Globalization, democratization and knowledge production

Ethnic universities

The introduction of the Extension of the University Education Act of 1959 saw the establishment of racially and ethnically based universities for Africans,¹⁴ Coloureds¹⁵ and Indians (Adam, 1971, pp. 198-199; Documentation, 1991, p. 3; Mabokela, 2000, p. 4; Mosadi, 1994, p. 3). Bunting contends that the establishment of the historically black universities (HBUs) was “overtly political and instrumental” (Bunting, 2002, p. 74). In a similar vein, Mabokela asserts that the black universities fulfilled three goals: first to legitimate the ideology of separate development,¹⁶ second, to provide personnel to administer and support the newly created homelands, and third, to maintain and reproduce the subordinate social and economic position of black people (2000, p. 4; see also Adam, 1971).

Adam states that the aim of providing higher education to blacks was to socialise them into accepting the dominant societal values --in this instance, the apartheid philosophy-- and to prohibit English white universities from accepting black students (1971, p. 197). On the other hand, these black universities provided academic careers for young Afrikaner graduates and promotion opportunities for Afrikaner civil servants (Adam, 1971, p. 209), who received a ‘tolerance pay’, amounting to double the earnings of white academics at the HWUs (Vergnani, 1999).¹⁷ Adam argues that despite the socialising role, education can also cause people to reflect on their situation and challenge the accepted social order (1971, p. 197). This was precisely what happened at these so-called “bush” colleges (see also Adam, 1971, p. 211; Documentation, 1991, p. 3).¹⁸ The HBUs became the hotbeds of Biko’s Black Consciousness Movement in the 1970s, despite strong police intervention, harassment, and mass detentions of students. Student politics helped to mobilize the masses into an intense and prolonged struggle against the regime.

Despite strong state control and management of these universities and the senior faculty affiliation with the Broederbond, the operations of the HBUs were often brought to a standstill during student riots and protests.¹⁹ Although the leaders of liberation movements at that time were in prison or in exile overseas, there was a heightened political consciousness among young black intellectuals inside the country during the 1970s and 1980s. The following comments by students bear testimony to this:

When I went to Fort Hare, I wasn’t politically conscious. My political awareness grew as my education at the college progressed and with it my resentment of the administration as a symbol of separate development. (Adam, 1971, p. 211)

And,

We are treated like school children by the administration. The lecturers teach you to question things but then you find that if you start questioning some things like the police presence on campus, you are immediately victimized by the administration. (Adam, 1971, p. 21)

Despite this repression, black South African youth remained both resilient and exuberant.

Open access at white universities

Subsequent to the escalation of mass action against the government internally and the intensification of sanctions and disinvestment internationally, the government passed the University Amendment Act in 1983, legalizing the admission of black students to historically white universities (HWUs) (Mabokela, 2000, p. 4). Some universities embarked on aggressive measures to recruit black students, while others were resistant and did not actively seek to diversify their student population (Mabokela, 2001, p. 70). Black enrolment dramatically altered the “complexion” of some of these universities; for example, the percentage of blacks students at the University of Cape Town increased from 13.2 % in 1983 to 42.4 % in 1995, although at Stellenbosch, it was only 13 % in 1995 (Mabokela, 2000, p. 4; 2001, p. 71).

Resource allocation

Allocations for universities differed not only between HWUs and HBUs, but among HBUs as well. African universities received fewer resources than the Coloured university, which in turn, received fewer resources than the Indian university (Mosadi, 1994, p. 2). Afrikaner universities, in contrast, were well supported by the state and boasted some of the best facilities in the country (Mabokela, 2001, p. 71). Prior to 1984, the subsidy formula was based on the number of students enrolled and on their success rate (Mabokela, 1997), which did not appear to be overtly racial. In practice, however, the criteria for the subsidy impeded funding to HBUs because they had a higher proportion of students from low socio-economic backgrounds who not only required financial assistance but had lower success rates. Large numbers of black students also dropped out because black secondary schools provided substandard education. In 1991, for example, the University of the Western Cape, an HBU, had the largest number of undergraduate geography students among the residential universities, but fewer staff than geography departments at the HWUs (Documentation, 1991, p. 3). Mabokela correctly points out that an equitable system will only perpetuate the inequities that exist between HBUs and HWUs. In order to counterbalance the historical inequities she claims that: “The new system financing higher education will necessarily have to be biased in favour of supporting HBUs” (1997, p. 2; see also Clery, 1995). These funding policies are discussed further in chapter two.

Research as tools of the apartheid state

Not only were the universities characterised by the inequities of the apartheid system, but they also reproduced the power relations embedded in the national economic and social systems. Furthermore, the HWUs, through their research and education activities, provided the machinery for propping up the system. As Morrow (1998) observes:

Higher educational institutions can be seen as the epitome of this pattern of injustice. Such institutions are major distributors of benefits in society, especially those benefits which stretch forward into the future. Universities, in particular, are bastions of privilege and as soon as one presses the questions of who is paying for them and who their beneficiaries are, then their key role in the maintenance and perpetuation of an unjust society becomes clear. (p. 387)