student affairs transformation webinar by Cape Peninsula University of Technology

“Towards policy development”

STUDENTAFFAIRS TRANSFORMATION SEMINARREPORT

Towards policy development

30 SEPTEMBER 2021

MODERATOR

Mr Sammy Elie

HOD: Student Governance and Leadership Development (SGLD)

2. Summary of the opening remarks by Prof Paul Green: Chairperson of Institutional Transformation Forum (ITF)

3. Summary of CPUT One Smart Vision 2030 Strategy by Prof Driekie Hay-Swemmer: Executive Director: Office of the Vice-Chancellor

4. Summary of the main address on mainstreaming disability inclusivity in Higher Education

Ms Sebe Matsebula: Founder: Motswako Solutions

5. Summary of transformation agenda in Higher Education in relation to Student Affairs: Nonkosi

Tyolwana: Director: Diversity, Inclusivity and Social Change (CDSC)

INTRODUCTION 1 1

A webinar on “Transformation within the Cape Peninsula University of Technology’s (CPUT’s) Department of Student Affairs: Towards Policy Development” was held on 30 September 2021 as part of a Transformation Seminar Series organised by the university.

Mr Sammy Elie

The meeting was held as the third in a series of virtual meetings which sought to create a space for engagement and critical thinking on the topic of transformation to promote a student-centred environment at CPUT.

HOD: Student Governance and Leadership Development (SGLD)

The webinar was introduced and hosted by Sammy Elie, Head of Department, Student Governance and Leadership Development at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT). This introduction is based on introductory remarks made by Prem Coopoo, Dean of Students at CPUT; Professor Paul Green, Chair of the Institutional Transformation Forum (ITF) at CPUT; and Sammy Elie.

2 SUMMARY OF THE OPENING REMARKS BY PROF PAUL GREEN : CHAIRPERSON OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION FORUM (ITF)

The webinar was held as CPUT has sought to foster collaboration to implement its new strategy, One Smart Vision 2030, which has emphasised the importance of fostering an institutional culture of ubuntu and gaining an edge for the university in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). It follows a high-level conference on transformation at the university which included representatives from the Department of Student Affairs (DSA), as well as from the Student Representative Council (SRC). This meeting considered the progress made and challenges encountered in relation to implementing the national agenda for transformation.

Prof Paul Green

Chairperson:

A conscious process of transformation is the only way forward for South African society as it seeks to address the decades-long history of social injustice that it has endured. At the same time, there must be greater awareness of the need for transformation, particularly since there are many people who are resistant to change and wish to continue adhering to old paradigms and practices.

Institutional Transformation Forum

Against this background, CPUT has developed a comprehensive institutional strategy to address the issue; has established a Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity Unit as a custodian of the transformation agenda; and has produced a transformation charter as a blueprint for its efforts in this area. The unit charged with implementing the university’s strategy on transformation is housed in the Office of the Vice-Chancellor, indicating the importance attached to the issue at the institutional level.

In addition, the university has established an Institutional Transformation Forum (ITF) in order to mainstream transformation

within the organisation. The ITF seeks to ensure adherence to the legislation and policies relating to transformation as these affect higher education in South Africa; and to support and oversee implementation of the university’s own transformation mandate by promoting social cohesion, equity of access and fair chances of success, while seeking to eradicate all forms of abuse, discrimination and human rights violations. The forum is a sub-committee of the university’s management committee of the institution and is representative of key institutional structures, including departments, faculties and units. There is also representation from the Student Representative Council (SRC) on the body.

The forum’s key responsibilities include:

• Reviewing and aligning the transformation strategy with transformation plans in accordance with the rules and guidance issued by the national Department of Higher Education (DHET);

• Coordinating and implementing an integrated approach, using a Transformation Barometer produced by Universities South Africa (USaF) and approved by the DHET;

• Producing advocacy initiatives and ensuring their seamless coordination to raise awareness about the meaning and importance of transformation, and social justice and cohesion across the university, and

• Monitoring and evaluating redress plans to ensure that they are addressing barriers to transformation effectively.

At the same time, notwithstanding the establishment of the strategy and implementation mechanisms for transformation, much remains to be done. In particular, it is important to emphasise that it is the responsibility of everyone at the university to engage in transformation and to ensure that their activities are aligned with the institutional strategy in this regard and that they are practising the tenets of this strategy. Transformation must permeate the entire university if it is to be effective. It is everybody’s business.

Accordingly, CPUT has sought to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach so that transformation is seen as a crucial aspect of the business of the university and not as a matter that may be

managed in silos or in a vacuum. To this end, it is important that the contents of the university’s Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity Charter are communicated widely within the organisation in order for it to fulfil its function as a guiding document. In addition, the transformation efforts must take place in the context of the implementation of the university’s One Smart Vision 2030.

In particular, the Department of Student Affairs must produce its own transformation policy. In this regard, the hope is that the present meeting, which offers a safe space of tolerance and respect for expressing thoughts and concerns around the issue, may contribute to this process.

3 SUMMARY OF CPUT ONE SMART VISION 2030 2 STRATEGY BY PROF DRIEKIE HAY-SWEMMER: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:

OFFICE OF THE VICECHANCELLOR

The university’s new institutional strategy, One Smart CPUT: Vision 2030, was produced in 2020. At this time, the previous strategy, which had been established after the higher education landscape had been reshaped by a number of mergers of 2002, was coming to an end. Reviewing the university’s progress during the 15-year life span of the previous strategic plan, it was noted that the institution had established a significant research profile, boasting more than 100 rated scientists, and had become a leading university of technology in Africa.

At the same time, the human side, or spirit of “oneness”, had been quite neglected. Accordingly, a new vision was crafted which proclaimed that CPUT should be the leading university of technology in Africa and should be globally renowned for its cutting-edge innovation and production of graduates who shape a better world for humanity. Under this vision, the new university’s new mission was to transform its students through worldclass researchers who inspire cutting-edge knowledge production and innovation. In other words, it was recognised that a university must be a place for transforming students’ lives – they should not be the same people when they leave as they are when they arrive. The aim should be to produce citizens who can use the knowledge they have acquired to foster local and national socio-economic development.

Executive Director: Office of the Vice-Chancellor

2 This section is based on a presentation made by Professor Driekie Hay-Swemmer, Executive Director, Office of the Vice-Chancellor, CPUT.

Under the new vision, the university is seeking to inculcate a number of key values:

• Kindness and compassion for the well-being of staff and students, as expressed in the philosophy of ubuntu as a way of life;

• Unity (ubunye) while embracing diversity (ukungafani), which may be expressed by being honest, transparent, credible and respectful;

• Accountability and taking responsibility for actions and plans;

• Embracing restoration, that is, taking active steps to address the legacy of the country’s past and promote redress in relation to equality, gender-based violence and other forms of harassment and discrimination. As well as seeking to restore relationships and produce equity of opportunity against the background of a deeply unequal society, this concept will also entail developing new teaching and learning and research strategies that speak to issues of decolonisation.

• Showing passion, in other words, demonstrating enthusiasm, devotion and tenacity in the university’s efforts to support research, foster student development and delivering quality services. The mantra should be always to look for a better way of doing things; and

• Being technologically astute, which entails embracing, taking ownership of and experimenting with the possibilities that technology offers. The goal should be to apply technology in new ways to enhance productivity and efficiency with a focus on innovation.

