Every morning on my way to the office, I pass this imposing figure. Elevated on a granite plinth in front of the main building of the University of the Free State’s Bloemfontein Campus, cast in bronze, more than twice the size of an average human, the statue of South African president Marthinus Theunis Steyn is by all accounts an impressive work of art.
Unlike Cecil John Rhodes, who has become the embodiment of colonialism in South Africa, history paints the last president of the independent Orange Free State a little more amicably: M. T. Steyn was an outspoken anti-imperialist, a pacifist who tried until the very end to avoid war with Britain and a humanitarian who did a lot for Boer women and children after the war.
However, he was also the leader of a republic that did not acknowledge the rights of all its ethnic groups. From a modern-day human rights perspective, his Free State was decidedly unequal and unjust.
In its recent report, the ministerial task team on the transformation of the heritage landscape points out that statues are never just “innocent pieces of architecture”. They embody a strong “symbolic power” and project “the foundational values of the state and those in power”. It’s never about the persona alone, but about the totality of the values he or she represents.
Situated where it is – in front of the building housing the university’s executive – the question is whether we, as the leadership of this institution, align ourselves with these values.
And if there is any doubt, how should we go about considering a change to the status quo?
Statues have been defaced, damaged and toppled by protestors – not only in South Africa, but around the world. It happened to the the statue of Cecil John Rhodes at the University of Cape Town and at UFS to the statue of Charles Robberts Swart on the Bloemfontein Campus.
There is of course a legitimate driving force behind students’ conduct: frustration about the perceived slow pace of transformation.
However, what should also be considered is the heritage legislation that is in place to protect symbols that hold historical value and significance – specifically aimed at preserving our country’s cultural heritage for all its citizens.
At the UFS, discussions regarding the possible repositioning of the M. T. Steyn statue date back to 2003. In January this year, we launched an integrated transformation plan, and the statue was identified as a priority within the work stream dealing with names, symbols and spaces.
Earlier this year, the student community, through the Student Representative Council, once again asked for the statue to be removed. It was clear that it made certain students feel unwelcome because it represented a period in history that they did not feel part of.
I realised the urgency of the matter and appointed a special task team to fast-track the review of the statue’s position. Four options had to be considered during the review process: retention of the statue in its current position, reinterpretation, relocation on campus, or relocation to a site off campus.
The task team, made up of representatives of various campus communities, appointed an independent heritage consultant to conduct a heritage impact assessment as prescribed by the heritage legislation.
This encompassed a two-month public participation process. Great effort went into inviting people to comment on the position of the statue, including erecting a giant reflective column in front of the statue, effectively erasing it from a frontal view of the main building. Seven questions were etched in the column in English, Afrikaans and Sesotho asking about the statue and the person it represents. Cement benches to invite reflection and a suggestion box for comments surrounded it.
I also had various individual meetings with relevant people, including members of the Afrikaans community on campus, the SRC and alumni.
Robust discussion sessions were facilitated on campus, and various opinion articles appeared in the media.
As there is no precedent for such a process under current South African legislation, the task team was guided at all times by principles of fairness, inclusivity and objectivity.
The special task team has now presented the university’s executive with a report, and a final decision on the position of the statue will be made during a meeting of the university council on 23 November.
What we have learned
I have repeatedly been asked whether the time, effort and resources we’ve poured into the process around deciding the statue’s future have been worth it. My answer is consistently a resounding yes.
Through this process, everyone involved with our university was given the opportunity to express their opinion. When discussions sometimes became one-sided and overbearing, we used it as an opportunity to lay down the rules for respectful debating as a quid pro quo for future discussions on any matter.
Whatever the final decision on the Steyn statue, it is bound to dissatisfy some. That much is unavoidable. However, I believe that this should not inevitably lead to division on our campuses. In the wake of these processes, I see an opportunity to foster a new sense of university citizenship based on the value of caring.
We should apply this value in order to be a university where equality, social justice, tolerance and forward looking are lived out every day. A place where everyone truly feels welcome – and involved.
Francis Petersen is rector and vice-chancellor at the University of the Free State.
后记
Print headline: Move with consideration, consensus and care