Reflections on Rhodes Gazing over the Campus, the City and the Continent

A moving and packed Jameson Hall last night (March 25, 2015) continued the campaign to bring down the statue of Rhodes brooding over the campus, the city and the continent of Africa. Here are some random thoughts.

The campaign gains momentum, but there are many students who are not persuaded. We heard that the Engineering and the Built Environment students voted clearly against the removal of Rhodes. This is surprising and also very telling. It seems that those interested in buildings are taking a very specific stand. Either they are positively opposed to the idea that Rhodes will no longer gaze over the city and the continent, or they do not care. It it is the former, then we have a long road to decolonisation and freedom. The gaze of Rhodes will be directly and indirectly be supported by our colleagues and future graduates. If they do not care, then it seems that some symbols have become so powerful that they do not even register a response. When the norm is not seen, then it has become part of habit, nature and the everyday.

The reality, clearly, is that this is not the everyday experience of everyone on campus. Students expressed their frustrations and alienation on UCT campus. For me, the symbolism of removing Rhodes was more poignantly expressed by the extent of racism faced by students on an ongoing basis. Over the 25 years that I have been at UCT, I have heard and experienced racism in the classroom. But the racism was subtle, and difficult to pin down. I would like to see a concerted effort made to deal with racism on this personal, everyday level. If the campaign to remove Rhodes puts a spotlight on this deep experience, then it would  have achieved its purpose.

But as I reflected on the meeting, I also felt a tinge of dissatisfaction. I saw how Prof. Barney Pityana was rejected as co-chair. The argument was that he had taken a particular position on the matter. A new chair was chosen, who promptly declared his support for the removal of Rhodes. But I thought that a neutral chair was sought? One that would faciliate the debate on Rhodes? Obviously, I was naive in my expectation. But it was disappointing to see the wisdom of Prof Pityana summarily rejected.

I subsequently read that Prof. Pityana had questioned the wisdom of removing all colonial symbols of colonialism and apartheid from South African public spaces. He did not reject the removal of Rhodes. He only questioned this policy. In opposition, Prof. Gqola argued that these statues should be put in a museum.

As the meeting progressed, we heard clearly that the students had adopted a particular political position on post-apartheid politics. It left me wondering if this was another political campaign or a fundamental search for a new University? While presumably opposed to the history of colonialism and apartheid, was it more truly directed against the post-apartheid politics of Presidents Mandela, Mbeki and perhaps Zuma? Prof. Pityana represented, wrongly in view, this politics.