Between the two horns of T.O. Molefe’s dilemma

(Posted on behalf of Prof. David Benatar.)

T.O. Molefe alleges that I present the following “false dilemma”: Either South Africa’s dysfunctional schools are fixed or the country’s Universities cannot be demographically transformed. It is false, he says, because although the schooling problem does need to be addressed, there are things that universities can do to transform even without the schooling problem being fixed.

That’s a surprising criticism of my view. In the article to which he seems to be referring (“Must UCT also now fall?”, Politicsweb, 30 June 2015) my claim was that the demographics of the university — both students and staff — cannot reflect the demographics of the country unless the upstream problem of dysfunctional schooling is addressed. Mr. Molefe does not deny that claim. Indeed, he accepts this.

He’s quite right that there are things the universities can do even while schools remain dysfunctional. However, if he had read another piece I wrote the previous day (“Those who seek changes must show they are desirable”, Cape Times, Monday 29 June 2015), he would have seen that I said:

To be clear, the university can, should, and does provide support to those students who have been educationally disadvantaged, but it can do so only for those students who are only moderately disadvantaged and could succeed with remedial help. Universities cannot compensate for twelve years of appalling primary and secondary education in South Africa’s dysfunctional schools.

Thus, my view involves no false dilemma. I am aware of intermediate options, but unlike Mr. Molefe I am also aware that these options are very limited, at least if they are to be successful.

Mr. Molefe suggests, for example, that South African universities should provide academic and financial support for disadvantaged students. That has been happening for decades and indeed has been increasing over the years. However, such initiatives can go only so far. Financial aid only solves a problem if a student is able, with academic assistance, to succeed. Otherwise it is a waste of limited resources. And academic assistance, as I indicated in the quote above, can help only a limited band of disadvantaged students. The vast majority of school-leavers in South Africa have been so horribly disadvantaged by their inferior primary and secondary schooling that they stand no chance of succeeding at university even with remedial help.

Students also need to accept the help that is offered. Years ago, my department introduced a “Philosophy Plus” programme for struggling students (irrespective of their “race”). This programme, which we continue to offer, is run by an experienced and caring tutor who works in conjunction with the relevant lecturer. We found that dozens of students from disadvantaged backgrounds were either not signing up for this programme or failing to participate once they had enrolled. This was irrespective of whether we made it compulsory or voluntary. (Those who do attend find the programme beneficial.)

When my colleagues in the Humanities Faculty and the University more generally wring their hands and ask what more we can do to improve the success rate of disadvantaged students, I remind them that the educational enterprise involves two sides — the teachers and the students. We have certain duties as teachers, but students also have responsibilities to take up the opportunities that are offered them. It simply cannot be that the teachers endlessly self-flagellate while the (adult) students bear no responsibility.

Turning to academic staff, Mr. Molefe says that “if black university staff do not meet promotion criteria … then the failure is largely the fault of the universities for pretending that blacks and whites come from the same lived realities”. That is quite an assumption to make. “Blacks” who are hired as academics will have received graduate degrees. While there may be ways in which their experiences differ, it is not clear that those are ways relevant to their academic performance. If they are, we need to hear what they are, so that we can evaluate whether this is a slogan or a real source of concern.

Mr. Molefe acknowledges that the support structures he proposes are already in place at UCT, but says that “they are clearly not working”. If that’s the case, one cannot simply assume, as he does, that this is on account of “the obvious institutional-level resistance to transformation”. I am aware of absolutely no evidence that UCT is resistant to nurturing its new staff. Indeed, it goes out of its way to assist in multiple ways.

If these programmes are failing to fast-track “black” academics to professorships, one has to be willing to consider the possibility that the fast-track idea might be a fantasy. Some individuals will be eligible for promotion more speedily than others — because of individual variation — but there is no recipe for ensuring that people in designated groups will be promoted more rapidly. Indeed, if it is true that they need extra support, the chances are that most will not rapidly ascend the ranks. (Remedial interventions occasionally turn struggling students into stars, but more commonly the remedial intervention has a much more modest effect. There is no reason to think that it should be different with academic staff who require support programmes.)

Mr. Molefe is far from the first to suggest that “the concept of quality itself needs to be interrogated”. I’ve cited that very move and responded that those who make this claim must

explicate the ways in which the current standards of “excellence” are questionable. Should we, for example, not be seeking academics who have finely honed analytical skills, a command of their field, and who can publish articles in excellent international journals, and books with prestigious academic presses?

(“Those who seek changes must show they are desirable”, Cape Times, Monday 29 June 2015)

Nor is Mr. Molefe original in claiming that universities should do more “to compete for black staff, not just with each other but with the public and private sectors, and civil society”. Implicit here is a recognition that there is a dearth of suitably qualified “blacks”, for if there were an ample supply such courting would not be necessary. The question is: “Why must universities and the other employers with which they are competing for the limited supply be engaged in this elaborate game?” It does not (significantly) increase the supply and leaves the real disadvantaged no better off than they were. That’s why fixing the dysfunctional schools is so important.