have to be at the forefront of changing their curricula. This disjuncture between student demands and  the extent of the staff response does not bode well for the university. Academic staff are urged to attend and participate.

In the ensuing discussion by the attendees, the following points were raised.

·       Is the decolonization debate only for academics? What about non academics and support staff?

·       Have the panel discussions been documented? How does one access them?

·       Thinking should go beyond student/ teaching/learning. How do we challenge current thinking?

·       No one owns the debate, but the former colonized have the first word and should be listened to

·       Globalization does not equal excellence. This must be interrogated. Rankings are part of the colonial experience.

·       Do we understand what we are decolonizing? As higher education institutions started moving towards transforming, they lost sight of certain important things and thus students are protesting.

·       Decolonization is a very broad concept and different people have different understandings of it.

·       At UJ, what are we decolonizing to? Is there a roadmap?

Cheryl responded by reminding the delegates that the Decolonization Task Team was in the process of developing a charter. The charter will be the initial roadmap/principle. The charter will represent the academics, workers, support staff and students. There will be planned workshops for academics on pedagogical and epistemological concerns linked to the curriculum. We would like to share experiences, understand challenges and concerns and develop a set of guiding principles and values to underpin our academic endeavour. We want to raise the issue of ‘how did we get here’, and ‘ what do we need’ and ‘how to get there’. All of this will happen on all four campuses.

 She responded to the other issues raised by saying:

The point is raised that we the children of the decolonised should be leading the debate. But we should be listening as well. The issues are not new. They are being raised since the 70s and 80s.

Africa is part of the global. Why do we see the debate as Africa vs the Global?

Africanization does not exclude the world.

What are we decolonizing to? Well we in South Africa have a different type of decolonization. We relate more to the Latin American thinkers who think in terms of coloniality. It encompasses all social relations, attitudes, behaviour, and as Ngugi says, the decolonizing the mind.

SESSION 2 : FACULTY INPUTS ON DECOLONISATION OF KNOWLEDGE

FEBE

The FEBE rep started of by saying ‘Gravity is Gravity” and ‘Science is Science”. He said there was an urgent need for students to feel ownership of the curriculum. The inherent conflict remained as the “ local vs international”. Engineering SA is a signatory to National and International Engineering bodies. There was unstructured debate with faculty members and student representatives. There was also a need to engage with industry partners and advisory boards. An essay competition was planned on decolonization so students could engage with the topic and staff could look for patterns in what students are saying. Febe doesn’t feel the need for a universal road map, but some snippet and more open engagement was needed.

FEFS

A committee has been constituted to give feedback on what the rest of the university is doing.

The questions that need to be asked are  Is Economics universal?

Is there an African way of looking at this?

 The Department of Accounting is revisiting its strategy and re-looking at their research options.

The Faculty is open and willing to learn

HUMANITIES

The faculty held a full day of engagement and are in the process of inviting guests to engage them further. It is not formal, but meetings are taking place about the way forward. Staff and students must engage on a broader level. There is a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty among students.

The way forward that is envisaged is how to channel the informal meetings and marginal voices into the larger stream of the debate.

SCIENCE

There was discussion around the issues but students were not fully aware. The Geography lecturer  offers room for research around these issues. The Deans Committee meeting in August will take it forward to the 13 departments in Science. With regard to the way forward, Prof Ballim has been invited to faculty board meeting to raise further issues for discussion.

EDUCATION

Decolonization is regarded as a very important issue in the Faculty of Education, as a turning point in history. In 1994 universities restructured. But now in 2015 the students have expressed their concerns. The faculty has pursued discussion and participated in Teaching and Learning activities with academics from other institutions, for example Andre Keet from UFS who presented an insightful discussion on “knowledge systems as othering”. The SOTL for social justice group meeting/seminars have been held over two years. A meeting was arranged with a student group called “Black Thought”. Odora Hoppers engaged some staff in a discussion on cognitive justice. It is a global challenge. Discussion was taken to a conference in Europe. Students are engaged in discussions on Human Rights and Social Justice on excursions. Study Guides are revised and readings are more authentic. Enquiry based discussion is ongoing.

MANAGEMENT

Under and post graduate students are invited to share views. Business Management is concerned about competition and how it could effect South Africa. The discussions are on Pan African vs International universities; Local Excellence vs International Excellence. Business case studies are also reflected. The aim is to show that Africa must not be the ball in the game but the player in the game. Q S Rankings are counter productive.

