Hierdie artikel is deel van LitNet Akademies (Opvoedkunde) se universiteitseminaar. Klik op die “University Seminar 2016”-banier hierbo om alle essays wat deel vorm van die gesprek, te lees.
This article forms part of the ongoing university seminar, with new essays continually being added. Please click on the “University Seminar 2016” banner above to follow the ongoing conversation and to read more essays on education, access, transformation, language and the Constitution.
Helen Zille, Rhoda Kadalie, Theuns Eloff
Statement by Gelyke Kanse on the decision of the Stellenbosch University Council on language policy
We welcome the decision of the Stellenbosch University Council at its meeting of 9 May 2016 to take the lead with the language policy that the university wishes to apply in future.
We believe this to be the correct procedure, one that the Council as the policy-making body should have followed from the outset, but which was derailed by the Rector’s Management Team’s (RMT) consistently taking the initiative with such processes.
In the Matieland of November 2015 the rector, Prof Wim de Villiers, affirmed that: “Stellenbosch University has always lectured and answered exams in Afrikaans and English. We currently want to implement and finance a policy of equal status in a manner that does not exclude anybody and which will have no negative impact.” However, in the very same month the RMT set forth language proposals that would anglicise the university in all respects, even prescribing that English should be the language of residence meetings.
The SU language policy is a policy of the Council for which the Council is statutorily responsible, and as such is determined and laid down by the SU Council; the rector and all SU personnel are employees of the SU Council and are duty bound to apply and execute Council policy. The development of Council policy is a top-down process, not a bottom-upwards one, and should (in the case of the language policy) be developed by a language committee of the Council under an impartial chair and including, inter alia, independent linguists and a wide representation of interested and affected parties. Broad consultation with stakeholders should a priori be part of the development process. Thus far, mere superficial and selective consultation has been done, reportedly only with the Students’ Council and Open Stellenbosch, a movement with minuscule support.
The unfortunate result has been that the RMT has once again produced a grossly defective draft language policy. Thus the SA Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns (the SA Academy for the Sciences and the Arts) has stated that the draft policy is a poorly translated Afrikaans version from English that views Afrikaans as inferior.
The draft policy also completely ignores the interests of the coloured Afrikaans-speaking community, a community which should be a primary target for transformation at the US. This community’s presence at universities is the lowest of all population groups in the country.
Experts have shown that the proposed language policy entrenches a language order with English as dominant and Afrikaans as subordinate. This will inevitably reflect in a status hierarchy with English speakers and their language as superior and Afrikaans speakers and their culture as inferior – in essence, culture prejudice. This in no way meets the most basic requirements of parity of collective esteem between different language communities. In the absence of this, inter-group contact will repeatedly become a source of friction, the very last outcome that a sensible language policy should produce as an unintended consequence.
Occurrences such as these at the university have resulted in a serious breach of trust that will have to be handled most circumspectly if trust is to be restored. Prejudice against Afrikaans would be improper and inappropriate in the deliberations of all of the university’s institutions.
The self-evident solution is that the Council should reaffirm its existing policy of equal status for Afrikaans and English, with proper parallel-medium tutoring that excludes no one but that provides access for all students who meet admission requirements. This calls for the greatest possible measure of consensus on fundamental values such as equivalence and the continued existence and development of Afrikaans as an academic and scientific language. Hence the impressive support for the campaign of Gelyke Kanse received from all over South Africa and abroad.
We wish the SU Council well in their endeavour to establish a fair and constitutionally founded language policy.
US-taalbeleid: Ope brief van Gelyke Kanse aan die US-Raad
Ons verwelkom die besluit van die Raad van die Universiteit Stellenbosch op sy vergadering van 9 Mei 2016 om die leiding oor te neem met die taalbeleid wat die universiteit voortaan wil toepas.
Ons meen dat dit die regte prosedure is wat die Raad as beleidmakende liggaam uit die staanspoor moes gevolg het, maar dat dit ontspoor is deurdat die Rektor se Bestuurspan (RBS) reeds geruime tyd die inisiatief met sodanige prosesse geneem het.
In die Matieland van November 2015 het die rektor, prof Wim de Villiers, nog verklaar: “Die Universiteit Stellenbosch het nog altyd in Afrikaans en Engels gedoseer en vraestelle beantwoord. Tans wil ons ’n beleid van gelyke status implementeer en finansier op ’n manier wat niemand uitsluit nie en geen negatiewe impak sal hê nie.” In dieselfde maand het die RBS egter taalvoorstelle uitgereik wat die universiteit heeltemal sou verengels, selfs met die voorskrif dat Engels die taal van koshuisvergaderings moes wees.