In all of this the aim is not to compete with the specialist research universities but rather to strengthen the institution’s identity as a university of technology, which is particularly important with the onset of the fourth industrial revolution.

One smart CPUT is a concept with two dimensions:

1 ONENESS: Under this concept, the focus is on the institution’s humancentricity through its smart people and community which value and embrace unity in diversity. The concept directs CPUT to view itself in terms of trust, values, co-thinking, co-learning, co-creating, co-designing, dialogue and a unified spirit. In other words, it talks to how students and staff interact with each other. The aim is to produce an empathetic culture, ascribing to the African idea of ukuhamba unxibe izihlangu zomnye umntu (walking in someone else’s shoes).

2 SMARTNESS: Under this concept, CPUT aims to embrace technology in the broadest and most positive sense to advance humanity and improve people’s health, education, safety, food security and general living conditions, in the region, the continent and globally. Under this idea, it is acknowledged that research and community interactions are crucial to enable the university to create significant impacts.

A smart university harnesses digital technology and networks in support of more effective teaching and learning and to produce research that can improve people’s lives. A smart university combines the smart “thing” with the “smart me” and the “smart us”. It is about empowering society. One smart university is both a physical and virtual environment led by people coming together to create a more humane, immersive, interactive and automated experience for students, staff, faculty, researchers and other university stakeholders. In the post-pandemic era, smartness will increasingly entail mixed modes of pedagogy and engagement at the university.

In seeking to deliver on its strategic plan, CPUT is focussing on seven main areas:

1 A smart information and communications technology (ICT) environment and workforce: This will entail ensuring that a highly efficient and effective ICT network is in place which can support continuous improvement in teaching, learning, research and operations. To an extent, the Covid-19 pandemic accelerated the push to create such an environment as digital technologies and networks were deployed extensively in new ways to enable students to complete the academic year more or less remotely.

2 A smart teaching and learning environment: The aim is to establish a smart, multi-disciplinary student-centric education system across the university, which will deploy adaptive learning programmes and portfolios for students; collaborative technologies and digital learning resources; computerised administration; data analytics on students so that their needs may be better assessed and addressed at an early stage; and online learning resources and new kinds of library spaces. In the knowledge that CPUT has a strong reputation for face-toface teaching, the institution should also make use of blended learning and multi-modal approaches to cater to the needs of different students and the aspirations of lifelong learning – and to enable academics and students to conduct research and study at their own pace in their own spaces.

3 Smart research, technology and innovation partnerships (RTIP): These must be relevant and should ensure excellent knowledge production, including in relation to the needs of the 4IR and circular economy development. In addition to promoting research outcomes, such partnerships should also facilitate the production of third-income streams through innovation.

4 Smart human capital and talent: People are the institution’s most important resource and their contributions to the

pedagogic and research environment and in particular their capacity for technological innovation should be acknowledged.

5 Smart internationalisation: An internationalised university is characterised by a multi-cultural educational ecosystem that prepares staff and students at all levels for a global environment. International exposure used to be a laborious process, entailing expensive and time-consuming air travel and lengthy stays in other countries. However, students can now contact lecturers and other students across the world easily over the internet, and CPUT’s lecturers can share their knowledge and access the knowledge of their peers in a range of international virtual spaces.

6 Smart engagement and strong links with quintuple helix partners: In a smart university, collaboration and engagement with external stakeholders should take place across all research and teaching activities. The stakeholders may include government officials, and private-sector and civil-society actors, including, for example, professional associations. In the context of CPUT’s technology orientation, stakeholder relationships and strategic partnerships offer important opportunities for learning and employment and can enable innovation. To this end, there should be strong links and dynamic exchanges with business incubators, science parks, industry and firms. This has been an area in which CPUT has achieved much, having built a global reputation for the value of its work-integrated learning practices which give students authentic learning experiences.

7 Smart student engagement and learning experiences: This aspect of the strategy references not only teaching and learning and research spaces, but also Includes what takes place outside the classroom, including in relation to leadership development and personal growth.

In relation to its aim to produce student-centred learning in a smart way, CPUT is aiming to produce an environment that facilitates learning through access to digital resources and interaction with learning systems in any place and at any time, and proactively provides students with the necessary learning guidance, hints, supportive tools, or learning suggestions in the right place, at the right time and in the right form (see Hwang, 2014).3

However, beyond the student-learning aspect, the inclusion of this seventh focus area in the university’s new strategic plan also indicates the importance now attributed to student engagement more broadly. In this regard, Vision 2030 lays the ground for CPUT to become a student-centred university; and the Department of Student Affairs is working on developing a new student engagement framework accordingly.

3 Hwang, Gwo-Jen. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments – a context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1, 4. 10.1186/s40561-014-0004-5.

In support of the production of this framework, it should be noted that CPUT envisions a number of ideal graduate attributes which, it believes, should be fostered in the classroom and in co-curricular activities. These are:

• Technological capability and foresight;

• Resilience and problem-solving capability – a CPUT graduate should recognise the complexity of problem-solving in society (including in relation to technology) and should be able to engage confidently with such complexity;

• Ethical capability – a CPUT graduate should have an orientation to the public good and an ability to discern whether professional practices are within ethical boundaries, and take ethical decisions and act on unethical practices accordingly; and

• Relational capability – a CPUT graduate should be able to “stand in the shoes of others” so as to understand their needs, values and cultures and thus engage in effective collaboration.

In seeking to foster greater student engagement in learning and the institution, CPUT aims to:

1 Build the capacity of students to engage in their student experience in ways which are individually transformative and which build the social capital of CPUT and its broader community;

2 Establish a comprehensive, integrated set of quality services which promote student welfare and academic success. The establishment of these services may be supported by the deployment of smart technologies – for example, in helping to provide a safer environment;

3 Support a dynamic student community through the provision of high-quality learning and social environments and experiences;

4 Facilitate rewarding, high-impact experiences that enrich and extend the student’s academic journey, including by developing their leadership skills, enabling international exposure, offering work-based learning and fostering civic engagement;

5 Encourage and strengthen the partnership between students and the university through constructive conversations, which may be on difficult topics, co-creation and celebration;

6 Engage students in their own learning at the faculty and departmental levels. Research has shown that students who are engaged feel that their academic department or faculty is their home and perform better; and

7 Implement a relevant, transformative, high-impact cocurricular programme aimed at the holistic development of smart graduates, employees and citizens.

4 SUMMARY OF THE MAIN ADDRESS ON MAINSTREAMING DISABILITY INCLUSIVITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: MS SEBE MATSEBULA FOUNDER: MOTSWAKO SOLUTIONS 4

Ms Sebe Matsebula

Founder: Motswako Solution and former member of the Ministerial Transformation Oversight Committee (TOC) on Higher Education

In the higher education sector, there is an increasing focus on the principle of mainstreaming disability issues in the institutional architecture of universities and colleges and ensuring the inclusion of people with disabilities in order to support student success – and also to empower staff. In this regard, the transformation agenda for people with disabilities at universities must be an holistic one, particularly given the larger social forces impacting the higher education sector.