HEALTH SCIENCES

The main challenge is that Health Science is a very regulated sector, prescribed by both national and international regulatory bodies. Does everything require decolonization? Or is it a about questioning how we implement things and how we communicate and how we teach.?

This debate must represent a way forward. It mustn’t be a ‘flavour of the month’. It must be finding yourself in the domain and examining our mind sets, a Pan African footprint in health.

FADA

The FADA rep started by quoting from the UJ mission statement about being ‘Anchored in Africa’

He spoke of establishing democratically elected Teaching and Learning committees that are democratically elected.

A survey at FADA showed that each department is in a different place. The faculty meeting on 8 June will move the discussion forward. Decolonization and Social Justice cannot be separated. The Teaching and Learning committee is developing FYE and SSE with that in mind. Fees must fall and Decolonization are themes in the 2017 conference. There is a student led panel in FADA, so students will lead the discussion in August. Globalization has to be kept in mind. A question was asked in a forum about why internationally the top schools are all in the UK. A delegate answered that the decolonization debate was more advanced in Europe. This was a serious issue that really needs to be interrogated.

SHARING PRACTICE

Carina van Rooyen

“Anthropology is the handmaiden of colonialism”

Carina said that she is very aware of her privileges as a white South African but was also completely committed to change. She quoted Torres’ definition of Decoloniality  and  Mbembe’s assertion that there were two sides to the decolonization coin: thecritique and the alternative. Ngugi called it a decentering and a recentering.

She quoted Ngugi that decolonization is not a project  of rejecting but redefining.

Four points of departure.

·       Curriculum is not transformational or decolonization, it is reformist or liberal if it is chasing rankings.

·       Decolonization is not an event

·       Decolonisation is about engaging epistemic disobedience

·       Curriculum is a site of contestation

The 3 key aspects were content, structure and process. Content relates to what we do, not just knowledge but values and skills. Syllabi that are designed for apartheid are still in use today. Structure requires us to question  why degrees are structured the way they are and process requires us to question what we inherited. Does it make sense for us here and now? Content and context are related. Contexts vary. There is the ADDING ON APPROACH or CONTRA PUNCTUAL analysis. Knowledge is not a fait accompli but a contested and contextual arena.

Decoloniality is not equal to Africanisation (Fanon). We need to take back our knowledges. There is ‘power to’ and VS’ power over’.

What are the epistemologies and ontologies that inform our curriculum?

Carina referred us to the theory of posthumanism  and to a book on Inter-species collaboration and ecologies. She concluded by saying “Stay with the trouble: the ongoing, the troubling, stay with it”.

Bongani Mashaba

Decolonization is not a final product. It’s not personal. It’s about recognition.S tudents want recognition. We give the impression that beyond western knowledge there is nothing. Yet before 1652 South Africa had a powerful education past and present.

How do we teach the knowledges in our context?

Do we recognize our students’ backgrounds?

How do we bridge our context with the world?

We don’t have to change the curriculum, but we can put it in our own contexts. Interrogate your practice. Does it speak to the students we have?

Vanessa Merkel

Politeness can go into falseness.

These dialogues are painful but we must go on. We have to be argumentative.

Epistemic promiscuity: There is something to be learnt from everyone. Keep looking. Keep asking. It’s messy.

Decolonization is a “becoming”. It’s a journey we have embarked on. There is no roadmap.

We problematise the knowledge of the west but at the same time we should not romanticise Africa. What about patriarchy and heteronormativity?

WHAT’S LACKING

We have an obsession with the ‘cognitive’. What about the discursive, our bodies, our relationships, our hearts? All of these facilitate learning.

Violence and disruption can change things. Look at the nexus between LOVE and REVOLUTION

Assessment is profoundly about decolonization. How we assess is a site of the decolonization debate

Thea De Wet

She was tasked with her unit by the VC to develop a suite of short courses for students that are non-credit bearing, on line and free. Examples are:

Cyber Citizenship

Critical brief history of Southern Africa

African Socio-Political thought in the past 150 years

The Universe, Near us and Far Away; An African view

Where do I come from?

Indigenous Poetry

African Choral Music

Mapungubwe

Sophiatown

Nyasha Mboti

The Science and Economics that we offer perpetuate colonial knowledge systems. We make it seem that there is no other way of looking at the issues. “Who is ‘Joe Omnibus’?” aka the reasonable man. Who is he based on? Is he white, male, middle aged? He gave examples from Engineering for example the design of a turnstile which is designed with a person of a particular height or shape in mind,  the same with the budgeting we teach: how does this compare with the experiences of students regarding the use of money or saving?

