Protesters rights' trampled at UFS rugby match - Jonathan Jansen
Jaco Strauss
"The black students told the police that they wanted to do to white students what other white people had done to them yesterday," said Chabalala.
One of the students shouted: “Yesterday we were beaten but you did not do anything, today when we want to avenge ourselves you attack us – you are protecting the whites". The group of students beside him shouted in agreement.
"The students said they would beat any sign of a white student they would see on campus today [Tuesday]," Chabalala added.
Protesters rights' trampled at UFS rugby match - Jonathan Jansen
23 Feb 2016
Statement by Prof Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the University of the Free State (UFS) about the situation on the Bloemfontein Campus
1. As all of you know, last night we witnessed a really tragic event at Xerox Shimla Park on the Bloemfontein Campus on the occasion of the Varsity Cup rugby match between NMMU (FNB Madibaz) and UFS (FNB Shimlas).
2. The game started at 18:30 and about 17 minutes into the match, a group of protestors sitting on the north-eastern side of the stadium decided to invade the pitch and disrupt the game in progress.
3. After a short while, some of the spectators also invaded the field, chasing and brutally beating those protestors whom they caught.
4. As a university leadership we condemn in the strongest terms possible the vicious attack on the protestors. Nobody, repeat nobody, has the right to take the law into their own hands. While the protests were illegal and disruptive, it did not harm to the physical well-being of the spectators.
5. The reaction from the group of spectators, however, not only opened old wounds, it trampled, literally and figuratively, on the dignity and humanity of other human beings. This we condemn in no uncertain terms, and no stone will be left unturned to find those who acted so violently on what should have been a beautiful occasion that also brought families and young children together to enjoy an evening of sport.
6. I cannot over-emphasise our level of disgust and dismay at the behaviour of the spectators. It is NOT what the University of the Free State (UFS) is about and we are working around the clock to gather evidence on the basis of which we will pursue both charges and, in the case of students, also disciplinary action on campus.
7. At the same time, the invasion of the pitch is also completely unacceptable and we will seek evidence on the basis of which we will act against those who decided to disrupt an official university event.
8. Clashes between students occurred afterwards on campus and members of the Public Order Policing had to disperse some of them. The situation was stabilised in the early hours of the morning.
9. Disruption continued this morning (23 February 2016) when students damaged some university buildings, a statue, and broke windows. Additional reinforcements from the South African Police Service were brought in to stabilise the campus. Additional security has also been deployed.
Broader picture
10. We are very aware of the national crisis on university campuses and the instability currently underway. While the UFS has been largely peaceful, we have not been spared this turmoil, as last night’s events showed.
11. We are also conscious of the fact that even as we speak, various political formations are vying for position inside the turmoil in this important election year. In fact, part of the difficulty of resolving competing demands is that they come from different political quarters, and change all the time.
12. We are therefore learning from reliable sources that the Varsity Cup competition is, in fact, a target of national protests in front of a television audience.
13. And we are aware of the fact that these protests are not only led by students but also by people from outside who have no association with the university. Just as the violent spectators involved on Monday night also included people from outside the university.
The demands
14. My team has worked around the clock to try to meet the demands of contract workers demanding to be in-sourced. In fact, this weekend past, senior colleagues sat with worker leaders in the township to try to find ways of meeting their demands. We were hoping that such an agreement would be finalised by Monday afternoon (22 February 2016), but on the same Monday morning workers and students were arrested after moving onto Nelson Mandela Avenue, after which the South African Police Service (SAPS) took over as the matter became a public safety concern outside the hands of the university. Since then, it was difficult to return the workers to settle on a possible agreement.
15. The fact is that the UFS has been in constant negotiation with contract workers to provide our colleagues with a decent wage and certain benefits. In fact, towards the end of last year we raised the minimum wage from R2 500 to R5 000. We were in fact hoping that the continued negotiations would improve that level of compensation even as we looked at a possible plan for insourcing in the future. We made it clear that if we could insource immediately, we would, but that the financial risk to the university was so great that it threatened the jobs of all our staff. Those negotiations were going well, until recently, when without notice the workers broke away and decided to protest on and around campus.
16. While these negotiations were going on, the Student Representative Council (SRC) on Monday 22 February 2016 also decided to protest. While the vast majority of our 32 000 students were in classes and determined to get an education, a very small group led by the SRC President decided to protest; some invaded the UFS Sasol Library and the computer centre, and with the President eventually made their way to Xerox Shimla Park on which route they confronted the police, interrupted traffic and in fact injured some of our security staff as well as police officials.
17. The university is definitely proceeding to collect evidence on these illegal and violent acts and will also act firmly against students involved in these protests.
Summary
18. The events of Monday night represent a major setback for the transformation process at the UFS. While we have made major progress in recent years—from residence integration to a more inclusive language policy to a core curriculum to very successful ‘leadership for change’ interventions for student leaders—we still have a long way to go.