Within the context of a rights discourse and efforts to promote sustainable development, mainstreaming concerns dignity, selfworth, autonomy and self-determination5. Mainstreaming requires commitment at all levels and needs to be considered across all sectors and built into new and existing legislation, standards, policies, strategies and plans. Disability mainstreaming is the process through which governments and other stakeholders ensure that people with disabilities participate equally with others in any activity and service intended for the general public. The mainstreaming approach to disability requires that all planning, support, activities, and financial implications associated with meeting the needs of people with disabilities, are factored into the overall main budget.

4 This section is based on a presentation made by Sebenzile Matsebula, Founder and Executive Director of Motswako Office Solutions, and an activist for social change in mainstreaming disability, disability inclusivity and disability rights, including as a former member of the Ministerial Oversight Committee on the Transformation in South African Public Universities (TOC) established by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). It also draws on insights from the DHET’s Strategic Policy Framework on Disability for the Post-School Education and Training System of 2018, see https:// www.dhet.gov.za/SiteAssets/Gazettes/Approved%20Strategic%20 Disability%20Policy%20Framework%20Layout220518.pdf.

5 This paragraph is drawn from the DHET’s Strategic Policy Framework on Disability for the Post-School Education and Training System of 2018, page 20.

Inclusion embraces the diversity of all people irrespective of race, gender, disability or any other differences6. It is about equal access and opportunities and eliminating discrimination and intolerance for all. It is about a sense of belonging: feeling respected and valued; feeling a level of supportive energy and commitment from others so that the disabled person can fully participate in society with no restrictions or limitations. Inclusion implies a change from an “individual change model” to a “system change model” which emphasises that society has to change to accommodate diversity, that is, to accommodate all people. This involves a paradigm shift away from the specialness of people to the nature of society and its ability to respond to a wide range of individual differences and needs. Inclusion is the ultimate objective of mainstreaming.

Informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) of 2008, which South Africa was one of the first countries to sign and ratify, and building on a 2015 White Paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,7 the national Department of Higher Education and Training has embraced the principles of

mainstreaming and inclusion for people with disabilities – and deployed them as the basis for its Strategic Policy Framework on Disability for the PostSchool Education and Training System published in 2018.

The country’s legislative framework has provided protection of disability rights

and sought to ensure the inclusivity and mainstreaming of disability. However, the framework is contained in a number of documents and departments, which makes it difficult to coordinate an overall approach promoting inclusivity and protecting disability rights. In response, there is a move to establish a comprehensive disability act.

Meanwhile, South Africa is well served by the White Paper, which is embedded in the country’s obligations under the UNCRPD of 2008. The 2015 document, which is quite comprehensive, was intended to accelerate transformation, and full inclusion, integration and equality for people with disabilities. In addition to asserting equal rights for people with disabilities, it seeks to remove barriers to access and participation and to engender the use of universal design.8 Most importantly, it recognises the right to selfrepresentation, which is a key demand in the disability space.

The White Paper further acknowledges that not all people with disabilities are

alike. We are not a homogenous group and come from different backgrounds in relation to age, gender, sexuality, cultural and religious background and geographical origins. The White Paper recognises these differences.

As a useful template for addressing disability inclusivity in the workplace, the White Paper may be seen as part of a global trend towards the establishment of more inclusive policies and practices rather than mere remedial interventions. In this regard, a worldwide wave of new legislation and policymaking has led to significant progress in promoting disability equity and the rights of people with disabilities in many countries.

The key outstanding challenge though is implementation, including at the institutional level, which is often lacking. This shortfall has to be addressed so that the appropriate legislative and policy instruments are implemented to protect the rights of students with disabilities, enabling them to play a meaningful role in their own development at universities.

In this regard, the White Paper explicitly references two aspects that should be addressed in the higher education sector, which are neatly summarised in the 2018 Framework document: first, the need to create more awareness among staff about disability issues and how to respond appropriately to the needs of students,

6 This paragraph is drawn from the DHET’s Strategic Policy Framework on Disability for the Post-School Education and Training System of 2018, pages 20 and 21.

7 See https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201603/39792gon230.pdf.

8 According to Article 2 of the UNCRPD, “ ‘Universal design’ means the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. ‘Universal design’ shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed.” See https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/ convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-2-definitions.html.

and, second, the need to incorporate concepts of universal design into faculty instruction and curricula in order to ensure the full participation of all students in the learning process.

The White Paper calls on universities to eliminate barriers that present themselves in the teaching and learning environment, including in relation to physical access, visual and communication support, and psycho-social needs, as well as more generally in relation to stereotypes and attitudes. It is acknowledged that negative stereotypes of people with disabilities in relation to their ability to perform and deliver can prevent students from learning and excelling and can prevent staff from being promoted.

In this regard, it is important to note that disability itself is an evolving concept. The term applies to people with a spectrum of impairments who face attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. The impairments include all psychosocial, intellectual, neurological and/or sensory impairments.

A common mistake in understanding what disability means is to focus on physical and sensory disabilities as opposed to all of them, including the hidden ones, such as communication, mental and psychosocial impairments. Yet, an understanding of the full range of impairment is necessary to ensure that the needs of all people with disabilities are addressed. For example, people with psychosocial disabilities may fear declaring their disability for fear of being categorised negatively. In this regard, it is important, particularly for those in leadership, to work closely with students and produce safe spaces in which they are able to declare whatever their disability may be. This issue has been a major impediment to the achievement of the transformation agenda on disability inclusion at universities.

In other words, student and staff-centrism as principles for change in universities should not simply be about accommodating people with disabilities but also about taking proactive steps to ensure inclusivity and mainstreaming of disability. Transformation by design is a crucial approach in achieving these goals.

The UN Convention of 2008 calls for universal design especially in the context of education and learning, because this is where the people who will be contributing to national development are fostered. In this regard, as the 2018 Framework notes, helping to create instructionally accessible environments is critical and a growing theme of professional development activities on campuses around the world. Within the higher education sector, universal design may be defined as an educational approach for instructing all students through developing flexible classroom materials, using various technology tools, and varying the delivery of information or instruction according to need.

Universal design also refers to what may be viewed as the more mundane matter of ensuring appropriate physical access in public spaces. In this regard, the UN Convention highlights the importance of accessible public toilets and ramps instead of steps – noting that it is not only people with disabilities who prefer ramps to steps. The importance of such improvements should not be underestimated, since they tend to drive meaningful transformation in daily life, including in the home and within communities.

At CPUT, there has been an acknowledgement of the need to ensure access for and the success of students with disabilities; and to develop and establish appropriate services and support accordingly. In addition, like other higher education institutions across the country, the university has been carefully monitoring the progress of students with disabilities.

But perhaps most significantly, CPUT has established a Disability Unit within the Department of Student Affairs to promote disability inclusion in the context of the university’s transformation efforts. This is crucial, since, without an institutional architecture to implement disability inclusiveness, the matter tends only to be addressed rhetorically or on paper but not in reality. In general, offices such as CPUT’s Disability Unit seek to support students with disabilities in developing their selfdetermination and self-management skills, which are necessary to achieve academic and personal success.