We work in paradigms that hide their inherent privilege and racism.

GENERAL DISCUSSION and FEEDBACK FROM ATTENDEES

Group 1

It is important to be familiar with the students’ contexts. Students must bring their knowledges especially the previously marginalised. We have to make Africa matter. Showcase Africa as the place to learn from.

Group 2

We are here in Africa and in universities. We assume that lecturers are teachers. But they are not. They are content specialists. There is nothing wrong with the content of the curriculum. It’s our attitude that must change.

Group 3

Framework for different streams of thinking:

·       Knowledge is never free

·       Relevant examples must be included

·       Do the lecturers have experience of the contextualized knowledges of their students if they come from different backgrounds?

How do we go beyond the book when we don’t have the experience?

Should students dictate the content?

Student engagement – where must their voices be heard?

Science has limits away from popular epistemologies.

Contextual knowledge is a low level skill. What about abstract knowledges?

 Group 4.

Whatever knowledge one has is context-based. Theory informs practice informs theory.

Knowledge is not only specialized. What about anecdotal evidence?

Group 5

Contextualising in the class is a challenge as the classes are so diverse.

Our engagements are not reflected in our assessments.

Cultural sensitivity is important.

Group 6

Represent contexts.

Scientific terms vs the vernacular language is an issue.

Humanities vs Hard Science is another issue,

Group 7

We agree about cultural sensitivity.

Scientific terminology and hiding behind these principles is cosmetic.

“Othering”

Decolonization seems revolutionary.

 Which sensitivities and sensibilities must be molly-coddled and which must be broken down violently?

When you take students on the knowledge journey a transfer takes place. Students experience it and then make it their own.

Decoloniality is not polite, it’s uncomfortable. It’s rage. It’s emotions. It’s discomfort.

WRAP-UP  by Cheryl Hendricks

“Whoever is in the room are the right people to be here”

We are undertaking this to learn and share and develop

We hope that these discussions will be a triggerpoint for you to move ahead.

ENGAGE                  ACT                    TRANSFORM

Razia Mayet

Book Review: The Social Politics of Research Collaboration - Review by Brenda Leibowitz

The Social Politics of Research Collaboration

Eds Gabriele Griffin, Katarina Hamberg and Britta Lundgren

2013

Routledge

Within the context of research on social justice, research collaboration is important, and the manner in which the research is conducted, and in which the research team organises itself, is of equal concern. If anyone is interested in the social politics of research collaboration, either as the object of research and theorising about it, or in order to understand how to plan for collaborative research, the edited volume, The Social Politics of Research Collaboraiton is extremely valuable. I have been involved in several collaborative research projects, some of which have been interdisciplinary. I’ve been involved as a team member and a team leader, and have been involved in writing up some of this experience (Leibowitz et al. 2012; Leibowitz, Ndebele and Winberg, 2014).  I was not aware, however, how much has been written on this subject! This book brings a whole new set of insights, using a variety of perspectives (Bourdieu on symbolic capital; boundary work and knowledge transfer; Mol on ontological politics; Yuval-Davis on transversal politics) and with references to a large source of writings on research collaboration

The book is the result of a five-year research grant where a large group of researchers came together to “co-conduct research on gender in relation to health, violence, normalization, emotions, and democracy and justice” (as summarised in the acknowledgements). I can’t work out how big the team was, but it was interdisciplinary and had five theme teams, each with a sub-project team leader.  It was also cross-institutional and cross-national. It is the sister companion to a book entitled The Emotional Politics of Research Collaboration, also Routledge (2013). An important point made in the book The Social Politics of Research Collaboration is that the research method and the social processes involved require consideration, ‘the political implications of research should be considered not only in relation to methodology but also in the context of research organization’ (p. 76).

The book covers a range of perspectives and is written by individuals occupying diverse positions such as project leaders, sub-project leaders and senior students. What makes the book even more interesting is that the writers are in some cases very practical, in some cases quite theoretical, sometimes self-reflective, and in other cases, highly critical about research cultures in universities in particular in Scandinavia.

