What the Ghoti?!

Last year, I wrote a little about Fees Must Fall when it was still in its early days (I suggest reading it after this to avoid the impression that all my views are quite so cynical). There was also a follow-up piece, which is less relevant here. A group of us later drafted a document with broad ideas on a way forward.

And here we are again. Well, kind of. I don’t know if this year’s movement is different, or if, in the intervening year, my perspective has changed. It’s likely that the imminent possibility of finally graduating is also skewing my perspective. I suspect it’s a combination of these things that has affected my outlook. Whatever the case, I’ve started typing, and I hope this goes somewhere. As with the first post, I’ve added in some images and GIFs to relax it a bit.

A section with links to some good articles (and other stuff) on the topic has been added at the bottom. Take a look.

Nzimande’s Announcement

As you are likely aware, the Minister of Higher Education and Training made an announcement on Monday 19 September consisting of the following:

A recommendation that fee increases at universities and colleges do not exceed 8%

A subsidy (via NSFAS) for all students with an annual household income of less than R600,000, effectively reducing the fee increase for these students to 0%

Whatever your overall position, this is clearly a step in the right direction, particularly for the so-called “missing middle”. Of course there are some details missing, like whether he was referring to gross or net income, but R600,000 equates to a monthly income of R50,000. Furthermore, if that R600,000 was earned by a single individual, it would place them in the top 0.08% richest people in the world.

Where this announcement falls short is in addressing access for those disadvantaged students unable to pay the current fees, let alone an increased fee. Students with an annual household income of R160,000 or less are eligible to apply for NSFAS, but that doesn’t guarantee it, there may still be additional contributions, and it is often said that the means test is flawed (although I have no good source for this). On top of this, NSFAS is a failing system, which I’ll address a bit later.

And yet, there is one further perspective to add. Things cost more every year. In fact, in degrees such as mine, costs increase well above the changes in the prevailing CPI for various reasons, including fluctuating exchange rates and technological advancements.

Still, if we imagine that university costs increased by 8% a year, fee increases stayed at 8% as well, and that these increases were consistently subsidised down to 0% for the poor and missing middle, this equates to a halving of the real cost of fees for these students in approximately 10 years. I don’t know if this is too slow, or if this is quick. It’s just something to think about.

{Yes, I know that there are some necessary assumptions, and some big variables. One big one is the fact that family incomes don’t tend to simply increase along with inflation. The concept still holds}

Access to Higher Education

Recently, there appears to have been some confusion about the Bill of Rights. As I mentioned in last year’s piece, it’s very clear about Basic Education, which is why we spend a lot on it. It’s a lot less clear on "further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible“.

I have no idea what that means. The state has made further education progressively available and accessible, and “reasonable measures” is incredibly vague. Proportional to our GDP, the minister acknowledged last year that we under-spend on Higher Education, but perhaps this should be considered along with how much more we spend on Basic Education.

At the same time, we must think about the whole of Higher Education. On one hand, we have the more privileged saying things like “I mean it’s not all about university. The job market is saturated with people with degrees. We have a real skills shortage.” On the other hand, we have those of a less privileged background under the impression that a university education is the only way to break a cycle of poverty. What these parties seem to have in common is the condescension with which they look upon forms of higher education other than university education.

I, personally, am a big believer in formal education as a whole. (While you’re reading this, I might as well punt a thing I wrote about it). Still, while I don’t have any references to back this up, I expect that someone who studies Engineering-based courses, plumbing or computer skills somewhere like Central Johannesburg TVET College (which, by the way, receives public funding too) is more likely to be a significant economic contributor than someone who studies something like a BA with Honours in Drama Therapy.

I don’t mean to belittle the field, or anyone in it, and yet, particularly in a discussion around the use of public funding and public upliftment through education, one needs to think about the economic impact very carefully, on an individual level as well as a societal level, especially in the context of a developing country with a stagnating economy.

Proposed Solutions

It occasionally seems necessary to point out that there is no such thing as “free”. Someone has to pay for it. Currently, there doesn’t seem to be anyone managing to get a full-formed solution forward. There are a number of ideas on how to get the funding, and, while I won’t include all of them, here are a few that have popped up:

Reducing Corruption Losses: This one is mentioned time and again. We don’t actually know how much money is lost to corruption, despite some happily citing an inaccurate figure of R700bn in the last 20 years. Still, we can safely say that it’s a lot and, sure, if the corruption issues were solved, it could theoretically be redirected to funding university fees in future. Even if that figure were true, it wouldn’t be the relevant amount, since that money is already gone. Either way, public pressure could, theoretically make government address corruption and redirect the surplus funds. Theoretically.

Reducing Funding to Under-performing Entities: In our proposal document last year, we mentioned under-performing SETAs and SEOs, and very little seems to have changed since then. For example, simply typing “saa “ into my search engine suggested “saa bailout”, and, while they don’t make the headlines, there are frequent reports of SETA mismanagement and corruption.

Raising Company Income Tax/adding a mandatory contribution: The logic is that, seeing as companies benefit from university graduates, they should pay for these graduates. What this line of thought neglects is that companies already do contribute, firstly in the form of existing tax and secondly, by paying these university graduates salaries. In fact, increased expenditure could reduce the number of graduates hired. That said, from what I understand, the suggestion of an additional corporate contribution at a recent Business Leadership SA meeting wasn’t as controversial as one might expect.

Raising Individual Income Tax: Our VC recently mentioned a theoretical 1-2% increase in personal income tax for the rich, and, on the show where he did so, the host pointed out that the increase would need to be more significant. I can’t seem to find his source, but I expect he’s right, seeing as our tax base is puny. On top of this, fiddling with tax rates can have all sorts of unforeseen economic effects, and I can already imagine the people popping out of the woodwork brandishing their Laffer Curves.

Tiered Fees: The idea that one’s fees are based on their household income is an interesting one, and seems palatable to a number of people. Of course, this idea would need to be carefully considered. Without adequate government funding filling the gap, the wealthier students would be expected to contribute a disproportionate amount, which would likely drive them to other institutions, collapsing the system. The idea of ‘pay-what-you-can’ is kind of working in the healthcare, so maybe it could work here too.