Within hierarchies, including at universities, decision-making and implementation often seems to be taking place elsewhere. However, it is crucial that any efforts to establish an effective transformation agenda promoting disability inclusion should engage people with disabilities at every stage of the process, from conceptualisation onwards. Unless people with disabilities are consulted when shaping the policies, they will be probably be rejected at the implementation stage by the very people who should be their beneficiaries – and they will not be relevant or effective as aspects of the university’s transformation ecosystem. The requisite indepth consultation not only produces meaningful and practicable recommendations for change it also addresses the alienation, whether real or perceived, that is generally experienced by students and staff with disabilities.

It should also be recognised that there is no one organisational design that will fit every university. Each institution will have to forge its own remit to address disability inclusivity and to ensure that transformation works for people with disabilities in that particular environment in an effective and efficient manner.

In conclusion, CPUT needs to change its mindset and engage in a paradigm shift if it is to mainstream disability in its institutional architecture effectively and ensure that people with disabilities are fully included across the university. The path may not be an easy one, but it is possible, particularly if there is consultation with those who have a lived experience of the challenges faced by people with disabilities and therefore can contribute meaningfully to the transformation agenda in this respect.

At the same time, it should be noted that considerable progress is being made at the university and that some issues around mainstreaming and inclusivity may be easier to address than others. For example, the construction of ramps and accessible bathrooms may be funded by the government – although more campaigning is required to convince the relevant officials that support for disability inclusion should also extend to communications efforts seeking to combat negative stereotypes of people with disabilities.

It is also noteworthy that the move to the virtual world, which accelerated under the Covid-19 lockdown, has produced a greater emphasis on blended learning methodologies, which can have implications for people with sensory impairments, as well as those with psycho-social impairments who may be affected by the glare of the laptop. In this regard, it will be necessary to engage the minister of higher education to consider an allocation of funds to interrogate how the use of the new virtual techniques and technologies for learning may be adapted so that they are inclusive of all forms of disability.

DISCUSSION

The issue of disability is complex and requires an integrated approach across CPUT.9 It entails addressing the issue of multilingualism – for example, through including sign language as a language of teaching and learning – and issues of culture – for example, in relation to the culture of the deaf community. In seeking to promote inclusivity, the Disability Unit at CPUT has sought to apply the principles of universal design and access in classrooms and faculties, including by engaging in efforts to check venues for disability compliance. It has also sought to address the more general issue of the stigmatisation and discrimination faced by students with disabilities. In this regard, it has found that students can be quite reluctant to disclose their disabilities for fear of being excluded – and has, accordingly, sought to promote an empathetic student-centred approach among faculties and departments and through counselling in residences. In its work with students, the Unit has also come to understand the importance of students with disabilities taking a leading role in the SRC.

In general, the Unit’s view is that CPUT students are empowered; and, in this spirit, it has generally collaborated with them respecting the principle espoused by disability rights activists: Nothing about us without us. People with disabilities are included in all the programmes and webinars run by the Unit. Meanwhile, students with disabilities who have graduated provide an additional resource, motivating undergraduates with disabilities, and advising on the provision of suitable accommodation, having already experienced what is on offer.

In order to support the self-actualisation of students with disabilities, it is important to affirm their value as fully-fledged members of their study programmes, emphasising that they have already qualified and earned their place and should now be able to focus on their personal and educational development on an equal footing alongside their peers.10 There should be no inference that they are being done a favour or being treated as charity cases. In addition, it is important to be sensitive to the many forms that barriers to learning for people with disabilities can take. For example, the provision of a generic sign language interpreter may be of no use to a hearing-impaired or deaf student who is unused to that format of interpretation – which may then lead to their studies being compromised. In another example, lecturers may seek to blame a student’s inability to follow what has been said on their disability, categorising them, for example, as intellectually challenged, when, in fact they are unable to follow for other reasons. All barriers, even the apparently finickety ones which can actually be quite insidious, need to be addressed to produce genuine transformation.

In seeking to promote inclusivity, the Disability Unit at CPUT has sought to apply the principles of universal design and access in classrooms and faculties, including by engaging in efforts to check venues for disability compliance. It has also sought to address the more general issue of the stigmatisation and discrimination faced by students with disabilities.

9 This paragraph and the next are based on remarks made by Dr Amanda Ismail, who is head of CPUT’s Disability Unit.7 See https://www.gov.za/ sites/default/files/gcis_document/201603/39792gon230.pdf.

10 This paragraph is based on remarks made by Sebenzile Matsebula.

SUMMARY OF TRANSFORMATION AGENDA IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN RELATION TO STUDENT AFFAIRS

NONKOSI TYOLWANA

DIRECTOR: DIVERSITY, INCLUSIVITY AND SOCIAL CHANGE (CDSC)

Nonkosi Tyolwana

Diversity, Inclusivity & Social Change: Office of the Vice-Chancellor

6.1 Legislation and policy mandates on transformation

Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, which was produced in 1997 as a foundational document on the topic, indicates that South Africa aspires towards a transformed higher education system that:

• Is of high quality in terms of its core mandates of teaching, learning, curriculum, research, innovation and community engagement;

• Is demographically representative;

• Provides students and staff with good opportunities for access and success;

• Welcomes and cares for all;

• Is diverse, differentiated and articulated;

• Is relevant and responsive to local, regional/continental and global contexts;

• Is research-productive and drives innovation; and

• Produces educated, critical, employable and effective citizens and leaders for the future.

The Policy Framework for the Realisation of Social Inclusion in the Post-School Education and Training (PSET) System of 2016, emphasises the importance of considering issues of race, class, gender, disability, language, age, HIV/Aids, geography, and citizenship in its broader sense, in transformation efforts.

The Strategic Policy Framework on Disability for the Post-School Education and Training System of 2018 sought to establish an enabling environment for people with disabilities; and provided a monitoring and evaluation instrument to ensure disability mainstreaming across universities.

The Policy Framework to Address Gender-Based Violence (GBV) in the Post-School Education and Training System of 2020 sought to create an enabling environment for the eradication of GBV and to instil respect for, and the protection, promotion and fulfilment of, human rights.

The National Youth Policy (NYP) 2020-2030, which was published in 2020:

• Urges student representative councils (SRCs) to push for transformation and ensure that their institutions develop and implement strategies to build a non-racial culture, ethos and curriculum;

• Expresses the expectation that higher education institutions should ensure “value-chain empowerment support to enable students to be employable, self-sufficient and independent”;

• Requires higher education to “provide soft skills development to help students cope with external demands and leadership”; and

• Prioritises the United Nations’ (UN’s) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDGs 1-5, 8-10 and 17, as key pillars of youth development and empowerment.

6.2 Baseline for transformation in higher education

A number of key documents and initiatives have been produced in an effort to establish a baseline for the transformation of the higher education sector. These have included, in chronological order:

• The Report of the Ministerial Committee on Transformation, Social Cohesion and the Elimination of Discrimination in Public Higher Educations Institutions of 2008 (otherwise known as the “Soudien Report” after Crain Soudien who chaired the committee which oversaw the research effort);

• A series of stakeholder summits on higher education transformation which considered the recommendations of the Soudien Report, one of which was held at CPUT in 2010;

• A 2015 report by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) titled #Hashtag: An Analysis of the #FeesMustFall Movement at South African Universities, which included research on CPUT among other institutions;

• A 2016 report produced by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) on Transformation at Public Universities in South Africa, which included findings and recommendations from CPUT;

• A 2018/2019 Report on Gender Transformation in Tertiary Institutions produced by the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE); and

• Presentations made the South African Union of Students (SAUS) to Naledi Pandor, then minister of higher education and training in November 2018 and Blade Nzimande, Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology, in October 2019. These presentations, which outlined the challenges and opportunities arising from students’ experiences of transformation in the higher education sector, provided a clear indication of why and how transformation is a critical issue for student affairs departments.

