Minister
Essop Pahad
Address: Conference towards Understanding and Building Diversity as Enshrined in the Constitution, University of Western Cape, Cape Town
3 May 2007
Thank you very much for inviting me to address you on what I regard as a very important topic. Allow me to begin by identifying two important threads which are central to my presentation today. First, a full understanding of diversity requires us to go beyond race and gender and recognise that diversity also encompasses, among a number of ascribed and achieved criteria; disability, language, ethnicity, class and socio-economic status, regionalism the urban/rural dimension and sexual orientation.
Second, the Constitution is the highest law of our land. No other laws stand above the Constitution and we are all individuals and institutions subject to the Constitution. It guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms in a free and democratic society.
The constitutional basis for diversity derives from a number of very important sections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which forms an integral part of the Constitution; the Preamble, Section 7, Section 9 which speaks to equality, Section 10 which is about human dignity, Sections 15-18 which spell out fundamental freedoms, Section 19 which identifies political rights, Section 30 which addresses language and culture, and Section 31 which deals with cultural, religious and linguistic communities.
But respecting and promoting diversity is about more than constitutional provisions, it is about promoting social cohesion in a society that has emerged from institutionalised and legalised racism and racial discrimination only 13 years ago and it is central to South Africa's nation building project.
In this sense, prompting diversity and inclusive education are both an end and means to an end. They are an end because diversity and inclusively together constitute a vision the entire education system seeks to achieve. They are a means to an end because inclusive education is an important vehicle in the construction of an inclusive society. And in our case we strive to create a non-racist, non-sexist, discrimination-free democratic and socially cohesive South Africa.
Before we address the role of universities in promoting this vision, let us look at the constitutional basis for the promotion of diversity. The preamble to the Constitutions speaks of recognising "the injustices of our past". This recognition brings with it obligations for the state as well as for institutions of higher learning. In adopting the Constitution the state has to heal the wounds of the past, respect democracy; rule, based on the will of the people, respect fundamental freedoms and human rights, and improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person. And one of the defining values of a democratic South Africa is a commitment to non-racism and non-sexism.
In constitutional law it could well be argued that the entire Constitution has to be read and understood through its preamble. Accordingly, universities have a very high obligation to improve the quality of life of all South Africans. And we know that education is an important route to upward mobility and that there is a direct co-relation between education and income, education and improvements in the standards of living. Institutions of higher learning also have three other obligations with respect to the preamble to teach about the past as a living and breathing entity so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, to produce graduates who can go out into the working world and work to improve the quality of all our citizens, and to free the potential of those who enter institutions of higher learning.
The requirement to "improve the quality of life" means dealing with poverty, unemployment and unequal access to education health care. The reality is that in South Africa the legacy of apartheid was such that in terms of all "quality of life indicators" historically disadvantaged groups are preponderantly over-represented in the negative indicators (higher rates of unemployment, higher rates of high school drop outs, higher rates of poverty, lower rates of income, significantly lower share of wealth, etc).
Thus to remedy these inequalities which are both structural and historically derived, institutions of higher learning have to be creative in their approaches to teaching and learning, promoting success among learners as well as with respect to knowledge creation and dissemination. It is not a stretch to argue that failure to do anything about the historical legacy would mean that institutions of higher learning are violating the spirit if not the letter of the highest law of the land.
The second section of the Constitution that speaks to the issue of diversity and transformation is Section 7(2). The government of the Republic of South Africa is mandated in section 7(2) of the Constitution to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights identified in the Bill of Rights. The key here is that the state has to do more than protect rights it has a constitutional obligation to promote equality rights.
This is about formal equality and it is about equality of access. In a society that is still dealing with the enormous legacy of state sanctified and institutionalised and legalised racism that engendered inequalities based solely on race, the democratic state has to uphold the Constitution. Thus to protect rights is a necessary condition. However the Constitution requires more than rights protection, it requires rights promotion. This obligation can be read as the promotion of diversity writ large. Section 7 (2) thus places an interesting obligation on universities in effect it says diversity in all spheres of the university, the Board, management, the faculty and student bases, the curriculum and pedagogy need to be respectful of and infused with diversity.