19. One violent incident on a rugby field and we again see the long road ahead yet to be travelled. As I have often said before, you cannot deeply transform a century-old university and its community overnight. We acknowledge the progress but also the still long and difficult path ahead. We will not give up.
20. We have 32 000 students on our campuses; the overwhelming majority of them are decent and committed to building bridges over old divides as we have seen over and over again. So many of our students, black and white, have become close and even intimate friends working hard to make this a better campus and ours a better community and country. Like all of us, they are gutted by what they saw on Monday, but the hundreds of messages I received from parents, students, and alumni this past 20 hours or so said one thing—keep on keeping on. And we will.
Statement issued by Prof Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the University of the Free State (UFS), 23 February 2016
Erik Peers
Jaco you asked for an example of your racism.
You write " Because the protesters were removed from the field by the spectators", however it is not because they were removed, it is because they were violently assaulted.
Violence begets violence. It has no place on a university campus.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Jaco Strauss
Erik Peers
No, you are not called a "racist" for pointing out that that incident is now used as an excuse by black students to attack any "white student they find on campus." Violence of this nature does not belong on campus no matter what the excuse.
You side with the whites. That is how you demonstrate your bias.
Because you don't like being called on this, you now wish to disengage?
Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
Erik Peers
So you admit to taking sides then? Good, this is progress.
You are then on the side of those who ejected the protesters and not on the side of the protesters, that is clear.
Yet you tacitly condone the violence by those who removed the protesters yet you decry the retaliation by the protesters.
That is your bias. Let's take colour out of it then.
That leaves bias rather than racism.
Erik Peers
He and I have economic freedom in common. Although he has a very different approach.
Jaco Strauss
Hügo Krüger
Jaco Strauss
Precisely Hugo
The rugby spectators on that night did not go out looking for blacks to attack; they went out to watch a rugby match.
After being violently denied that right, they retaliated. The original aggressors then vowed revenge - not on those who defended their constitutional rights on the field, but on ANY white person they find ANYWHERE on campus - irrespective of their involvement in the rugby clash.
Unbelievably the Rector then still sided with the original aggressors. Something that would definitely not have happened had the race of the role players been reversed.
Almost as disconcerting is the realisation that the rot is now so widespread that one could even be called a "racist" on a libertarian forum for pointing any of this out.
On the bright side, Erik has so far not found a single voice of support for his race card slur.
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Precisely Hugo
The rugby spectators on that night did not go out looking for blacks to attack; they went out to watch a rugby match.
After being violently denied that right, they retaliated. The original aggressors then vowed revenge - not on those who defended their constitutional rights on the field, but on ANY white person they find ANYWHERE on campus - irrespective of their involvement in the rugby clash.
Unbelievably the Rector then still sided with the original aggressors. Something that would definitely not have happened had the race of the role players been reversed.
Almost as disconcerting is the realisation that the rot is now so widespread that one could even be called a "racist" on a libertarian forum for pointing any of this out.
On the bright side, Erik has so far not found a single voice of support for his race card slur.
Look lets first remember that this started when a white girl was attacked with a speaker phone over the head as the protesters stormed the gate.The dumbest thing that you can do is storm a rugby match, especially since passions are already high and lots of spectators are already drunk. Furthermore if you come in physically assaulting people then dont come to me crying if you're going to get a hiding. These guys were just plain stupid, sure the protesters shouldn't have attacked them in the way they did, however I have little sympathy, if you are dealing our blows dont be surprised if they come swinging back at you.
On 26 February 2016 at 02:19, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for that Mark.Across the pond people are also getting sick and tired of such predictable shallowness....
<image.png>
Hmmm ... seems Erik and Julius have something in common
<image001.jpg>
From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Erik Peers
Sent: 25 February 2016 12:47 PM
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Protesters rights' trampled at UFS rugby match - Jonathan Jansen
So you admit to taking sides then? Good, this is progress.
You are then on the side of those who ejected the protesters and not on the side of the protesters, that is clear.
Yet you tacitly condone the violence by those who removed the protesters yet you decry the retaliation by the protesters.
That is your bias. Let's take colour out of it then.
That leaves bias rather than racism.
On 25 Feb 2016 12:34, "Jaco Strauss" <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:
Taking sides in a dispute is now also "racist".You are going from bad to worse.
So, "Nope", I am not being "called" on anything; it is merely your baseless name calling and inability to muster sensible counter arguments that deem this interaction a waste of my precious time as Stephen also pointed out.
J
2016-02-25 11:27 GMT+01:00 Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com>:
No, you are not called a "racist" for pointing out that that incident is now used as an excuse by black students to attack any "white student they find on campus." Violence of this nature does not belong on campus no matter what the excuse.
You side with the whites. That is how you demonstrate your bias.
Because you don't like being called on this, you now wish to disengage?
On 25 Feb 2016 12:17, "Jaco Strauss" <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:
I ask again: Please point out the "racism".
Students went to watch rugby; other students took to the field and disrupted the game. The original spectators proceeded to remove said protesters from the field. Their colour had nothing to do with it and I did not mention it. This is not a new thing. You go onto any sport field to disrupt it and chances are you would be removed - irrespective of the colours and creeds involved.
