Get in touch
555-555-5555
mymail@mailservice.com
Media verklaring - 10 November 2022
Terug na media
Universiteit van Stellenbosch - Khampepe verslag vind basis in Wokeness en ingedefineerde transformasie - Nie Feite!
See English statement below
Universiteit van Stellenbosch en Khampepe verslag
Die Afrikanerbond het kennis geneem van oudregter Sisi Khampepe se kommissie van ondersoek na beweringe van rassisme by die Universiteit van Stellenbosch.
Daar is teleurstelling dat die verslag die geleentheid verby laat gaan het om op ʼn feitelike basis te werk met die beweringe en dan daarvolgens ʼn bevinding te maak. Instede daarvan word die verslag eerder ʼn betoog teen Afrikaans, witmense en Afrikaners. Dit alles gebeur binne ʼn transformasie agenda wat vreemd voorkom. Oudregter Khampepe, as voormalige regter in die grondwetlike hof sal weet dat transformasie nie een keer genoem of omskryf word in die Suid-Afrikaanse grondwet nie. Transformasie het hoogstens ʼn ideologiese instrument geword wat elke verskuilde agenda sal pas. In die regter se omskrywings inleidend tot die verslag, word drie definisies van transformasie gebruik wat telkens slegs terugverwys na die universiteit se siening. Die ‘Transformation agenda’ wat verwys na die universiteit se oogmerk om transformasie te bevorder en die uitwissing van rasisme en diskriminasie, die ‘transformation apparatus’ wat verwys na universiteitsdokumentasie en ook die personeel en kantore wat die agenda moet bevorder en die ‘transformation journey’ wat die universiteit se uiteindelike doelwit is naamlik om ʼn inklusiewe, diverse en getransformeerde SA universiteit te word.
In laasgenoemde doelwit lê die werklike probleem want nêrens is daar sprake van die akkommodering van diverse groepe in die ‘getransformeerde universiteit’ nie. Instede daarvan word diversiteit die sondebok wat gebruik word om inklusiwiteit en transformasie na te jaag. Hiervolgens is Afrikaans uitsluitend en word transformasie niks anders as om wit met swart te vervang en Afrikaans met Engels. Aangesien die regter self nie transformasie definieer nie, maar dit wel goed vind om 494 keer in haar verslag daarna te verwys, kan mens nie anders as om die hele verslag met skeptisisme te bejeën nie. Inteendeel dit word 184 bladsye van woke-teorie op sy beste. Feitelik skraps - maar steun swaar op die geleefde ervaring van ‘slagoffers’. Dit op sigself werp ʼn ernstige refleksie op die “bevindinge”.
Stellenbosch word op p56 die dorp van “many conservative typically White, Afrikaners who bear racist and other bigoted beliefs and attitudes.” Niks word gedoen om die bewerings te staaf op ʼn feitelike basis nie. Dit is veralgemeende stellings en is onbillik teenoor die dorp en sy gemeenskap.
Die vraag moet gevra word of die verslag enige wesenlike bydrae lewer tot eenheid in verskeidenheid met respek vir die diverse mense en kulture van Suid-Afrika? Die verslag ondersteun die Rektor se mening van enkele jare gelede dat die “Universiteit van Stellenbosch nie die verantwoordelikheid moet dra om Afrikaans se voortbestaan te beskerm nie.” So word die Universiteit van Stellenbosch deur transformasie maar net nog ʼn Engelse Suid-Afrikaanse Universiteit.
Regter Khampepe se uiteindelike bevinding wat waarskynlik op die langer duur die grootste impak gaan hê, is die gewig wat sy toeken aan die Transformasie Kantoor wat uiteindelik ook die Rektoraat sal oorskadu. Afrikaans en diversiteit gaan die prys betaal vir transformasie wat die Universiteitsbestuur se uiteindelike oogmerk is. Die Transformasie Kantoor kan dan netsowel as ʼn Sowjet-tipe Politieke Kommisariaat optree. Die Transformasie Kantoor sal hiermee die ideologiese basis vir bestuur van die universiteit bepaal. Noodwendig sal dit ook lei tot die vervanging van die rektor en sy bestuur met meer nuttige ideologiese navolgers.
10 November 2022
------------------------------
University of Stellenbosch – KHAMPEPE REPORT based on Wokeness and undefined transformation
The Afrikanerbond has taken note of the report on the findings of former judge Sisi Khampepe's commission of inquiry into allegations of racism at the University of Stellenbosch.
It disappoints that the report fails to engage on a factual basis with the allegations, with findings being made accordingly. Instead, it becomes a protest against Afrikaans, white people and Afrikaners. All of this takes place within the framework of a curiously conceived of transformation agenda –– while, as a former judge in the constitutional court, former judge Kamphepe would know that transformation is not mentioned even once, nor is it defined, in the South African constitution. This newly conceived of ideological device has at best become a tool that lends itself to each and every hidden agenda.
In the judge's introduction to the report, three definitions of transformation are employed, each of which is crafted to support the university's ultimate objective. These are the 'transformation agenda', which refers to the university's aim to promote transformation and eradicate racism and discrimination; the 'transformation apparatus', which refers to university documentation and also staff and offices being expected to promote this agenda; and the 'transformation journey', which refers to the university's ultimate goal, namely to become an inclusive, diverse and transformed SA university.
On closer inspection, however, it becomes apparent that the latter objective contains no mention of any attempt to accommodate diverse groups in the 'transformed university'. Instead, diversity becomes a scapegoat that is sacrificed in the pursuance of one-sided so-called ‘inclusivity’ and ‘transformation’. Under this approach, Afrikaans is regarded as being exclusive, and transformation becomes nothing more than the replacement of white with black and Afrikaans with English.
Since the judge herself does not define the concept of transformation, yet sees fit to refer to it 494 times in her report, one cannot help but view the entire report with scepticism. Indeed, it becomes 184 pages of woke theory at its best — factually scant, with a heavy reliance on the lived experience of 'victims'. This in itself casts serious doubt on the ‘findings’.
On page 56, Stellenbosch becomes a town of "many conservative, typically White, Afrikaners who bear racist and other bigoted beliefs and attitudes". No attempt is made to substantiate the allegations with facts. These are generalised statements that are unfair and indeed pejorative to both the town and its community.
The question must be asked: Does this report make any real contribution to unity in diversity, from a position of respect for the diverse people and cultures of South Africa? The report supports the Rector's opinion from a few years ago that the "University of Stellenbosch should not bear the responsibility of protecting the survival of Afrikaans". Thus, through ‘transformation’, the University of Stellenbosch becomes just another English South African university.
Judge Khampepe's final finding, which will probably have the greatest impact in the longer term, is the weight she assigns to the Transformation Office, which is set eventually to supersede the Rectorate. Afrikaans and diversity will fall victim to transformation, which is the University Management's ultimate objective. The Transformation Office will, in the style of a Soviet-type Political Commissariat, have the power to determine the ideological basis from which the university is managed. Inevitably, it will end up using its power to replace the vice-chancellor and management personnel with more pliant ideological followers.
10 November 2022