Sections 26 and 27 identify basic human rights linked to a human needs approach that obligates the state to pay attention to in its policies, laws, programs and expenditures. These two sections require the state to act reasonably and decisively in the spheres of socio-economic inequalities, to redress unequal access to housing, water, health care etc. This is about transformation of a society that has inherited huge inequalities on the basis of race, gender, disability, etc. And the question that needs to be posed here is what role institutions of higher learning see themselves playing with respect to transformation (internally and within society at large) and in decreasing socio-economic inequalities.
The next constitutional imperative to transformation and the promotion of diversity derives from Section 9, the equality section. Section 9 (3) enumerates equality seeking grounds and in so doing provides us with a constitutional basis for protecting and promoting diversity: "The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth". And section 9 (4) then extends this to read "No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination".
The extension identified in 9 (4), coupled with the reality that universities are public institutions makes for an interesting argument about the relationship between university autonomy on the one hand and accountability for the protection and promotion of diversity in all spheres of activity of the university on the other hand. This is fundamentally about transformation of the university in all spheres of its activity through embracing diversity.
Educational equity, diversity and inclusion are necessary in order to deal with the history of discrimination and to ensure that it is prevented in the future. We must always make explicit the relationship between the history of systemic discrimination and future practices as there can be no separation of prevention and remedy, and because there is no prevention without remedy. Past patterns of discrimination need to be effectively eliminated in order for diversity in all our institutions to flourish and in order for our nation to be united in its diversity.
Thus transformation of the institutions of higher education, expecting them to embrace and promote diversity has a strong constitutional basis. But it requires dialogue, vision, and the active engagement of all the relevant sectors of these institutions (including the students) and of South African society at large. Undoubtedly universities are unique institutions because of "university autonomy" and academic freedom. But universities are still publicly funded institutions and as such, there must be a delicate balance between autonomy, academic freedom, social responsibility and the realisation of South Africa's national development imperatives.
Let me now turn to an understanding of diversity. Concepts such as diversity and inclusion in education are all socially constructed and historically mediated. To suggest that the notion of diversity is socially constructed is to suggest that the obstacles to inclusion in education are not located at the individual learner level; rather they result from systemic, attitudinal and physical barriers continually reproduced in society at large. Therefore race, gender and disability as biological conditions should not be confused with their social ramifications.
Certainly, the education system mirrors and reproduces tendencies in society at large in its definition and treatment of diverse learners. And most problematic in this regard are learners with disabilities who, in higher education have been largely neglected, objectified and assigned as "other". Educators create certain kinds disabilities (e.g. learning disabilities) by labelling and marginalising learners they are unable or unwilling to deal with. And this is particularly the case in relation to race and gender.
Overall, inclusivity is a response to a significant trend that education world wide is undergoing massive restructuring as a result of complex factors including:
- the emergence of a rights discourse in education and society
- technological change
- pressures from students, parents, governments, and the private sector
- budgetary constraints.
In the context of promoting diversity, equality of opportunity for all in education is best served by a fundamental shift in education policy that embraces inclusion. Inclusive education is the most effective way of respecting the basic human rights of all learners and respecting their diversity.
A commitment to inclusivity requires a focus on learner diversity. We now acknowledge that learner diversity cuts across many intersecting lines among them race, gender, ethnicity, poverty, language, religion, culture, disability, marital status, income, education and sexual orientation. South Africa is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-faith, pluralistic society and diversity is an unalterable fact of life both in our society and within our educational institutions. As such we have an educational, ethical, legal and constitutional obligation to meet the challenges diversity poses.
With respect to women, South Africa has made significant progress in terms of the number of female learners entering higher education. Enrolment of female learners in higher education has increased from 44% in 1994 to 54% today and black students now account for over 74% of enrolments in higher education.
In the public sector Cabinet has taken the decision that 50% of all senior decision makers must be women by 2009 and two percent must be people with disabilities. These requirements reflect the government's commitment to equality and representation but they also involve institutions of higher learning as these are the very institutions responsible for graduating future public servants and responsible for ongoing training and development.
These positive developments aside, there remain challenges in terms of gender for example; which revolve around a school system that has a tendency to stream female learners into traditional female dominated professions where they are accorded a lower status and lower pay. Women are not well represented in the sciences and engineering (with the exception of medicine). Data still point to occupational ghettoisation and income inequity and inequality for women. The educational system therefore needs to address how gender inequality in education reproduces and replicates gender inequality in society at large. Inclusive education needs to address the systemic and attitudinal barriers, discrimination and oppression experienced by females in society and in education.