THE MAIN ISSUES RAISED BY THESE KEY DOCUMENTS ARE OUTLINED BELOW.

6.2.1 Main issues raised by the Soudien Report of 2008

• Students’ lived experiences, including in relation to social cohesiveness and shared norms, values and practices; socio-economic and cultural backgrounds; and the need to transform institutional culture at residences to address discrimination, bullying and promote social justice;

• Residence integration, including in relation to sociocultural integration; room placement to ensure diversity and inclusion; respect for different languages, cultures and religions; and the importance of social justice training, advocacy and development to promote integration;

• Residence culture and tradition, including in relation to naming buildings and addressing discriminatory architectural designs on campus; integration and social justice through sports, arts and culture; and the importance of training and advocacy to promote diversity and inclusion across student life and student experiences;

• Sexual harassment, in relation to trends and patterns of sexual harassment; emergency reporting on sexual harassment; behavioural attitudes as expressed and shaped by patriarchy, and stereotyping, discrimination and bullying on the basis of gender and sexuality; and the importance of integrating training, advocacy and awareness-raising efforts to promote social justice;

• Curriculum transformation, including in relation to

epistemological transformation and curriculum change; and student participation in the Africanisation of local and global knowledge;

• Language transformation, including in relation to developing multi-lingual policies; promoting a range of languages to ensure educational access and success and to foster knowledge production; and the importance of language as gateway for democratic access to culture and knowledge;

• Undergraduate and postgraduate equity, including in relation to the equity profile of the undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts; the gender profile in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects; and postgraduate support to enhance transformation and social justice, in terms of equality and equity in the system; and

• Compulsory first and final year courses for all students, which should introduce them to social-justice matters of diversity and inclusion; address challenges faced by South Africa, Africa and the world; and prepare them for the future.

The main findings of the Soudien report informed the development of a Transformation Barometer for higher education produced by Universities South Africa (USaF), which brings together the country’s 26 public universities.

6.2.1

Main issues raised by the Soudien Report of 2008

• Court orders: Universities need to be more open to discussions, negotiation and mediation in their dealings with student protestors instead of resorting to court interdicts as a matter of course.

• Tolerance and transformative leadership: Universities need to understand the political dynamics and power struggles associated with student structures, which at times can make it difficult for negotiations to take place.

• Decolonisation agenda: Universities need to be committed to issues of transformation, curriculum change and decolonisation.

• Violent student protests: Student leaders need to be more reflective about the feasibility of their demands and approach negotiations with an open mind.

• Gender sensitivity during protests: Student leaders need to reflect on how the tendency to marginalise and exclude women and gender non-conforming people from positions of leadership and influence, make a greater effort to address their needs during strikes, and ensure that they communicate inclusive messages. Gender sensitivity must be enshrined in SRC constitutions.

• Peace and reconciliation: Efforts should be made to repair relations in the wake of the nationwide student protests which erupted from 2015. Genuine engagement and dialogues should take place among university management, staff and students to ensure that outstanding hostilities are resolved in a conciliatory manner.

• Behaviour of police and security staff/contractors during student protests: Police and security staff/ contractors need to apply the basic principles of public policing, including containment, holding the line, facilitation and negotiation. These principles have been found to be effective in de-escalating and managing protests as well as in maintaining public order.

• Student funding and the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS): There is a view that the funding support provided by the government is insufficient to meet the financial needs of students, thus creating a cause for protest.

• Media reporting during student protests: It appears that the media largely focussed on violent incidents without telling the whole story about the grievances of the protestors. In this regard, it is important that the media cover peaceful as well as violent student protests.

6.2.3 Main recommendations from the SAHRC report of 2019 and the CGE report of 2018/2019

• Early warning systems (EWS): Adequate systems to identify students who require additional support at an early stage should be established with a view to improving success rates and decreasing attrition rates.

• Engagement on diversity/inclusivity and social justice: Tangible empowerment programmes aimed at integrating transformation in student life and experiences should be established. Such programmes need to address diversity/inclusivity issues, which can become a source of contestation and conflict. Follow-up processes and monitoring are critical.

• Human rights and social justice in student orientation: Coordinated year-long programmes aimed at coordinating and integrating human rights should be established along with monitoring and evaluation plans to assess the impacts of these interventions and adjust them as necessary.

• Diversity and inclusion in room-allocation policies: Resident allocation policies giving priority to students with disabilities and offering preferred placement for gender diverse students (LGBTQIA+) should be put in place.

• Assessment of prevailing residence cultures: Evaluations of prevailing residence cultures and traditions should be undertaken. These should include assessment of residence

names, symbols, practices and values to identify and remedy any discriminatory, offensive or degrading elements. The aim of such evaluation should be to address concerns in a proactive rather than reactive way.

• Role of alumni in student engagement: There is a need to coordinate with alumni and revisit the contributions they can make as role models for students and in addressing the cultural aspects of residences that should change;

• Role of sport, arts and culture in transformation/social justice: Greater attention must be paid to encouraging a discourse of diversity and inclusivity in sporting, artistic and cultural activities. For example, team captains and artists may act as ambassadors of human rights and seek to promote efforts to combat GBV among their peers.

• Handling complaints: Formal, rapid complaints procedures need to be established to address emergency situations for which protracted grievance procedures are inappropriate. Universities must ensure that relevant staff members are trained and adequately capacitated to undertake humanrights and gendered approaches to resolving conflict. Such approaches, which entail consultation and mediation, may be used to resolve protest actions.

6.2.4 Main recommendations from the presentations made by SAUS to the minister of higher education in 2018 and 2019

• Physical infrastructure: There should be continuous engagement on naming university buildings and symbols and designing university spaces in line with the principle of diversity.

• Knowledge transformation including decolonisation: A transformed curriculum should be developed and the agenda for knowledge production should address decolonisation concerns. African languages should be developed as languages for pedagogy and knowledge production. This is crucial given the important role that language plays in shaping national culture, history and identity.

• Diversity and inclusivity: There should be recognition of how discourses on race, class and gender disparities shape student experiences. Students can feel unsafe, excluded and uncomfortable due to the way in which social identities may framed with reference to historical and present inequality.

• Graduate employability: Universities should reposition themselves to produce job creators not job seekers, and entrepreneurs rather than tenderpreneurs.

• Commodification of education: Student leaders need to be more reflective about the feasibility of their demands in relation to the kind of education that they are seeking and, accordingly, approach negotiations with an open mind.

• Transformational leadership and change theory: Institutional leadership programmes to empower students as future citizens and leaders should be established. Such programmes should also address social-justice deficits, prepare students for employability and enhance their capacity to become agents of change.

