As South Africa enters the post-election era, the future of race relations in higher education is still undefined.
The historically differential treatment of the three subgroups
collectively differential treatment of the three Africans, Coloreds,
and Indians — poses a remarkable challenge to policy-makers who have
to transform the curriculum and formulate new strategies for the
re-allocation of resources. During the apartheid era, the following
racial classification terms were conceptualized: “White” refers to
people of European descent; “African” refers to the indigenous people
of South Africa; “Colored” refers to people of mixed Africa, Malay,
Khoi, and European descent; “Indian” or “Asian” refers to people of
Asian descent — excluding Japanese, who were classified honorary
whites; “Black” refers collectively to Africans, Coloreds and Indians
and is a political term which emerged out of the Black consciousness
philosophy in the 1970s.
The continuing significance of race and the constant reconceptualization of racial identity raise a number of issues.
It is evident that the current curriculum at both historically
white and Black universities is heavily Euro-centric. There is still a
pervasive attitude that there is nothing wrong with this curriculum.
The problem has been defined in terms of the increasing presence of the
“under-prepared” (mostly Black) students in institutions of higher
education. This attitude was echoed at the annual meeting of the
American Education Research Association held in San Francisco last
month by a professor from the University of Potchefstroom, a
historically white university, when he stated that: “…white
universities are Western animals and they have to conform to the high
academic standards of the West. If Black students want to attend our
universities, they have to adjust to the way things operate at these
universities.”
These attitudes demonstrate the arrogance of some South African
scholars who still equate Euro-centric ideas with intellectual
superiority.
It is not enough to give all South Africans the same quality of
education without changing the content. In other words, the current
curriculum which contains abundant negative portrayals of Black culture
cannot be used as the universal curriculum. Some scholars have called
for the “Africanization” of the curriculum to reflect the interests of
students represented in higher education — a proposal which has
ignited a heated debate within the education sector.
Beyond incorporating Black history and literature into the
textbooks, what does “Africanization” really mean? Does African culture
include Coloreds and Indians as well? Scholars at historically white
universities (HWUs) argue that Africanization of the curriculum will
lower standards and jeopardize the competitiveness and international
status of their institutions. To what standards and to whose standards
are these universities adhering?