The key questions universities have to ask with respect to diversity are:
- Do they serve students from diverse backgrounds well?
- Do they accommodate diversity?
- How is this accommodation accomplished?
- Do they create an environment in which faculty and students from diverse backgrounds feel welcomed and participate fully in all that the institution has to offer?
- What are the consequences, legal or otherwise of not transforming?
A pro-diversity approach to teaching and learning is certainly the best way to reach diverse learners. This approach has to centre on a transformative curriculum and diversified pedagogical approaches which together can better equip educators to meet the challenges of a teaching and learning environment at the post-secondary level that has changed remarkably in the past decade and a half. This approach however, goes beyond the role of a single educator to create an inclusive learning environment, it is about creating structures, systems and approaches that foster and encourage the development of inclusive learning environments, the development of transformative curriculum, and experimentation with diversified pedagogy.
A pro-diversity approach to teaching and learning however, is about more than the infusion of curricular materials to reflect the changing demographic composition of society. Often the refrain is heard that the curriculum in the sciences does not lend itself to this infusion of materials that reflect diversity. This is true only if one holds to a very narrow conception of the anti-discrimination, pro-diversity approach to teaching and learning.
A broader conceptualisation of this approach:
- requires the transformation of the way in which educators conceive of teaching and learning
- seeks to make educators pro-diversity partners with students in the teaching and learning endeavour
- values and legitimates the contributions made by diverse learners
- is about changing the culture of teaching and learning, such that students are empowered to take greater control over their learning objectives, and educators divest themselves of the notion that they are education banks where students make education withdrawals
- is equally applicable in all courses regardless of discipline, because it is fundamentally about respect for and valuing students.
Institutions of higher learning have an educational, ethical and legal obligation to embrace diversity, which in turn requires us to understand that what occurs in the teaching and learning environment cannot be separated from what happens in institutions of higher learning at large. Education diversity, inclusion and equity refer to the range of activities institutions of higher learning undertake to attract students, to retain students and to graduate students from their institutions. It involves admissions policies, student support services, what is taught, how it is taught and by whom it is taught.
Diversity in higher education equity involves:
- providing access to post secondary education for those who would otherwise be excluded
- implementing special measures in order that institutions of higher learning achieve a representative student base
- providing the necessary student support services to ensure high rates of retention and ultimately high rates of graduation for all students, and particularly for those students who "have been identified as being under served with respect to their needs for post secondary education"
- creating a campus environment that welcomes students from diverse backgrounds
- developing the capacities and talents of all students.
Success in dealing with these initiatives will be limited at best unless the relationship between faculty and students and the relationship between institutions of higher learning and diverse communities is significantly altered. Both are power relationships reflective of power relationships within society at large. The very way in which an institution of higher learning is organised, the values it espouses, the way it does outreach speaks volumes about its organisational culture.
Faculty play a pivotal role in this process because students from diverse backgrounds are either empowered or disabled as a result of their interactions with faculty. In order to fully understand how classrooms can be made more receptive to the needs of diverse student populations it is essential to understand the debate around diversity, multiculturalism, biculturalism and anti racism.
Certainly, there is considerable debate both in the literature as well as in society at large regarding the utility of diversity. At the heart of the debate however, is a much larger debate about the value of diversity does it promote a healthy respect for difference or does it detract from the development of a Pan-South African identity?
Diversity in higher education requires institutions to think through how to:
- build on the traditions of equality espoused in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
- incorporate the ideals of anti racism and anti-discrimination as core ideals exemplifying South African values
- recognise and support the role of education at all levels in promoting democratic ideals based on respect for diversity.
Globally, two of the most ardent supporters of multiculturalism and diversity in education are James A Banks and Henry A Giroux. They write about diversity in education in socio-political contexts different from our own, contexts where historically disadvantaged communities are in the minority. We live in a highly interdependent world and it is important for us to understand how other societies have sought to deal with issues of diversity in higher education. Comparative analyses of global trends with respect to diversity, multiculturalism, bi-culturalism and inclusion provide us with invaluable insights into the workings of other educational systems and allow us to better able to understand our own system - its strengths and weaknesses.