• Progressive categorisation of students in the spirit of social cohesion: More attention should be paid to the issues faced by students off-campus. In addition, the way in which students are categorised as “NSFAS students” “missingmiddle students”, “international students” and “vulnerable students” should be challenged. The reality is that many students are vulnerable due to socio-economic challenges, as well as prejudices around gender, race, class, geography/ country of origin and culture.

• Student funding/NSFAS: The criteria for NSFAS should be reconsidered and efforts should be made to ensure that higher education funding creates greater equity within the system.

• Institutional culture: Universities need to ask themselves whether their institutional outlooks and priorities indicate that they are genuinely seeking transformation, or whether their practices remain racist. They should also seek to promote and celebrate African excellence.

6.2.5 Using the reports on transformation as a baseline

Sometimes it is said in relation to aspects of transformation work that nothing has been done – but a range of relevant reports containing a host of pertinent recommendations have been produced. Student development practitioners may seek to address the issues raised in these reports as a starting point for their work on transformation, just as, for example, parliamentary portfolio committees base their work on the reports that they have received, using them as benchmarks and assessing what progress has been made against them. So, the advice should be always to check progress in institutional policymaking, strategic development and reporting against the baseline provided by these national reports. At the same time, it is important to note that some of the national reporting on transformation issues is more up to date than others – for example, although gender-based violence was raised as an issue as early as 2008, it is only more recently that there has been a greater focus on GBV and gender profiling. Similarly, the topic of political education around unsayable topics and addressing previously unexamined prejudices and mindsets, for example, around LGBTQIA+, has only become a priority in the past few years.

6.3 Theory of change for public higher education transformation

In producing a theory of change to promote transformation in public higher education, it has been recognised that diversity is about more than white and black, it also relates to culture, religion and a wide range of factors relating to individual experience and identity. It has also been acknowledged that equity and equality must be at the heart of higher education. A key aim must be to support the development of students holistically and to prepare them to be the leaders of the future.

In pursuit of these goals of promoting diversity, equity and student development, transformation can only be implemented effectively through an integrated approach which seeks to affect the mainstream of university life. To this end, Universities South Africa has produced a Transformation Barometer for higher education; and national legislation requires universities to report on their transformation efforts twice a year, including in their annual reports; and has made university vice-chancellors responsible for transformation so that it is integrated into institutional planning and not neglected as a standalone function.

6.4 Integrated approach to transformation at CPUT

Transformation is a cross-cutting function in the strategy outlined by CPUT’s One Smart Vision 2030. It is not the responsibility of one individual alone, but of all the institution’s stakeholders. Accordingly, CPUT has established an Institutional Transformation Forum (ITF) in the shape of a management committee chaired by Professor Paul Green, the Dean of Business and Management Sciences. All the institution’s units, faculties and departments are represented

on this committee. In addition to bringing together managers, the ITF’s membership includes labour unions, although only as observers, and leaders from the student representative councils at the central and campus levels. There are also transformation subcommittees in all the faculties; and transformation is a standing item on management committees across the institution since it affects daily life at CPUT and how the university functions.

Figure 1: Theory of change for public higher education transformation

Within the Department of Student Affairs, Dr Amanda Ismail is responsible for coordinating the quarterly plans and reporting relating to Student Affairs Division. Dr Ismail produces consolidated reports from the DSA and submit them to the ITF. It is a matter of some concern that the student representation on the ITF may not always be the one that is focussed on the issue of transformation. In part the lack of focus may be attributed to a failure to mainstream transformation as a concern in the constitution of CPUT’s SRC. In this regard, there is a need for alignment between the terms of reference established for the SRC and CPUT Statute on membership to transformation – so that transformation can promoted in an integrated way whether through the office of the SRC’s President or more broadly within the structures. By contrast, the faculties, for example, send representatives who are accountable for the transformation function to the ITF. Further discussion on this is required, so that the SRCs send representatives who are accountable for the transformation function, rather than student leaders who may or may not have responsibility for this function.

To an extent, the slippage in accountability for transformation in student structure may also be attributed to the common practice of students taking their transformation concerns directly to the Dean of Student Affairs rather than the ITF. In this regard, the reporting lines need to be clarified to produce appropriate alignment and to ensure that the ITF framework promotes accountability for transformation efforts. At the same time, it should be noted that the present cross-

faculty, multi-disciplinary framework for reporting on transformation clearly offers an integrated, student-centred approach. For example, all the faculty transformation committees have student representatives – and a constant question at these committees and the central ITF is: What are you doing for the students?

The present reporting structure also ensures integration of transformation at the institutional level. Transformation indicators are a crucial measure on the vice-chancellor’s scorecard. In addition, senior management uses the ITF as a way of coordinating transformation across the institution, including in human resources and the executive management function. All academic and administrative departments send their representatives to the forum; and they all present reports to Dr Ismail, which must have been signed off by the respective heads of departments as well as the Dean of Student Affairs before they are tabled. In this way, the departmental heads and the Dean can be held accountable for the transformation issues which have been raised and the efforts that may have been taken to respond to them. The structure also enables Dr Ismail to provide briefings on the state of transformation as required, although it is unclear whether such reporting is communicated by Dr Ismail at DSA’s management meetings.

The whole process for raising and responding to transformation issues is coordinated and overseen by the Department of Institutional Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity in the Office of the Vice Chancellor.

Figure 2: The structure for the management of transformation at CPUT

6.5 Implementing transformation through CPUT’s One Smart Vision 2030

The Department of Institutional Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity produced a report on CPUT’s One Smart Vision 2030 in 2021. The report, which was submitted to the Executive Management l, sought to identify gaps in the institution’s programme for transformation, using USaF’s Transformation Barometer as a baseline and focussing particularly on issues of digital transformation and the levels of integration and alignment within the institution’s approach to transformation.

The report considered the principles of “oneness” and “smartness” in a transformation context. In this regard, the oneness aspect of the vision is supposed to promote a multilingual, multicultural university community through social cohesion, diversity and inclusivity. The smartness aspect is supposed to promote digital transformation as an enabler of social justice, addressing deficits in how digital technology is developed, accessed and used.

The report further considered the “leave no one behind” principle promoted by the institution’s One Smart Vision 2030 within the context of persistent great inequality in South Africa, which continues to be ranked as one of the world’s most unequal societies.

Under this principle, key issues that must be addressed by CPUT include:

• Discrimination to promote diversity and inclusivity;

• Geography to promote social cohesion;

• Governance to promote responsiveness and build partnerships;

• Socio-economic challenges to promote educational access, success and retention; and

• Shocks and fragility to provide care, support and healing.

Figure 3: CPUT’s One Smart Vision 2030 from the perspective of transformation

The fourth dimension of Vision 2030 as a framework for institutional transformation which was considered is its dual principle of social responsiveness and understanding local, national and global contexts. This entails providing solutions:

• At the provincial level in the Western Cape;

• At the national level in support of the government’s National Development Plan (NDP) 2030;

• At the continental level in support of the African Union’s (AU’s) Agenda 2063; and

• At the global level in support of the UN’s Agenda 2030 and the world body’s Sustainable Development Goals which were adopted in 2015.

In this regard, it is important that students to be involved in their communities and that the university promote community engagement more generally. In this context, a particular concern is to find a way of supporting CPUT students in their responses to the challenges posed in the surrounding communities of Belhar and Delft.