Redirecting Existing Money: Last year, an venture capitalist at one of the mass meetings, and others on other occasions, made mention of redirecting funds from things like the defence budget, unaware that defence spending has effectively been cut, and that it’s actually an underfunded area. More recently, a well-written, but economically misguided document with some faulty maths by one of our medical students made mention of mineral resources. among other things. And yet, the declining resources sector aside (despite profitable resources like manganese, chrome, platinum, etc.), it represents a misunderstanding of ownership and where revenues go. Of course, this could bring us to the nationalisation debate, which is beyond the scope of this piece and which, despite what some may think, isn’t simple. For now, what the government receives from this is already allocated and used somewhere.

It’s likely that there are people and groups with fully-formed proposals. As far as I know, Business Leadership SA had one, which was proposed to government representatives as well as national student representatives not too long ago. I don’t know what happened beyond that, but I don’t know of any communication to students on the content of this proposal.

The SRC approach, so far, has involved shutting universities down, gaining public attention through media outlets and disrupting traffic, using all of this, ostensibly, to throw down the gauntlet to government to find a solution which, admittedly, is strategically sound. Reassuringly, on a TV panel discussion, the Wits SRC SG did mention a proposal which should be released in the next few weeks. The other student approach seen at some universities seems to be the age-old tactic of setting things on fire. I’m not sure how effective that is, although I’m well aware that it was effective when the TUT students did it last year.

Last year, there was a lot of talk about the 2012 report by a working group which seems to contain a feasible model for funding free university education for the poor. In fact, Prof Habib mentioned this report and questioned government’s reluctance to act on it during the TV show mentioned above. The report makes mention of a few of the options I mentioned above, but with a lot more detail and a lot more context. The full text is well worth the read, and can be found here.

“But that money could go somewhere else”

This is a common response for people who have little else to contribute. They’re not entirely wrong, but it depends entirely on which source of funding one is discussing and, for the people I’m talking about, it’s usually when on the topic of money lost to corruption or under-performing entities. Which is where the problem lies. These are, for the most part, not people actively trying to get this lost money allocated to causes they consider more worthy. These are people choosing to be apathetic except in the current situation, where they feel personally involved. So sssshhhh. If you’re going to say this, add more to it, get some numbers, perhaps explain why one matters more than another, and work on getting the money directed there.

What I’d Maybe Do

“Ugh. Nobody asked you” you say. And you’d be right. And yet here I am writing it, and here you are reading it.

I'm quite proud of the document we drafted last year. You can tell because I mention it too often. It was drafted at a time when the student voice was united against a fee increase, when there was less confusion about our aims. I only read the working group report some time later, and as you can see, our document pales in comparison, to say the least, in terms of detail and number-crunching.

Still, here’s a vague outline of how I’d approach the issue moving forward:

Allocate a significant extra bolus amount for the next few years to NSFAS

Top it up with funds redirected from failing SETAs and SEOs, and wherever else there might be excess fat. Perhaps some of the mythical corruption money we’re going to recover can also end up there

Increase the threshold for NSFAS loan qualification to include everyone up to the missing middle, perhaps based on the household income up to R600,000 (or perhaps not. It seems an arbitrary figure). Other components of the existing means test could perhaps be incorporated if necessary, and would be more justifiable with the higher household income brackets

Provide NSFAS loans at sub-prime interest rates with government as the guarantor

Surprise plot twist: collect NSFAS debts effectively! Allow up to twice the length of the degree funded for full loan repayment, and restructure NSFAS so that its administrators are able to properly collect debt

There are a few things to note from my suggestion. The first is the mention of the large NSFAS bolus for ‘a few years’. This would depend on the number of years necessary to get repayment of a few years’ worth of graduates. Once it has this base amount, it should be able to fund subsequent years with far lower government contribution. In fact, if it were allowed to build up a surplus of sorts, this could be invested in other avenues, to partly make up for the losses due to inflation and the sub-prime returns.

NSFAS debt collection needs to be drastically changed. They’re currently unable to do a good job of recovering debt, and when they start to, they seem not to try very hard. Quite frankly 3%-8% of one’s annual salary is far too low. To put it in perspective, a person earning R30,000 a year would be expected to make an annual contribution of R900. This would mean that the principal for an imaginary 4 year degree costing R50,000 a year would take 222 years to repay.

I don’t seem to have the calculations available, but the allowance of twice the length of the degree funded was calculated as being reasonable last year, and allowed for periods of unemployment in between. Of course, this makes things a bit more difficult for those choosing to go into fields that aren’t as economically productive, where employment is less available and pay is lower. Sorry about that. Alternatives include different fields of study (university and otherwise) and different sources of funding.

Lastly, notice how NSFAS bursaries are not mentioned, because, from my perspective, they are simply a loss of capital that could be used to fund another deserving student’s loan.

But you didn’t mention free university

Correct. I didn’t. I’m thinking intermediate term. The working group’s report highlights the possibility of ‘fee free university education for the poor’. In fact, one of its big shortcomings is its focus on the poor, its difficulty in defining this group, and the resulting exclusion of massive swathes of our population not falling into this category.

Instead, I wouldn’t provide free university education in the near future. If the aim of university education is to attain gainful employment, then a portion of those gains can reasonably go to repaying the source, and providing similar opportunities for others. Of course, the specifics such as the duration for repayment, and how interest would work could be entirely different, but repayment makes all the difference. And as I mentioned, “free” isn’t free.

And while I berated some for saying this just a few lines ago, money that could be used to fund “free” higher education could be better used elsewhere. Poverty is rife, basic services and infrastructure are lacking to many, and we have a behemoth of a health insurance scheme coming soon. “Free” university education isn’t the panacea some seem to believe. Apart from these issues, money needs to be available to build and expand universities to better address the access issue.

Instead, it seems far more reasonable to me to massively increase access with cheap, recoverable NSFAS loans in the manner mentioned above, with the aim of stimulating our economy (which, as I mentioned above, is stagnating), and expanding the tax base. Once we have more than 5% of the labour force contributing 50% of the tax revenue, and enough funding has gone to infrastructure, grants and health care, we can look to more optimistic ideas.

The Law

I wasn’t there last week when the teargas, stun grenades or rubber bullets were used and so, it is unwise for me to comment on specific incidents. I was there when they were used last year, and I am vaguely aware of the university interdict which, from what I understand, still applies, and of things like bylaws in general. I also tend to trust reports of police and private security sometimes using disproportionate force, which must be condemned in the strongest terms and addressed by police and security hierarchies respectively.