Giroux long before the public debate took hold in South Africa notes that: During the last decade, a national debate has emerged over the meaning and purpose of multiculturalism and its effects on the school curriculum at all levels of education. In the traditionalist discourse, debates about multiculturalism and curriculum are engaged primarily through the categories of patriotism, culture, and national identity. Within this tidy linguistic formation, culture is defined in terms that are narrowly Eurocentric in both context and content. Cultural differences in this viewpoint are strategically contained if not assimilated, to the overarching imperatives of a common culture (Giroux, 1993: 2).
This debate, James Banks argues, has "…perpetuated harmful misconceptions about theory and practice in multicultural education". This in turn has led to a heightening of "…racial and ethnic tensions and trivialized the field's remarkable accomplishments in theory, research and curriculum development" (Banks, 1993; 22).
Both Banks and Giroux point to the significance power, and in particular how power has the capacity to marginalise, silence, and ultimately dis-empower certain groups in society. And, by "limiting multiculturalism to issues of national identity rather than issues of power, politics, and authority, traditionalists conveniently ignore how multicultural concerns are inextricably related to structures of inequality and injustice" (Giroux, 1993; 4).
Empowering or dis-empowering students from diverse backgrounds is a function of the extent to which educators reinforce or challenge traditional power relations and dynamics in the classroom and in the curriculum. What is required therefore is an anti-discrimination pro-diversity approach to education.
This approach should not only be about curricular transformation, it needs to be about five interrelate dimensions:
- content integration
- the knowledge construction process
- prejudice reduction
- an equity pedagogy
- an empowering school culture and social structure (Banks, 1993: 24).
Institutions of higher learning in our country are charged with the responsibility for developing the talents and capabilities of all students. Therefore, in a changing and diverse society, they have to change. They have to value and promote pluralism in order to develop the capabilities and talents of all students, and in order to avoid strife.
Clearly, all the literature and research on empowering students focus on two key areas of concern curricular transformation and innovative pedagogy. However the issues of classroom climate and curricular transformation cannot be separated from a range of areas in which change has to occur, including:
- the campus climate more broadly defined
- a supportive and innovative teaching and learning environment
- striving for excellence, and avoiding the deficiency model that operates on the lowest common denominator
- looking outward and developing links to diverse communities
- developing leadership that reflect and promote diversity
- becoming collaborative and exclusionary with diverse communities, with students, in curriculum and in the teaching and learning environment.
The pro-diversity curriculum for example is essentially a transformative curriculum that critically assesses and challenges conventional wisdom in numerous areas. The transformative nature of the curriculum in the humanities and social sciences derives from its capacity to:
- assess conventional ways of teaching, doing research and validating research and knowledge creation
- allow students to reflect on definition and self-definition
- generate alternate explanations for the persistence of oppression and discrimination
- engage in a debate about how best to achieve national development objectives (including engaging in a debate about their relevance)
- open up a dialogue on how to forge unity out of diversity
- develop a sense of shared vision of social justice among students from diverse backgrounds.
Unfortunately, no amount of pro-diversity curricular transformation will work unless a serious effort is also made to make education a positive learning experience and avoid the excesses of authoritarian teaching practices. The latter encourages the view that educators are the "banks" and students come to make knowledge withdrawals in class. Educators who take up the challenge of developing a pro-diversity curriculum must also reassess their pedagogical practices.
A commitment to diversity requires collaborative learning which is essential because it has the capacity to make diversity a positive experience for students. The key here is that a collaborative learning approach transcends disciplinary boundaries. It is not confined solely to those subjects and disciplines that more readily lend themselves to the incorporation of "diversity material" into the curriculum. Collaborative learning is an approach to teaching and learning that dignifies and respects the learner regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, language, sexual orientation and age.
In conclusion let me reiterate that a commitment to diversity in institutions of higher learning is perfectly consistent with the Constitution. Curriculum transformation and the development of collaborative learning are essential ingredients in the creation of a teaching and learning environment that has dramatically changed since the advent of democracy in our country. As more and more students from diverse backgrounds enter these institutions the institution that is best prepared to meet the challenges posed by the diversity will be the institution that will attract students and faculty from diverse backgrounds.
Institutions of higher learning, despite their autonomy have an obligation to provide services to students that respect their dignity and self worth. The development of the approach suggested in my presentation today puts the student at the centre of the teaching and learning environment. It is an approach that cuts across disciplinary boundaries and is an empowering school culture.
Diversity is central to forging unity and developing a national identity.
Thank you.
top |