Topics of interest include:

• Leadership as formal, diffused and collective, all possible within the same project (p. 30)
• Having an interdisciplinary team might imply different leadership styles and different expectations of leaders (p. 40)
• The difference between transactional leadership (focusing on goals and standards) and transformational leadership (stimulating the interest and ability of co-workers and maintaining criticality about one’s role and context) (pp. 47 - 48)
• In a multi-institutional project, there are challenges associated with researchers’ having to work with the rules of their own institutions.
• Participation in cross-national research is extremely valuable for one’s own research profile, but also challenging, “Nation-states differ along historical-cultural, socioeconomic, and political dimensions, which all have an impact on contemporary social-scientific analysis” (p.65).
• The tensions of ‘getting a voice’, which involves working within the structures of power, and the dangers of this for a feminist research project (p. 101).
• Working across disciplines (eg public health or physiotherapy) and gender studies is important for challenging one’s own assumptions (p.136) and for practical understandings of how to manage health management issues, and it ensures research ‘robustness’ but it is tricky, as it often implies having to work across epistemological as well as ontological positions (p. 121).
• As an individual, working across disciplines can be challenging as it can lead to a sense of not belonging anywhere (p. 126) or a superficial mastery of several bodies of knowledge and languages, “Single researchers’ demanding ‘paradigm trips’ within more or less supportive environments including their facing of ‘paradigm clashes’ need to be made visible and acknowledged’ (p. 121) – this one I could identify with personally, given my experience working across academic development/teaching and learning in higher education, academic literacy and post-structuralism, critical realism and more recently, posthumanism!
• There is much value in having advisory boards and critical friends, but their roles and functions need to be carefully defined, and should not be confused with the power dynamics caused by actual friendship relationships with some members of the research team – this can be very corrosive (pp. 148 – 154).
• With research projects that have to be carefully formulated for funders andthat have to stipulate goals well in advance, the danger is  that there is no space for experimentation and exploration in the setting up phase (p. 168) leading to ‘reflexive blindness towards the development of new domains of gender research’ (p. 170). One has to decide when a research project is becoming too straitjacketing, and when to move on (p. 171).

Some of the practical issues I read about included:

• Being a team leader requires leadership skills, not just research excellence skills (p. 40)
• Leadership can be learnt, and research leadership requires tolerance of ambiguity and complexity (p. 42)
• Having a steering group (in this case consisting of the leaders of the sub-project) (p. 31) and having staged and interrelated meetings (p. 30)
• The importance, in an interdisciplinary project, of trust in researchers’ specialised knowledge and competence and as a corollary, of “being open towards and trusting others’ expertise” (p. 33)
• One should discuss role allocation upfront (not just as a tickbox activity) (p. 44)
• Establish written groundrules for the collaboration and have regular and repeated space to come together to reflect on the research process; revisit the groundrules regularly and if necessary, reformulate them; set up rules for conflict resolution in advance (p.50)
• Acknowledge participants’ different backgrounds and subjecitivities but don’t assume this should lead to particular behaviour patterns, “Respecting that we come from different backgrounds, and at the same time not accepting that that would legitimate nonattentive nonlistening, this is ethical complexity in everyday (interdisciplinary) work” (p. 100) – this on the basis of a discussion on situatedness, where the author, who writes about being male in feminist research project, Anders Johansson, quotes Yuval-Davis: “there is no direct causal relationship between the situatedness of people’s gaze and their cognitive, emotional and moral perspectives on life” (Yuval-Davis, 2011, 7).
• Be wary of seeing various intellectual positions as inferior or superior to others – for example theoretical research as more valued than applied research (p. 123 - 125).
• Reciprocal interest and respect is a prerequisite for research collaboration (p. 124).
• Have a clearly articulated and shared vision (p. 128).

I am hoping that more and more people working in the field of educational research for social justice use collaborative approaches – this book is a valuable resource.

References

Leibowitz, B., Ndebele, C. and Winberg, C. (2014) The role of academic identity in collaborative research. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (7) 1256 - 1269.Leibowitz, B., Swartz, L., Bozalek, V., Carolissen, R., Nichols, L. and Rohleder, P. Eds. (2012) Community, self and identity: Educating South African university students for citizenship. HSRC Pres

Decolonizing the Curriculum and Social Justice - Panel of 11 May2016 (entry by Razia Mayet)

The 4th panel discussion in the series on the Decolonizing the curriculum, Teaching and Learning at UJ was entitled WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE DECOLONIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE? The panel was as diverse as it was thought provoking. The panel was made up of a trendy, forward thinking lady advocate and Section 27 activist; a post graduate law student from the UJ SRC ; an ex politician who ran for cover  from politics into academia and a sage, deeply reflective professor. Each brought his/her personal conviction and signature style to the discussion.