And yet, while I tend to disagree with many of his writings, as well as a lot of this piece, David Benatar makes two very good points in it:

Asking that the law be obeyed applies both ways. Just as disproportionate use of force is illegal, so are disobeying the interdict (as far as I understand interdicts, which are said to enforce rights) and obstructing roads

The law is ultimately backed up by force, be it within legally defined limits. This tends to involve escalation from verbal requests

The Majority View and Ethics

I don’t know what the stance of the majority of students is on the current state of affairs. Those who are against the movement assume it comprises a minority, largely based on the faulty assumption that only those present in person support it. At the same time, the SRC representative’s recent refusal of the suggestion of a referendum by the VC on TV shows that they are, at best, unsure themselves and at worst, in a minority.

I am no ethicist. Of the few ethics lectures I attended, I think I napped in most. Still, there is room for an interesting discussion here. Some of those associated with the movement speak and tweet (some very telling tweets deleted) implicitly of things like “the greater good”, often in spite of being a possible minority.

Firstly, we can briefly address the idea of the greater good (and again, I am no ethicist, so I have likely oversimplified this all). If one were to think like Kant, one would think something similar to his famous quote, that “Man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will: he must in all his actions, whether they are directed to himself or to other rational beings, always be viewed at the same time as an end.” To the consequentialist, however, the greater good matters more.

If we accept the currently defined goal as the definite greater good, there are two assumptions being made. The first is that it is worth the sacrifices made by (and forced on) students and others (often reduced to “inconvenience” to appease consciences). The second is that the action is the most effective way to bring about the goal. These are both huge assumptions.

This all gets a bit muddier once we have to figure out who decides what the greater good is, what the reasonable sacrifices are, and whether these result in the good outcome. On top of this, we have the mess of clarifying the mandate of those elected (well, kind of) to represent us. Personally, I find this all a bit confusing, and worry for anyone who doesn’t. I’m not one to take the lead from religious leaders, and statements like this don’t help me much at all.

In any case, the university is calling for a sort of referendum involving students and staff this week, potentially overseen by the IEC. It’s a very smart move because if, as they expect, the majority decision is to resume academic activities, they’ll have public sympathy in “addressing” protesting students, or at least, those preventing others from continuing their studies. Of course, if that isn’t the majority decision, I have no idea what will happen.

The End. Finally

I’ve written a lot. Probably too much. Definitely enough to upset some people. As with the ethics discussion above, I generally don’t know how anyone can be certain about any of this. Nevertheless, I’ve written a fair bit of what I think, which helps me think a bit more.

To summarise everything (as I did with my first post):

Nzimande’s proposal wasn’t enough, but it wasn’t nothing. It included a way toward an effective halving of fees in 10 years. Kind of.

The constitution isn’t too clear on how accessible university education should be by now. Also, don’t be condescending about other forms of higher education.

A number of ideas have been vaguely mentioned, and the most concrete proposal is the 2012 working group document.

Just saying “that money could go somewhere else” doesn’t contribute anything to the conversation.

Personally, I’d fix NSFAS, and grow it, using it as a low-rate loan scheme for low and middle income students. I am no expert.

Low rate NSFAS loans with long repayment terms seems more reasonable than immediate free education, partly because of its potential to bear economic fruit and partly because we have plenty of other pressing expenses.

The law works both ways.

What is the greater good, who decides what it entails, and what happens to individual agency?

I’ve left a lot of my thoughts out. Some of them I covered in last year’s posts (yes, that’s another punt) from which my perspective doesn’t seem to have changed as much as I thought. Some of them  I’ve deliberately left out (such as those on the wider impact of the shutdowns, the rise of self-appointed leaders in certain vaccum-type arenas, decolonisation vs “decolonisation”, etc.). The rest has already been said, either better elsewhere, or just ad nauseum.

Whatever your stance, thanks for reading this. The discourse recently has been dominated by an us-vs-them mentality, where people on both sides, trapping themselves in echo chambers in person and social media, are quick to attack or dismiss those who don’t share their exact ideology. It’s a dangerous, fruitless approach to an issue as big as this. As always, I’m happy to discuss these things using various media, as long as you’re willing to engage instead of simply hurling insults or rhetoric. I’m particularly interested in discussing solutions, or building on my vague one.

Thanks

Faheem :)

PS: I mentioned it last year, but Habib is probably not the enemy. While he does represent the structure for most, he’s just a man walking the tightrope between doing his job and being relatively pro-student. I’d like to remind you of this piece he wrote well before FeesMustFall 2015, among others. It is, as it was last year, unacceptable that his home was approached and that entry was attempted. See above regarding the law.

Some articles (and other things) worth a read

The other night I wrote a thing about #WitsFeesMustFall, and some things I thought about it all. I didn’t have conclusions, and certainly not answers. I also added a brief segment to it last night. Recent developments have prompted me to write a second, hopefully shorter (not 4300 words!), piece. Think of it as an addendum rather than a standalone post. Let’s see what happens. Again, I’ll be using headings and maybe bullet points to add some structure.

A luta continua

Yes, there should be a space there. The refrain of Mozambican independence, one which has garnered popularity well beyond Mozambique. And made its way into a lot of statuses and tweets, I guess because it’s kind of cool to say “the struggle continues”. Nobody minds if you forget the space, because Google will probably translate it correctly in any case.

However, a friend of mine very aptly pointed out the other day that those who use the former rallying cry forget the second half, the reply. You see, “A luta continua” is often met with the response of “A vitória é certa“, “Victory is certain”. And I think it apt because, while it’s fine and well to maintain the struggle (”long live the spirit of defiance, long live”), there is no struggle without an aim, and without an aim, victory is impossible, let alone certain.

Initially, the protests were in favour of no fees increases. Then some felt that fees should be free. Then some felt that now is the time to piggyback further transformation issues onto the cause. That was followed by pegging insourcing of workers onto the memo. And that’s not how it works.

It’s certainly possible to tack on a few causes, in the aim of using the atmosphere of change and the opportunity to negotiate to bring matters up for discussion. Except that they can’t be contradictory. We can’t ask simultaneously for no increase, no fees, and insourcing of workers (which, as I mentioned, would purportedly necessitate an additional 15% increase). We’ve established the role race plays in fees (this might help you get a good idea too), and students’ response to the recent events, and yet it can’t be used in a misguided attack on medical school. Quite frankly, it makes no sense. It’s also important to consider the issue of the free turd.