Die US-taalbeleid is ’n Raadsbeleid waarvoor die US-Raad statutêr verantwoordelik is en gevolglik deur die US-Raad bepaal en neergelê word met instemming van die Senaat; die rektor en alle US-personeel is werknemers van die US-Raad en het die plig om die Raadsbeleid toe te pas en uit te voer. Die ontwikkeling van Raadsbeleid is ’n bo-na-onder-proses, en nie ‘n onder-na-bo-proses nie, en behoort (in die geval van die taalbeleid) deur ’n Raadstaalkomitee (onder ’n onpartydige voorsitter en met insluiting van onder andere onafhanklike taalkenners en wye verteenwoordiging van belanghebbende instansies) ontwikkel te word. Wye oorlegpleging met belanghebbendes moet a priori deel wees van die ontwikkelingsproses. Slegs oppervlakkige en selektiewe oorlegpleging met belangegroepe is egter tot dusver gedoen.
Die ongelukkige gevolg is dat die RBS pas weer ‘n erg gebrekkige konseptaalbeleid voorgelê het. Die SA Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns wys byvoorbeeld daarop dat die konsepbeleid ‘n swak-vertaalde Afrikaanse weergawe uit Engels is en dat Afrikaans as minderwaardig beskou word.
Die konsepbeleid ignoreer ook heeltemal die belange van die bruin Afrikaanssprekende gemeenskap, wat vir die US ‘n primêre teiken vir transformasie behoort te wees. Hierdie gemeenskap se deelname aan universiteitsonderrig is die laagste van alle gemeenskappe in die land.
Kenners het daarop gewys dat hierdie voorgestelde taalbeleid ‘n taalrangorde met Engels as dominant en Afrikaans as ondergeskik vestig. Dit sal onvermydelik weerspieël word in ’n statushiërargie met Engelssprekendes en hul kultuur as meerderwaardig en Afrikaanssprekendes en hul kultuur as minderwaardig – kortom, kulturele vooroordeel. Dit voldoen hoegenaamd nie aan die mees basiese vereistes van gelykberegtiging in kollektiewe eiewaarde tussen verskillende taalgemeenskappe nie. Daarsonder sal intergroepkontak telkens ’n bron van wrywing word, die laaste uitkoms wat ’n sinvolle taalbeleid as ’n onvoorsiene gevolg behoort te skep.
Gebeure soos hierdie aan die universiteit het ‘n ernstige vertrouensbreuk veroorsaak wat met groot omsigtigheid gehanteer sal moet word om vertroue te herstel. Vooroordeel teen Afrikaans sou ook onbehoorlik en onvanpas wees in belangrike beraadslaginge op alle vlakke van universiteitsinstellings.
Die klaarblyklike oplossing is dat die Raad sy bestaande beleid van gelyke status vir Afrikaans en Engels moet herbevestig, met behoorlike parallelmediumonderrig wat niemand uitsluit nie, maar toegang verleen aan alle studente wat aan die toelatingsvereistes voldoen. Dit verg die grootste moontlike strewe na konsensus oor fundamentele waardes soos gelykwaardigheid en die voortbestaan en ontwikkeling van Afrikaans as akademiese en wetenskapstaal. Dit is waarvoor Gelyke Kanse se veldtog sulke indrukwekkende steun van oral uit Suid-Afrika en die buiteland ontvang.
Ons wens die US-Raad sterkte en wysheid toe met die vaslegging van ‘n billike en grondwetlik-gefundeerde taalbeleid.
Geteken:
Abraham H de Vries
Breyten Breytenbach
Paul Chepmell
FW de Klerk
Salie de Swardt
Ebbe Dommisse
Theuns Eloff
Ben Erasmus
Pieter Haasbroek
Johannes Jordaan
Hermann Giliomee
Marié Heese
Pieter Hurter
Rhoda Kadalie
Danie Marais
David Meades
Jalaun Meades
Kobus Meiring
John Miles
Gerrit Olivier
Abraham Philips
Flip Smit
Philip Spies
Conrad Steenkamp
Naas Steenkamp
Frederik R van Dyk
Hennie van Deventer
Albert van Wyk
Anna van Wyk
Jacques van Wyk
Christo Viljoen
David Welsh
Helen Zille
The post Statement by Gelyke Kanse on the decision of the Stellenbosch University Council on language policy appeared first on LitNet.