Tobia Serongoane was the youngest and he got to start. He questioned the following: In what way does the current education system honour indigenous perspectives? What are we decolonizing to and where are we coming from in this debate? What insights has he gained from the Eurocentric education that he has on these matters?

He said that he refused to accept that decolonization was only about race or colour. But at the same time felt indoctrinated as he knows all about Nietzsche but nothing about his own people, their law systems and histories. In his law studies, even though they are in Africa, mainly American cases were used. Where are the African scholars? What are the African ways that will work for African issues?

 “What makes us unique as African when our curriculum reflects and copies western university?” He asked. He finds it puzzling that all scholarship reflects the authority of western authority and knowledge. Universities like UJ and Wits and UCT focus Research on Medicine, law and Science. But what about Agriculture which is Africa’s cornerstone. Tobia left us with the following consideration. Why has his entire education been framed like there are no women who played a role in the construction of knowledge and education?

Advocate Adila Hassim based her presentation on the right to education from a legal perspective. She stated that although the right to basic education was universally accepted in South Africa, access was still a contested arena. Pupils were denied access due to factors like nutrition, accommodation, infrastructure and lack of delivery of resources amongst others. She said that transformation must be driven by public participation and was a process and not a once off and that South Africans should not depend on the law to bring about transformation. South African law was a centuries-old system based on Roman Dutch law and couched in English tradition. However, the constitution was our own and unique in the world, as it protects the rights of all and also calls for substantive Equality and it is there that Social Justice is espoused in the law of South Africa. The nub of her presentation was based on the textbook case that the NGO Section 27 brought against the Limpopo Education Department for the non- delivery of textbooks. This landmark case showed that the constitution can work in the favour of pupils, teachers and parents. In 2012, the curriculum changed in schools to the CAPS system. All Grade 1,2,3 and 8 pupils were involved in the new curriculum, but no textbooks were delivered. 1.7 million Learners were affected in communities that were mostly poor rural areas with very limited infrastructure. Section 27 represented 39 schools and the applications were made on behalf of the learners, teachers and parents of these schools. Adila stressed that the rulings of the case were landmark rulings for South Africa and a victory for education as they clearly represented decolonization and social justice. Both judges agreed that we cannot be fully functional citizens without education. The judge in his opening statement of the ruling quoted the words of Fredrick Douglass an afro-America anti-slavery activist who said,  “once you learn to read you are forever free”.

Professor Sakhela Buhlungu started by saying that no one owns the decolonization debate. Students think it is theirs and don’t want academics to “pronounce and pontificate” about it. He accepts that in 2015 students forced it away from the fringe onto the national agenda by refusing symbolic change and calling for real change away from patriarchy and gender. Academics are quick to move into this new territory to get published, but how many really want social justice to take centre stage.  South Africa has had centuries of slavery and colonization but today we see no traces of either. Yet coloniality permeates every aspect of our lives and is reinforced through power and inequality and privilege. He expressed an uneasiness about what would happen once the student campaigns dissipate.” What then…?” he asked, “Will the project ever go into the deeper recesses of academia?” For example will it affect the way courses are planned, or which textbooks are prescribed and journals are subscribed to or whose knowledge/voice is relevant. The professor is deeply concerned by the fact that any move to decolonize the African university is seen as a move to dumb down the quality or standard of our university sector. He fears that decolonization will become a bandwagon to be jumped on or an intellectual fashion that is used by some to restore their tarnished credibility. I liked his contention that decolonization and social justice are two sides of the same coin. It is about dismantling coloniality and epistemologies of privilege and in so doing creating social justice. He concluded by referring to the ‘motive force’ behind decolonization and asking who has the power to run with it. Will it be the students, the academics or leadership of the institutions? He wryly observed that, “if no one has a vested interest in it, it will disappear”. 