What appears to have happened, in promoting the spirit of defiance, in ensuring that the struggle continues, is that the struggle has come to overshadow the cause. The purpose has been lost amidst the fervour of protest and revolution, amidst the potential to bring about great social change, amidst the impassioned (unreasonable) speeches, amidst the great mass of people all passionately united in the moment.

*While it doesn’t exactly fit here, I’m going to add it here because it’s too short to add anywhere else. I was born in 1992. As such, I didn’t experience direct effects of Apartheid during Apartheid. Still, I would like to say the following: To the few who are comparing their struggle to what was experienced during the height of Apartheid, how dare you? How dare you compare the few incidents that have occurred to the experiences of those who were detained, exiled, kidnapped, arrested, beaten and tortured in numbers? Like who the actual?! What you are doing is important, and you are relevant, but get some perspective*

Who is responsible, and how do we hold them accountable?

I’ve acknowledged the wrong that the university management has done in the previous piece. Their response yesterday (Monday) was also wrong (that’s a massive understatement, in fact). And yet, there are matters well beyond their control which play a far greater role in the fee increases. As established in the previous piece, a lot more blame needs to be laid at the feet of government.

Except that we are face to face with the university, and government is a sort of distant, segmented entity, sometimes more an abstract concept than a physical ‘thing’. How do we get the issues addressed seriously by government? How do we get them addressed by ‘The Honourable’ Mr Nzimande? I don’t know. Pierre de Vos suggests that universities haven’t done enough, settling for closed-door meetings instead of taking a united stand. The SACP suggests that holding Nzimande accountable, or at least stating that he should be, is “liberal neo-fascist scapegoating, opportunism and malicious slander”

What I do know for sure is that Blade is our Minister of Higher Education and Training, not ‘Minister of Higher Education and Training AND Traffic on Empire Road’. I don’t mean to make light of yesterday’s terribly reported events (?attempted murder and attempted murder?), but this is another example of the struggle eclipsing, and possibly nullifying the cause.

I know also that, just because it’s easier to confront the university because we are familiar with it, because we can access it easily, doesn’t mean we should ignore the bigger culprits. I won’t pretend I have any idea how. I don’t. Government has become this huge, inaccessible behemoth, and  E-Tolls and dangers to freedom of the press provide good examples of issues being taken out of the hands of the people. But not knowing how isn’t an excuse. Where are the big movements? Where is SASCO? Where is the ANCYL, or DASO, or the EFF Youth Wing? We don’t need your focus on universities, we need it on those responsible for the issues! Perhaps you’ve forgotten that because it’s easier to shut a university down than work towards solving the root problems.

Stop complaining about Med School

Medical School got a lot of criticism this past week. A lot of it was deserved. Medical School is isolated, ‘apolitical’ when it’s convenient to be so, and a poster yesterday was almost correct in calling it a “fortress of white privilage“. Not almost because of the misspelling, which one can overlook, but because it really isn’t that simple.

Medical students (and I can only speak for med students, not all of those in the Health Sciences),  are an odd breed. They live in this sort of bubble, where they have some lectures, go to hospitals, go home to study, and repeat. At least, a lot are that way. A lot forget there’s an outside world. A missed tutorial is the worst thing to happen ever. It’s not an excuse, but it’s a kind of explanation. We don’t not see injustice. We do every day in the hospitals. But Medical School is kind of disconnected.

At the same time, privileged students do get to go to Medical School. For many, money meant better schooling, tutors, and other education. It affected the ability to get a part-time job, or do some ‘community service’, or score well on the NBTs. And these are some of the reasons Medical School is ‘the way it is’. Maybe that’s why our favourite unofficial bigot was there complaining about it today, in vague terms. Except, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, maybe keep quiet, and listen to someone who does.

Unless you can:

Explain in detail what the old admission criteria were, and why they weren’t enough

Explain in detail what the newer admission criteria are, and what those changes mean

Explain the motivation behind the multi-month, multi-discipline, evidence-based, conscientious task team’s decisions, in absolute detail

Gauge the difference it has made, not just in terms of simple demographics, not just in terms of marks, but in the quality of students we admit, or at least explain how it might be gauged

Unless you can do all of the above, I’d suggest you STFU, especially if you aren’t our elected leader. Here’s something to start with, although it’s lacking some detail.

Where do we draw the line?

I’ve already mentioned what seems to be the cause being forgotten in favour of the struggle, which has escalated well out of control. Here are some issues I’d like to address directly:

Don’t complain about the Dean of your faculty without having bothered to even Google who he is before meeting him. Don’t ask him for answers and shout him down when he is trying to answer them. Don’t wear some profanities directed at him on your clothing when you have no idea what his positions, beliefs or actions have been, now or in general.

It’s completely unacceptable to drive a family out of their home, as has been done with the VC and his.

It’s completely unacceptable to obstruct healthcare workers in the execution of their duties. Just as we asked, when that man tried to run students over, “What if it was your sister on that road?”, we must ask, “What if it was your grandmother’s tumour biopsy in that specimen bottle?”.

No violence is acceptable. I’m not talking about the motorist incident. I’m talking about the stick-wielding fools who block entrances, and don’t just have them for show. Freedom from violence is far more explicitly covered in the Bill of Rights than ‘further education’.

I don’t think it’s fair to extend action to the extent that students have to repeat a year, as is still a possibility. A R20 000 increase is far less than a R50 000 year for a student in their second last year, and this needs to be considered. Some families are scraping their meagre resources together to pay for these fees.

Why what I wrote about free university in the last thing isn’t so simple

Brazil maybe isn’t necessarily the example we should look to, or rather, maybe we shouldn’t just compare ourselves wih Brazil. Inequality is still a massive issue there, and free university in Brazil doesn’t necessarily fix anything.

Many people have been sharing that article about Germany, but I don’t think that’s sensible. To compare, while their tax rate range isn’t too far off ours, their GDP is about 3,5 times ours, and, because they are generally better off than us, have fewer other expenses.