6.5.1 Six pillars for transformatione

The Department of Institutional Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity at CPUT has identified six pillars for its transformation approach which must be guided by the principles of diversity and inclusivity:

1 The promotion of student and staff access, success and support;

2 Fostering institutional responses to discrimination, abuse and harassment, including GBV. These responses may take different forms across the university given the particular needs identified by the various units and departments;

3 Addressing inclusivity in relation to places and spaces. This may take the form of visual redress, such as through renaming buildings and spaces, or new language policies. For example, the institution should respond to the need for multilingualism on the Wellington campus. A holistic approach is required in addressing such issues.

4 Fostering Africanisation and ownership of an institutional African identity;

5 Enhancing social responsiveness by way of community engagement and partnerships which enhance social impact; and

6 Offering greater curriculum support, including in relation to producing inclusive teaching.

These last three pillars can only be strengthened by creating collaborative partnerships within the institution. Furthermore, a particular discourse must be promoted to support these transformation efforts. It is in this spirit, that the Department of Institutional Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity in the Office of the Vice Chancellor has coordinated with other departments, including the DSA, to present the current series of webinars on transformation.

It is important to emphasise that the discourse of transformation needs to address the “unsayables” around issues of racism, sexism, health and safety, and religion; and every unit in the university needs to be equipped to address these issues properly. In support, the Department of Institutional Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity can provide awareness-raising posters and information materials, as well as training. This support is available for students and for those working with the students. For example, a staff member in a position of responsibility cannot be expected to address homophobia properly without a full understanding of what constitutes homophobia and the implications of homophobic actions for particular individuals.

6.5.2 Signifiers of transformation in daily university life

Transformation practitioners must acknowledge the importance of diversity, inclusivity, social change and cohesion, human rights, equality and equity as guiding principles. In seeking to implement these principles and mainstream intersectionality, they may assess the effectiveness of their efforts according to the following indicators:

• Multiple struggles, that is, recognising that there are multiple forms of systemic discrimination that inhibit the provision of equal opportunities in learning and work places;

• Intersecting oppressions, that is, appreciating that systemic discriminations intersect with each other, presenting unique challenges for affected individuals;

• Voices, that is, respecting and valuing the voices of those who are affected by discrimination and encouraging them to express their views;

• Intersecting issues and cross-issues, that is, being open to thinking creatively about social-justice issues, and assessing how these can connect with issues which may seem at first glance to be unrelated;

• Inclusivity, that is, recognising multiple voices as there is no singular way of experiencing an issue. The various voices need to be considered to produce real, lasting and equitable change;

6.6 Addressing gender-based violence

• Disaggregated data, that is, ensuring that data collection does not overlook the experiences of individuals with intersectional identities. Accordingly, researchers should be sensitive of the need to disaggregate data.

• Social cohesion, that is, the importance of coming together to achieve equal opportunity and to ensure that “no one is left behind”; and

• Collaboration, that is, the drive to collaborate with people from different backgrounds to encourage innovative solutions, expand networks and encourage transformative change.

Analysis of student experiences and needs from an intersectional perspective can produce important findings. For example, in relation to diet and nutrition, health and cultural needs should be identified so that appropriate food can be provided, such as for diabetics and members of certain religious groups.

The issue of gender-based violence was raised in the Soudien report of 2008, but higher education failed to attend to it, which has now produced a crisis. For its part, CPUT has based its institutional policy to address GBV on the six pillars of a National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide which was produced by an Interim Steering Committee comprising government and civil-society stakeholders in 2020:

1 Accountability, coordination and leadership: There must be a strategic commitment at a senior level to coordinate responses to GBV and ensure accountability in relation to the effectiveness of these responses. At CPUT, there is a high-level institutional GBV committee led by the vicechancellor and comprising senior managers as well as SRC representatives. The committee meets quarterly to discuss and receive reports on GBV efforts and to forge interventions and proposals for addressing the scourge of GBV more effectively.

2 Prevention and rebuilding social cohesion: There is a need to move away from stand-alone events and rather to produce integrated prevention initiatives and programmes that address the drivers of GBV. The goal should be to change the behaviours and social norms that underpin GBV. Accordingly, a number of integrated initiatives should be forged and implemented under the leadership of a member of the executive management committee to address issues including masculinity and patriarchy; inequality; alcohol and substance abuse; poverty; and emotional, financial and economic abuse.

3 Justice, safety and protection: A safety audit of residences should be conducted and confidential, quick, accessible and responsive processes must be put in place to protect and ensure justice for victims. As part of this, an effective, functional emergency reporting line must be established. For example, concerns have been raised that the

line provided by the Campus Protection Services (CPS) is not working properly. In addition, arrangements should be made to ensure the provision of emergency transport to take victims to Thuthuzela Care Centres or safe houses. Partnerships with local organisations need to be created to ensure appropriate support for off-campus victims.

4 Response, care, support and healing: At present, CPUT’s Department of Student Affairs provides comprehensive, integrated, survivor-focused counselling and peer-support across the university’s various campuses. The department has established an integrated electronic procedure for reporting GBV, a system for managing emergency situations and a partnership network to provide support for off-campus victims.

5 Socio-economic power: The aim should be to empower women and the LGBTQIA+, community socially and economically so that they are no longer vulnerable, instead of having to focus on safety measures. Resources need to be mobilised to this end; and

6 Research and information management: A comprehensive information base needs to be established so that the patterns of GBV can be identified more clearly and addressed more effectively. Such a database may include de-identified accounts from survivor interviews, case studies and reporting that has been collected by the CPS. The data may be used to investigate trends among GBV cases and to inform collaboration on how best to address GBV.

A key concern in seeking to produce effective responses to GBV is how best to provide support off campus. A number of highprofile incidents of sexual violence and harassment of students at universities, including CPUT, have taken place off campus; and research has found that little effective support and counselling has been offered to students living in external residences and among local communities. In response, it is important that CPUT build partnerships with local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on the ground which can assist it, not only in providing support and other services for victims of violence, but also in providing orientation to students in relation to GBV.

6.6.1 CPUT efforts in response to GBV

CPUT has adopted an accountable, responsive and preventative approach to addressing the GBV crisis.

In its efforts, it has sought to:

• Engage everyone in the university and beyond the campus gates in response to the crisis;

• Address the structural drivers of GBV;

• Stop the violence before it happens;

• Enforce, implement and adopt appropriate laws and policies;

• Deepen understanding and knowledge of the issue;

• Elevate accountability in the responses implemented to address GBV at all levels;

• Enhance strategic, institutional and resourcing coherence in responding to the crisis; and

• Provide victim-centred, survivor-focussed, accessible quality services.

CPUT’s commitment to addressing the GBV crisis has been exemplified in its engagement in a HeForShe programme promoted by UN Women. The idea behind this initiative is that GBV is not just a women’s issue, it should be seen as everybody’s issue. Society needs to work with the nation’s daughters and sons and, in an effort to dispel the notion that all men are bad, should seek instead to promote men as leaders in combatting GBV. Accordingly, the university’s executive management signed a pledge to support the HeForShe programme and heads of departments then took up the initiative and coordinated with the student leadership to implement it.