Please point out the racists in the 1981 picture below
<image002.png>
Trevor Watkins
Gavin Weiman
Leon Louw (gmail)
Erik Peers
The match I think was on university property. Does that make it private?
Leon Louw (gmail)
Erik Peers
Yet another good reason for private property. The private universities in SA (the number is growing rapidly) have had zero unrest.
Outeniqua Travel Lodge
I agree that private universities are the solution.
But attacking my alma mater worries me. I know it is for selfish reasons but I do feel ‘pain’ just as much as those protesters experience ‘pain’ seeing Rhodes’s statue.
A university like TUKS was established by more than a century’s commitment, energy and money (private donors donate huge amounts). Through the years a rich heritage of traditions and campus culture developed. This commitment, energy and private funds came mostly from a specific community’s private initiative. A new language, Afrikaans, developed into a fully fledged academic language. A Afrikaans academic standard, that wasn’t to bright at the beginning, became maybe not first class but definitely competitive. Every Afrikaner worked and hoped that our universities would become world class in the near future.
Although TUKS is a government owned university most of the energy, inisiative, commitment, some funds and especially the ambition came from private individuals. How much did the current protesters contribute to all this? How many of the above mentioned qualities did the black protesters use in the upliftment of their historic black universities? If you didn’t, like me, study at a historic black university, be careful how you onswer the last question.
Erik Peers
Wouldn't it have been wonderful if TUKS had remained private?
Hügo Krüger
The issue is that tuks is also a research based university (by far the largest in the country with the most publication). A private Uni will find it difficult to raise funds for such a large research budget. Whether it is europe or the Usa, most basic research is overwelming government funded.
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Hügo Krüger
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Hügo Krüger
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Hügo Krüger
Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad
Hügo Krüger
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Hügo Krüger
Stephen vJ
Sent from an electronic device.
Outeniqua Travel Lodge
1. The private sector do pay for a certain amount of university research ie engineering, agriculture etc
2. Masters and PhD research is usually paid by the student.
3. Private drug companies will pay for research to cure impotence but no private company is going to pay for the answer why you don’t love your wife.
From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen vJ
Sent: 28 February 2016 09:14 PM
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Protesters rights' trampled at UFS rugby match - Jonathan Jansen
The US government just loves taking credit for the Internet, but their initial efforts were rather flawed to say the least. Universities took over the idea and made it work... sort of, connecting only three independent campuses. Then private people came up with TCP (because IP on it's own was practically useless), HTML (because humans are pretty bad at banking from a command line in Hex) and address resolution (so as to make the network expandable beyond a few dozen connections sanctioned by the state). The Internet under government (~1962-~1984) went nowhere; only once private folks started getting into it and solving the problems at hand, did it take off. That's like crediting the first guy to hum a tune with the success of the Beatles.
Transistors... I'm pretty sure there was a very strong basis for it before state funding and that it would have happened in the private sector very shortly after anyway... but I'm going to look into this one again, since I recall something about the government hijacking a private patent application to take credit for it, but I might be confusing it with vacuum tubes. If I am mistaken, that's one win for the state. Whoopie. Even a drunk monkey with a fist full of darts will hit the bulls-eye by accident at some point, if he keeps trying. I strongly doubt however that the transistor can be credited to government funding, but I will check. Semi-conductor is the same as high or variable resistance, so big hoo-hah there, for sure.
My point is that the government often stifles, crowds out or misdirects research funding which could have been much better applied in the private sector. When I worked for Siemens a number of years back, the company was registering something like 2000 patents per month on average every month and was making about a 3rd of its global revenue from patents, licenses and usage fees i.e. it could retrench all it's staff, close all it's offices and still lose only a part of revenue. The patents and innovations were each and every one reflected in a marketable product to directly benefit consumers, otherwise they would not bother registering the patent - there must be a benefit side to the cost benefit analysis. 2000 innovations a month, every month, for 165 years... all of them sellable & practical. From only one company of many. Yeah, let's give government credit for the Transistor. That's 1.
Even if the government had any success at research (which I am not at all convinced they do), then one could still argue that they should not. Man will go to space and land on the moon - that is practically inevitable. Using force to make that happen in 1969 rather than in 2012 is not praiseworthy, but sad. It is premature and causes losses incalculable, through inefficiency as well as lost opportunity costs. Maybe we should have housed and fed everyone first or developed a malaria cure first or developed email first, before putting someone on the moon, but some dictator decided that some innovation with no marketable value relative to its cost (as indicated by lack of private funding) has to take priority over life itself. In the meantime, no private investor in space research would touch space with a barge pole, since he would always be out-funded by tax-payers in any commercialization effort - that is crowding out. It is no coincidence that the rise of companies like SpaceX coincided with the demise of Nasa.
Government should stay the hell out of research and leave it to the real innovators - private people and companies.
S.
Sent from an electronic device.