Still, our government allocates a measly 1.4% of its GDP to education, which is relatively low, especially when compared to other developing countries, and our president thinks it’s too much. There’s definitely middle ground between free and unaffordable, and we’re not at it, unfortunately. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, the cost of my degree is far less than it is for a comparable degree in another country. Still, this is a matter of exclusionary cost, not value, and cost matters.

The Proposal {Ongoing}

You may have noticed that my writing petered out toward the end, and it might seem a bit distracted. That’s because I’ve started watching ENCA. I might update this a bit later, but:

A 6% cap seems excellent. In fact, it doesn’t seem financially viable for the university or government, but I’m not complaining. It’s only proposed for the coming year,

I’m incredibly glad that our favourite populist bigot isn’t present at this meeting. Tebogo is handling himself extremely well, I think.

Nzimande is being extremely evasive.

I dunno. I’m just going to watch for now.

Whatever my position on the proposal, our ACTUAL OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES should be negotiating for us, not Dlamini.

These negotiations should, where possible, be extended to include Student Councils, Student Forum, or at least the AFC. We need wide consultation, not a megalomaniac making personally-motivated decisions.

It’s plain sense to not simply accept the first offer. Long-term solutions also need to be proposed, instead of the “we’ll cap it at 6% for now only, and will work to find solutions”, because that’s not very helpful.

I'm going to start this off with a few disclaimers, because I expect to be disagreed with from all quarters, and maybe get called various contradictory things:

As the title indicates, I'm very unsure at the moment. Granted, I tend to be unsure about things in general, but in this case, my opinions have changed and expanded as developments arose, and I’m confused beyond mere reason.

I'm privileged. My fees are taken care of, as are my living expenses, etc. As such, I can't pretend to understand exactly what it's like to be unable to complete my degree for financial reasons.

I struggle with race-relation issues. I've always considered myself relatively enlightened in this regard, being raised in a household with a certain ethos, and having had various remarkable people to look up to growing up (people who could casually talk about spending time in solitary confinement, or being beaten by police). That said, I'm not an objective judge of how 'relatively enlightened' I actually am. My main issues aren't so much around recognising the problems, as much as they're around the approaches to solving them. To be clear I don't subscribe to that "I don't see colour" or that "it's been 20 years" bullshit.

This might upset you if you're for or against the #WitsFeesMustFall movement, and that's partly because I'm still trying to figure it all out. I'm happy to talk it out, be informed etc.(it’s quite possible I’m wrong about many things), as long as I'm not faced with nonsense like "you don't understand", "you're wrong just because", "shut up you're privileged" or "[insert various expletives/labels]". If you don't want to actually converse, that's fine. Leave me alone.

This might end up being a long read. I’ll use bullet points and headings to add some structure, and some people don’t like that. It might also be boring. we’ll see.

I haven’t included references for everything I’ve written. Some are included as hyperlinks, though. This isn’t academic writing, but I have made an effort to be factual.

I’m no expert, and am not involved in formal ‘student politics’, so don’t be surprised if I’m missing some current insights. That said, I keep my ear to the ground.

I tried adding some GIFs to make it a bit lighter, but they don’t seem to want to work work, so that’s that.

On Tuesday, when things were still heating up, I responded to a tweet at me about #WitsFeesMustFall with a few of my views in a long reply thread. Things were a bit clearer to me then, and it seemed straightforward. Pretty much everything I said there and a lot more will hopefully be covered here.

The way the fee increases were proposed was unacceptable

I use the word ‘proposed’ lightly, because they weren’t proposed, they were stated. We were given the figures (were we? I don’t remember any official communication with the figures), and that was that. In the past (or at least in 2014), things worked very differently. The heads of all student councils were invited (and required) to attend a presentation by Prof Kupe (DVC: Advancement, HR and Transformation), at which we were provided with the proposed increase figures (ranges, for degrees like my own) and the basis for them, and all present were able to interrogate the proposal and its intricacies. This process was arranged in conjunction with and overseen by the SRC of the time. Some of us came in our numbers, ready with questions and our own figures and statistics, while others were unprepared and disinterested.

While I don’t remember all the details of it, and my notes from the time were in a file that has since been lost, there are some relevant things to note from that meeting:

The CPI (pretty much a measure of inflation) was about 2 points higher at the time than it is now. I know because I went to the meeting prepared to argue using it (unsuccessfully). As is the case this year, government funding wasn’t kept in line with inflation.

There were some big new expenses, some as a result of government changing the rules about VAT. I was aware of the impact it had, having seen it from the other end, at Faculty Exec, WHSL Board etc.

The MBBCh and Dentistry proposed increase was 12%, ostensibly because we had to pay for ‘technological advancements in the field’, to which we took strong exception, because what even.

The growing NSFAS issues were discussed at length.

The university loses out on a lot of funding because of its high rate of converting students from undergrad to postgrad (who bring in better funding).

It was confirmed that the upfront fee would not increase. At least.

Later that week, student councils negotiated fee increases with faculty designees, with the MSC representing one or two other councils at their request. The process was largely for show, but things got heated at times, and inroads were made, although we left feeling disheartened. The process was more or less rigged.

The ‘proposed’ increases were crazy high

Having not had any presentation, discussion or negotiations, we have no idea where the increase figures came from. Here are some things to think about though:

As mentioned above, CPI is 2 points lower, or thereabouts.

We have no idea where this money is going. There is no transparency, and, while things do take time, we don’t see many improvements to facilities, increased capacity, or these ‘technological advancements in he field’.

The CPI is sitting at about 4.5%.

In MBBCh, a lot of the teachers aren’t paid university employees, and do in fact work for the Department of Health, NHLS, etc.

In MBBCh, our fees are subsidised more.

Textbooks cost a crapload. Borrowing from the library isn’t necessarily the answer either. I’ve done it for some blocks, and it’s hard to get the right book consistently because it’s in demand, and you know you’re depriving someone else of access to it. On top of that, the VAT issue led to a situation in which the WHSL had no budget for print books, apart from an MSC donation.

If you work it out, 12% equates to about a doubling every 5 years. A doubling.

Things that cost money that we do, in all fairness, have to think about:

The accelerated transformation process involved reallocating R45 million.

Insourcing of all workers would have necessitated an additional increase of 15%. Personally, I don’t think all employees need to be insourced, if it can be ensured that they’re not exploited, the same way that we can avoid buying clothes made in sweatshops if we make an effort. That said, I’m not completely informed on this issue.