 Mary Metcalf began by listing the barriers to social justice, as she perceives them. These are social exclusion; exclusion by poverty, exclusion by patriarchy, heteronormativity and barriers to language. She went on to raise the issue of what counts as knowledge; what promotes it; what denigrates it and what languages are valued. She quoted extensively from Ngugi on the impact of imperialism and colonialism to create a ‘wasteland’ of one’s own culture and struggle. Ngugi’s  ‘cultural bomb’ makes people want to disassociate themselves with themselves, and to associate themselves with other groups who are seen as good, moral and just. Ngugi referred to this as a ‘spiritual death’. Mary felt very strongly that those who “dichotomise the struggle” must be avoided. She drew on three dichotomies as examples. That firstly, decolonization is about excellence and those who try to relate decolonization to a ‘drop in standards’ should never be listened to. Secondly that the complexities of the debate on decolonization have to be updated. She used globalisation as an example of how the facts can be muddied if the arguments and contexts are not updated. Finally, she advised that the larger political issues have to be personalised and that names, languages, heritage are all key factors. She concluded by reminding us that, “no one owned the debate on decolonization and everyone has a role to play.”

The closing remarks of the panellists left us with much room for reflection. The professor agreed with the point made by the member of the audience that the debate was an old one started by Mafeje, Mamdani, Ngugi , Fanon, Biko and others. But he said that what was different now in South Africa was that the youth presented a challenge to the Mandela style of social contract for the reconciliation project. He also debunked the whole myth of “rankings”. As far as he was concerned, rankings entrenched ideas of privilege and excellence. Part of coloniality in South Africa was the way  South African Universities want to hold on to notions of ranking. 

The advocate responded to the question of language by firstly pointing out that ‘Post-colonial’ is not equal to ‘de-colonial’. Schools still don’t teach about African leaders and Afrikaans is still the most common second language taught in spite of it being a site of struggle and resistance. In the discussion on why our schools still don’t teach African languages she cleverly pointed out that Afrikaans was rolled out to every school and every child in the whole of South Africa in a very short time under the nationalist regime during apartheid. She went on to add that we cannot trust our leaders and institutions to take decolonization forward.

All in all it was an afternoon spent in the presence of great thinkers who shared some profound insights.

Razia Mayet

SOLT engages with Black thought

Reflections on the 2^nd SOTL @ UJ round of conversations with members of Black Thought

SOTL @ UJ organised a second engagement with members of Black Thought on 5 May 2016 in the Post Grad Centre. 

The conversation was attended by about 15 members of Black Thought and 15 academic staff members. These conversations are motivated by a desire of academic staff to understand and engage with subjugated perspectives as part of the investigation of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning into socially just pedagogies.

I find the views of these students refreshing and challenging. Their ‘frank talk’ is not apologetic or politically correct. The perspectives of Black Thought are valuable for an understanding of socially just pedagogies since they arise from the experiences of ‘blackness’ that is associated with hunger, poverty, marginalisation, inferiority, deprivation, academic exclusion, limited social power and constrained living conditions. These perspectives are representative of the many who are excluded from society and failed by the education system. It is against the context of deprivation of necessities to sustain life that the desperation, frustrations, anger and violence should be understood.

An interesting perspective is given on the nature and aims of education. The view was expressed that education should address the conditions of poverty and social risk by developing the ability to self-organise. This is a shift away from an education that transmits knowledge and skills. In this I read the need to form structured associations where views could be articulated and powers mobilised to challenge forms of oppression. These perspectives should be explored further since they point to educationally valuable ideas of self-governance, freedom, autonomy and agency through which a sustainable life could be created.

What became clear in the discussion is the need to develop pedagogical virtues that would enable engagement across differences:

·         Educators should be able to listen to subjugated views. Although black anger is likely to come as a shock, we need to listen carefully to the underlying desires and frustrations that are authentically expressed. This listening is not an agonistic search for deficiencies and inaccuracies, but a search for novelties, common interests and shared concerns.

·         The authenticity of these views is validated when they are engaged with critically. Such engagements take up the concepts, desires, fears and concerns of students and assist in articulations, in the deepening and broadening perspectives, and in critical self-reflections, etc. One such engagement took place around conceptions of land. It was pointed out that access to ‘land’ signifies the ownership of the means of production that is essential to protection and survival.

·         An educational and academic vice is the ‘pedagogical attitude’ which does not really engage with student views, but rather aims to ‘teach’ them what to think and do. This pedagogical attitude suppresses the emergence of ‘self-organisation’ and is experienced as irrelevant since it claims to know how the world should be renewed.

I detected an impatience among these students about the lack of change and the futility of many conversations. The opinion was expressed that the issues students struggle with have been well-known, but very little has been done to address them. In order to further engage meaningfully with these students a commitment is needed to bring about real changes.

While these kinds of conversations with various marginalised groups on and off campus are essential to ‘reinventing education’, they have to be part of an activism for change.

Dirk Postma

9 May 2016