A number of senior students were appointed as HeForShe ambassadors from among teaching assistants, peer mentors, peer facilitators, peer tutors and retention officers (ROs), and from the service learning and work-integrated learning (WIL) programmes. In addition, HeForShe ambassadors were appointed from among student affairs and faculty staff, including department heads, student development officers (SDOs), and residence and DSA staff. These ambassadors were appointed from across the university, including from the applied sciences and health and wellness faculties, as well as the Faculty of Business and Management Sciences (FBMS), the Faculty of Informatics and Design (FID) and the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment (FEBE). Ambassadors were also appointed from among the support departments managing operations, student affairs, teaching and learning, remote teaching and learning (RTL), ICT, finance, employee relations, and labour and campus safety, as well as the registrar.

Training was provided to the signatory HeForShe ambassadors on dismantling patriarchy and addressing dominant ideas of masculinity with a view to reconstructing these in different ways to ensure the protection of women in society. A culminating event takes place annually on international men’s day on 19 November at which men from across the institution, including students, pledge to safeguard women. This event and ancillary initiatives are organised by the Department of Institutional Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity with the Student Governance and Leadership Development (SGLD) division in DSA.

However, notwithstanding the transformation that has been wrought by the HeForShe programme at CPUT, there is still a long way to go. For example, a recent SRC meeting hosted an entirely male-dominated discussion of the GBV crisis within the context of political education and decolonisation. The programme director was a man and all the panellists were men, as if women were unable to articulate their own position on the issue. In this regard, it is crucial that the voices of all groups in terms of race, gender and age, etc are heard, if the university is to address the issue of gender transformation and promote diversity in an authentic fashion. While men can and should talk about patriarchy as part of the HeForShe programme, this should not mean that they talk on behalf of women. After all, it is not as if there are no women to talk on the issue of gender transformation within the SRC and outside. Indeed, unless the implementation of the programme among the student leadership is diverse in terms of gender as well as race, then it is questionable whether it can serve its purpose. For example, the data that emanates from the programme is unlikely be disaggregated, given the partial lens shaping its production. At the same time, a positive development has been that, when a new SRC is appointed each year, its members must sign the HeForShe pledge and read it out as part of their induction.

6.7 Critical dimensions of oneness and smartness at CPUT

Reporting in relation to the dimensions of oneness and smartness as part of CPUT’s Vision 2030 is organised according to seven focus areas:

1 A smart information and communications technology (ICT) environment and workforce. In this regard, a key question is: What programmes are being undertaken to promote digital transformation that can change the lives of the student?

2 Smart teaching and learning, and a pedagogic culture and learning environment which can contribute to improved student access and success;

3 Smart research, technology and innovation partnerships (RTIP) that are relevant and excellent in promoting knowledge production and fostering socially relevant research and development.

4 Smart human capital and development. This may include, for example, programmes to address employment equity and skills development among staff;

5 Smart internationalisation – for example, by promoting student engagement in local, national and global contexts and by fostering multiculturalism and multilingualism;

6 Smart engagement and strong links with quintuple-helix partners. Such partnerships may be leveraged to forge programmes which promote moral regeneration, citizenship, awareness of gender issues, community engagement, diversity and inclusivity among students. A key concern here is to identify and approach the appropriate stakeholders; and

7 Smart student engagement and learning experiences. For example, student engagement programmes may be launched to address issues such as racism, homophobia, culture/religion, diversity and inclusivity. This is a crucial aspect of student-centred transformation work in the institution and, in this context, the various departments and units need to ask themselves what they have done in relation to addressing the baseline for transformation

Another import initiative has been the establishment of the transformation seminar series, which aims to bring together students and transformation practitioners among the staff and outside the university in order to produce a more democratic, integrated approach to transformation within the institution.

DISCUSSION11

The Department of Student Affairs will adopt a coordinated approach to promote student-centred transformation. Merely receiving reports on the issues is not enough, the department needs to try and help change the institutional environment and produce an integrated agenda to this end. Past experience has shown the positive impacts of adopting an integrated approach in this way – for example, in organising student conferences, the various divisions formed project teams each of which made a contribution.

As a result, successful leadership development, women’s empowerment and safe zones programmes were launched with the support of the students. In this regard, the collaboration and integration in the department must by horizontal as well as vertical and should not shy away from reflecting honestly on what has and has not been achieved. More needs to be done to put the Department’s and the institution’s policies into practice. In this regard, one suggestion would be to establish a transformation sub-forum within the department at which colleagues could share concerns and make inputs – at present, no such platform for collaborative discussion around transformation exists within the DSA.

In order to produce a genuinely integrated approach that mainstreams transformation, staff need to be engaged properly to identify the roles that they can and should play. Also, good ideas need to be produced. To this end, project planning should not be a process dominated by a few, but one which encourages cooperation and democratic engagement. The will and the support of colleagues is more important that already having the resources. Everyone needs to produce ideas and submit them to the Dean. If the idea is good enough, the money and resources will follow. So, for example, while sports, arts and culture may be used as vehicles to achieve transformation imperatives, they do not necessarily promote the value of oneness sought by the university. A plan identifying and actualising their potential for transformation must be forged first.

Mainstreaming entails collective planning and as such should be a DSA programme, because everyone including students should have a stake in it. In this respect, maybe what is required is a mainstreaming policy rather than a transformation policy. In support of such an approach, there could be greater crosspollination of ideas and initiatives among departments across the

Mainstreaming entails collective planning and as such should be a DSA programme, because everyone including students should have a stake in it. In this respect, maybe what is required is a mainstreaming policy rather than a transformation policy. In support of such an approach, there could be greater cross-pollination of ideas and initiatives among departments across the institution under the leadership of the Department of Institutional Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity and the Department of Student Affairs.

institution under the leadership of the Department of Institutional Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity and the Department of Student Affairs. Instead of producing separate programmes on issues such as GBV, masculinity, poverty, LGBTQIA+ rights, etc, the two departments may join forces, thus promoting a costeffective, holistic and integrated approach. The goal for the DSA should be to drive the shosholoza train.

Meanwhile the Student Governance and Leadership Development Department in the DSA should seek to extend its reach on campus and into surrounding communities, particularly in Belhar and Delft. The priority should be to forge plans with local community figures to address transformation issues which have been foregrounded under the Covid-19 pandemic.

With specific reference to GBV, there is a need for comprehensive data on cases so that the initiatives and programmes which are produced can be genuinely responsive. At present, there is a disconnect between those collecting the data, such as the Campus Protection Services, and those seeking to access it. The issue of how such data may be accessed in a way that will enable it to make a difference needs to be addressed. There also needs to be a stronger focus on men within the work on GBV if it is actually to be preventative rather than purely responsive and focussed solely on reporting cases and supporting victims. In this regard, CPUT’s partnership with UN Women which has produced research on gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as the HeForShe programme engaging men and boys on women’s issues, has produced significant transformation benefits. As a next step, it is recommended that the Department of Institutional Transformation, Social Cohesion and Diversity collaborate with the DSA to mainstream the work on GBV in response to the identified data and policy-development needs that have been identified.

11 This discussion is based on comments made by participants at the webinar, including DSA staff members and Nonkosi Tyolwana.

+27 (0)21 959 6767 info@cput.ac.za