Running a university, including staff, facilities, teaching resources, research equipment, air-conditioning, maintenance, etc etc etc. Still, we have no idea how much this costs and where our money goes. We don’t even know if the university is sitting with a surplus or deficit.

Because we have no idea about a surplus/deficit, we can’t know if a 0% increase (as some expect) is remotely feasible. Probably not, because maths. (See the CPI above).

The quality of the MBBCh degree is worth far more than what we currently pay. I genuinely believe this. That doesn’t mean the fees should be higher.

One thing to add here, which was put very well by my friend Creaghan Eddey, and which I will now paraphrase: this isn’t about the value of the education, it’s about the cost of the education.

The fee increase hurts the poorest students and the middle class students. Many middle class students, often not eligible for bursaries, have to fund their degrees using family resources, student loans, part-time jobs and any other means they can get their hands on. More fees means more debt, less family financial freedom and more work, and this isn’t always enough to cover the cost. For many, this is an expense on top of accommodation, supporting a family as a breadwinner and daily living expenses.

The poorest students can’t afford the fees at all, without bursaries. Bursaries are few and far between, and the NSFAS crisis this year hit students hard. And bursaries aren’t the panacea they might seem, especially for Health Sciences students. Many of us register in the first week of the year, well before bursaries have paid out, and the upfront fee needs to come from somewhere before registration. The 2015 upfront fee (R9340) is about triple, for example, the South African minimum wage for a domestic worker. Adding 10.5% to that is another R980.

It’s clearly exclusionary, and, to put it simply, you can’t change something without changing something. I’m less worried about future students, and more worried about existing students, ones who have spent so much time and money, only to suddenly find their fees unaffordable midway through their degrees. I admit that there’s no contract, but it’s a bit like doubling (see the part about doubling above) the price of taxi ride halfway through the journey, except that if you get off, you end up where you started instead of halfway there. (That’s a pretty useless analogy, but maybe it works).

“Get a job! I did.”

Round of applause for you. It’s impressive. It really is. You managed to find a job, one that paid enough, and one that allowed you enough time to study. It is admirable, and apart from the applause bit, this isn’t sarcasm. I have a LOT of respect for students who are able to do that.

But maybe you can’t find a job. Maybe the job you found doesn’t pay enough to fund your university fees. Maybe your job has to also pay for groceries, accommodation, a sibling’s school fees, a parent’s medication, for transport and for textbooks. I have a part-time job, and I’m perpetually bordering on broke, despite not paying for for fees, textbooks or groceries. I’m incredibly fortunate in the way the company I work for operates, so I can work at times that suit me. It must be near-impossible to consistently attend part-time work when your unit is on call every 4 days, or you have exams going on.

Of course, I do encourage students from all walks of life to get a job if they are able. If you don’t need the money, contribute to a bursary fund.

“Education is a right”

Yes. The Bill of Rights enshrines the right to basic education. Tertiary, not exactly. You see, when it comes to ‘further education’, all that’s a given is that it’s something “the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible”. I don’t know enough (anything) about constitutional law, so I probably shouldn’t be saying much here. But that seems vague, and I don’t know where to find specifics.

There are two main concepts to be taken here. Firstly, logistics. In 2014, 36 843 matriculants qualified for Bachelor studies. Wits has space for just over 30 000 students, and UJ close to 50 000. But they don’t just take in students straight out of matric; AND not every province has a functional university; AND, because Wits is an excellent university, it attracts students from across the country; AND we have a number of international students. I haven’t gone and checked the total university capacity for the country, but it seems like the number of places is a big limiting factor.

Secondly, the responsibility of providing access to ‘further education’. I’m not sure what ‘further education’ includes. We don’t know what “reasonable measures” are, or if the state has made it “progressively available and accessible“. Somehow I doubt it. Apart from the occasional #BladeMustFall hashtag, why isn’t the government being held accountable? When I asked this somewhere the other day, a very informed lady told me that the university will most likely be used as a means of communicating with government in a more formal, direct way. I hope this is true, and would really like that to be made known.

University education should be free

From the get-go, I’d like to state that there is no such thing as free university education. Unless we find some altruist who will build and maintain the university, and some staff who will teach for free, there is no such thing. One can’t have something out of nothing. It has to come from bursaries, government or other students’ fees.

As things stand, a fair bit of money comes from bursaries, and scholarships made available by the university itself can be considered, indirectly, to be paid for partly by students’ fees. So maybe government is the answer. Government already does fund the university, although we know it doesn’t provide enough. We also know that the Bill of Rights explicitly states that it is the responsibility of the government.

We assume it’s impossible, because it would require a lot of money. But Brazil, a country whose GDP isn’t that much higher than our own with comparable tax rates, manages to. It also makes economic sense. Ask Finland. So what? We have the solution? We can stop now? Not exactly.

It’s possible, perhaps, but it would take a lot of planning. We’d need to make sure the government, in order to save money, couldn’t just cut costs, thereby dropping our standard of education. I tweeted something about this the other day, in fact.

Also, we’d need to get the government to do this in the first place. Considering we are the electorate, it’s up to us. Despite this, it doesn’t seem to be considered a politically popular move. We’d need to make government do it, and do it well.

Again, it comes down to government. The money is there, sort of. At least, some of it is. If we pretend the average annual fee is R50 000, the cost of Nkandla could pay for 4120 students. I’m in no way saying that the university is blameless, and I think I’ve made that abundantly clear, but, the Bill of Rights says it is the responsibility of government, and government could maybe do it, so why are the majority of us blaming the university entirely?

“Why does this have to become a race thing?”

I tend to avoid discussing race on social media. I prefer to do it with individuals, and even then, not often. Partly because direct discussion isn’t always helpful (and indirect information is) and partly because I find it bloody scary. This isn’t a post about race, and I doubt I’ll ever do one, and as such, I won’t be getting into any measure of detail. There are some things we can take as a given:

The people who say they “don’t see colour” are either lying, or, if they aren’t, are actually being counterproductive. Shut up.

20 years isn’t a very long time at all. The fact that your grandparents couldn’t attend university affects your chances of attending and paying for it. If I nod when you exasperatedly say “It’s been 20 years!”, it’s because you’re right, it has only been 20 years.

Black people are poorer. White people are richer. I’m leaving other races out for simplicity. A lot of the more well-off black people have still been raised in an environment from which they can better empathise with a cause like #WitsFeesMustFall.

Black people aren’t entitled or lazy. I’m sad I even had to type that sentence, but some people seem to need to be told. It’s very possible that our generation is, but it’s also possible that previous generations were, at some stage i their lives. I don’t know.

I don’t know if it has to “become a race thing”, but I can see why. Different priorities, mainly. Different perspectives. It’s the reason the faces at the forefront of the movement were black, while those complaining the most about being inconvenienced were not. Also, the past week’s events have brought a lot of white and Indian racists in particular (blatant and subtle) out of the woodwork.

I’ve sort of spoken about actual racism and racial prejudice in one brief go, but I’m leaving it that way because this thing is already long. I’d like to encourage more white students to become more involved or supportive, and I’d like the more confrontational students to put aside their angry responses to welcome these students, but maybe that’s too optimistic.

One last thing I’d like to add into this section is the word ‘militant’. I’m sick of it. I’ve been known to use it myself, and probably still will in the future. Still, I think the term tends to be racially biased. The colour of your skin can often determine whether you’re ‘passionate’ or ‘militant’. How convenient.

If you’d like to tell someone they sound racist, here’s a helpful video.

While we’re on the topic of labeling people, don’t just label people as ‘liberal’. The word used to have a meaning, but it’s been bastardised by parties on both sides for various gains.

“My marks alone aren’t good enough. I have to be rich to get into university”

This exasperated sentiment has been used a lot recently. I can’t find one of the well phrased ones now, but that’s the idea. I’m not a huge fan of it, to be honest. I’ve already stated that I consider the high fees exclusionary, but consider the above statement counterproductive, although I can only speak froma health sciences perspective.

Having been part of the team deciding the revised MBBCh admission criteria, I came to understand the link between income (and therefore race) and high school academic performance. As you might suspect, there’s a strong positive correlation. Strong enough that admissions based just on those results would shock you (or would shock me, at least). Of course, there are some exceptions to this pattern.

Except there is little evidence that good high school (or NBT) marks above a certain minimum significantly impact performance at university. Even if they did, we need to ensure the system supports those who need it, to achieve meaningful (this word is here on purpose) transformation.

While we’re on the topic of university performance and transformation, there are a few other things to add:

Students don’t just fail/repeat years/units/modules because they don’t enjoy studying. Students get ill, and sometimes can’t access good healthcare. Students’ family members die and they have to arrange funerals, take care of siblings, and find second jobs.

Language is a massive barrier to education. The Bill of Rights makes mention of accessing education in your home language where possible, but sort of implies that it’s kind of too difficult. It’ll be ages before we have the expertise (and vocabulary base) necessary for anything like this, and even then, we’d need to have the discussion about its value in a global context. Still, it needs to be acknowledged that a language barrier adds a whole new level of difficulty to one’s studies, and that much more can be done to address this (see this excellent ‘paper’ by a parent of one of our students if you’re interested in this, and a lot more about it).

The events of the past few days have impacted some adversely, but a few days off for something this important isn’t the end of the world. Stop patronisingly saying “if they don’t stop protesting and start studying they’re going to have to pay fees for an extra year”.

“Who we choose to lead us doesn’t matter now”

(This section won’t be based in any fact, just opinion.)

It does to me. It does a lot. It was wonderful to see the current and previous SRC presidents, two very capable, inspiring young women, take positions of prominence in everything that happened. I didn’t stay long enough to see everything on Friday happen in person, but I managed to catch the rest on TV, and follow it on Twitter. It upset me to see them sidelined, to see their rightful roles be taken by someone who no longer represents me in any way, shape or form. This will unnecessarily upset some people so I’ll leave it there. I would just like to clarify that I am in no way represented by an unofficial, populist anti-semite, who appears to me to serve no agenda but his own, and clearly has a score to settle. There have been all sorts of ‘leaders’ popping up, having no clear idea of what is going on or what they would like to achieve beyond a few cheers. Luckily, there are certainly some insightful students, within the SRC and without, who can hopefully provide more direction and reason.

“Habib is the worst person ever”

No. He isn't actually. I’ll be brief about this, so here are some points about him:

Whether or not we like it, it’s because he’s quite so in favour of student rights and willing to engage with students that this week’s events went the way they did. There’s a bit of irony there, I guess.

He happens to hold the office during a period in which the winds of change have approached gale force nationwide.

He wasn’t sitting in his office one day, thinking about how much he hates students when he suddenly cried, “Aha! I’ll increase the fees because I hate students muhahahahahaha!” The man is clearly no puppet, but that doesn’t mean he’s the cause of everything bad (and, somehow, none of the good) that happens at the university.

While we know there was no violence, it took real balls to go in and face the students in order to meet their needs, and a lesser VC would have dealt with it VERY differently, and could have. Instead, he humbled himself and showed a lot of trust.

He didn’t deserve some of the nonsense he got. Being shepherded to the bathroom, getting permission to phone family, having his family harassed, and infuriating tweets like this horrendous one. (What does that even mean?! It’s demeaning, and nonsensical.)

It seems to me that he honestly believes in similar ends, and has given it a lot of thought and put it to sound strategy, instead of the myopic views sometimes shoved in our faces. For example, this surprisingly appropriate piece shows a lot of foresight, and I expect a lot of people haven’t taken the time to read it, because it’s easier to have strong opinions and someone to call an enemy. His suggestion about using the NSFAS funding as collateral for student loans is something I consider particularly interesting, and, if I understand things correctly, keep interest rates for them down.

No, I haven’t been paid or anything for this part :P. I think it’s quite fairly written.

They weren’t held hostage

The members of council weren’t held hostage. Habib said it himself.  Carolissen, said it too, and had private security leave. They went there of their own accord. I do believe that. At the same time, having your movements and activities monitored, and being told that you aren’t leaving until matters are resolved to another party’s satisfaction doesn’t sound quite so ‘free’ does it? And the agreement reached? A refusal to leave until demands are met sounds like duress to me. The students are key stakeholders, and should have a say in the university management, and be able to negotiate, but unilateral decisions are bad for the university and, ultimately, bad for the students. I don’t necessarily think this was the case here, but it could easily have become so, and some points of Saturday’s agreement imply a very one-sided perspective, instead of a service-provider negotiating with those who access its services.

The agreement

A bit surprising, to be honest. As I said above, parts of it seem unilateral. It doesn’t seem like the result of negotiation at all. Still, we can’t predict what will happen next. My hope is that it’s not a matter of simple progression, of meeting one side’s wants each time, simply because I cannot see that being the long term solution. My hope is that what has been happening is the very important, and very strategic process of:

Disrupting

Reframing the conversation

Fixing the power differential

Negotiating fairly

And it seems things may go this way. At least, I really, really hope they do.

Conclusion

I don’t really have one. I’m still far from sure about anything. Anyone who is probably doesn’t know how life works. A few things I do know:

The fee increase is massive. It hurts poor and middle class students the most.

The way it was handled by the university was inappropriately furtive and one-sided.

Don’t tell people to get a job. Except hippies. I’m fine with that.

Don’t be a racist wankhandle.

Tertiary education isn’t exactly a right, but it isn’t exactly not one either.

There’s no such thing as free education, really.

Government should be held far more accountable. It is an instrument of the people, and the people forget that too easily.

It is sort of ‘a race thing’. Don’t take it personally, whichever side you’re on.

There was a need to be forceful, and it was achieved remarkably without being violent. There wasn’t a need to be quite so disrespectful, or misdirect the anger.

What happened this week was amazing af. It was history happening right before our eyes, and in our ears, and on our screens. Let us hope it bears fruit, and that it results in real solutions, not appeasements.

See you tomorrow at Main Campus.

PS. This was longer than I thought it would be, and I left a LOT out. As it is, some people will think I have too many opinions. I’m open to chatting, especially to the many people I know who are better informed, more involved, and a lot more empathetic than I am :)

That’s all for now

Faheem

Update [19/10/2015]

I fixed the typo. Some commenter I couldn’t reply to pointed it out.

I also have a few brief bits to add following today’s events, some of which aren’t universally palatable:

Senate House was not ‘stormed’ today. A bit of glass seems to have been broken, but everyone walked in quite calmly. The change of venue was not part of the agreement as far as I know.

While it was in no way right, it was a strategically smart play on Council’s part to simply not arrive. They conceded far too on Friday night/Saturday morning (see above regarding the not-hostage scenario), and, faulting the protesters on a technicality (if this venue and ‘storming’ nonsense even qualifies as that), they had an excuse to not show up, however weak it may be. Not arriving tipped the students over, and chaos ensued, which works well in terms of their image, kind of. There’s more nuance to this, but I’ll leave it here.

Shouting “you are privileged!” at someone is not helpful.

Feminism does matter, even now, and boy (girl?) are there some sexists out there.

While I made my position on the whole “Get a job!” nonsense clear above, this doesn’t mean that a sense of entitlement is a non-issue. I’ve been saving the concept for another post which I haven’t got around to writing yet, but I’m concerned that it’s a generational issue. Today I was reminded of a late family member who managed to get to India to study (wasn’t allowed to here, of course), having been supported in part by his younger sister who had to drop out of school to cook and sell food at a market, and he, while studying in India, worked loading and offloading ships on the docks to pay for tuition and accommodation. It seems stories like that are becoming rarer. Of course, that’s easy for me to say, having my fees paid without difficulty.

That guy should not have tried to drive over students, and the reporting of that, along with the ‘storming’ phrasing, has shown a media bias for the most part. There has been reporter bias from the other side too, but from far fewer sources.

Lying on the road is not an effective means of holding those responsible accountable. As I implied above, we’re cutting government too much slack, and blaming the university too much.

Don’t claim to be entirely non-violent then blockade entrances while wielding large sticks. I had a slight confrontation with a chap sitting on a turnstile today, and it didn’t work out very well for either of us.

This is an important struggle, but don’t compare it to anything previous generations had to endure in a misguided need to find purpose.

Still no idea what the objective is? Not sure how much quality you’d like to sacrifice for price? That’s a problem.

Faheem :)

I actually wrote this a while back. I didn’t post it because I wasn’t happy with the style and structure. I’m less worried now, because I’d just like to get my point across.

I recently heard some ‘expert’ on the radio talking about how ‘we should encourage our children to make mistakes, because it’s the only way they’ll learn’. Of course, I promptly changed station. As you may have noticed, I’ve lost my patience with the people who constantly shovel these glib commandments upon us.

I remember a period in my life when I was taught repeatedly to learn from my mistakes, and I agree with this wholeheartedly, even if my application has been less than stringent. The message, however, seems to have changed.

As far as I can tell, there are three major ways of learning: instruction, experimentation, and experience. Notice how I placed ‘experience’ last. Boldly stating that one only learns by making mistakes (a statement I hear echoed quite often these days) is wholly misinformed, or, in the case of these people, often under-informed.

I’ve never burned myself on a hot stove. I’m careful around hot stoves. Firstly, because I’ve been warned that I’ll get burned if I touch one. Secondly, because, having been told that, I’ve placed my hand near one to get an impression of the warmth. Resultantly, advice and experimentation have helped me learn that hot stoves are (wait for it) hot, and that touching them is a bad idea.

A trend toward encouraging mistakes is wholly misguided. Mistakes can be extremely harmful, often dangerous. “Yes, we’ve irradiated a million people but it was a mistake and that’s good because we’ve learned something now” is far from sound reasoning.

I’ve made a number of mistakes in my life, many of which I’d gladly have avoided if I had received advice specific to those situations. In fact, many of the mistakes I’ve made clearly haven’t taught me very effectively, because I’ve made them repeatedly, but the number of problems I’ve avoided through reasonable advice is immeasurable.

Another very important point to consider is that we don’t have to learn only from wrong decisions. We can also learn from correct decisions. Quite simply, if you make a life-altering decision and everything doesn’t go to shit, it’s probably the better alternative. If you make such a decision and you end up happy, even better.

I’m not saying mistakes cannot be viewed as learning experiences. We make them, and when we do, they can teach us a lot. I’m just saying that they shouldn’t be encouraged, because that’s stupid. Stop searching for absolute truths that can be bandied in casual apophthegms, and instead, let’s stick to the idea that we can learn in many ways and we should try to when we can.