Rhodes, racism, rapists and rules: Further reflections on the student movements (The 1st movement)

The following is a three part series in response to an article written by Adam Habib in January 2016, published in the Daily Maverick, as well as to further reflect on the student movement, as Habib did in his article.

***

“Welcome to the real world” were the words of a policeman as he locked up a student in the back of a police van during the April 2016 #RUReferencelist protests at Rhodes University. The words are symbolic of two people at the opposite ends of a protest. The one is a (White), South African male representing the state, the other a (Black) South African woman symbolic of the marginalised.

To the woman, a student at Rhodes, the “real world” is constantly having to live in the fear of being raped and/or sexually assaulted. She cannot wear what she wants. She cannot trust whoever she wants. She cannot just have coffee after a night out with a guy in his or her room. She cannot walk alone. She cannot just smile at a guy (or a girl). Daily she has to be in a society that re-enforces patriarchy. She was raised not to offend. Not to offend the male university management. Not to challenge the male policeman. Not to question the male state.

The policeman welcomes our sister, who has been taught to think and act freely at university, to the “real” world. Read: a male world. Where any “emotional” behaviour (because that is so feminine) which reacts to or challenges the (male) status quo is dealt with in an alpha male reaction. The only “crime” committed by this woman student was that she was “manning” a barricade set-up on a public road. Of course, to the policeman she was just being the lazy, spoilt woman that she is and he was reminding her that she operated in his world: the real world.

In January 2016, Professor Adam Habib offered some reflections on the student movements that had dominated October and November 2015. Currently, we just completed a course on social movements in South Africa at Rhodes University or the University Currently Known As Rhodes (UCKAR). Unlike Habib, this author is comfortable being a stakeholder AND reflecting on it. Unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences have always taught us that subjectivity is not to be dismissed. In fact, we may argue that most of our qualitative research depends on the subjective experiences of subjects. Indeed, we do try and “objectify” them. But I digress.

Intersectionality of persons and issues

Since Habib’s article, we have seen (violent) protests continue at a number of our campuses. Wits, UJ, UCT and Rhodes in particular have even approached the courts to apply for interdicts. Yet unlike Habib, we may suggest that these protests were not limited to October and November 2015 nor were they just about “quality higher education and insourcing of vulnerable workers”. Or even worse: just of “under-funding”.

Rather we would want to suggest that a) the student movement started or became visible on the national (elite) agenda with the #RhodesMustFall movement and b) that, like the intersectionality of the movement, the issues have evolved. We cannot separate the successful fall of Rhodes, from the fallen increase in fees or even from the issues that continue to dominate the student movement.

Old social movements are suggested to be single issue movements. For example, Grahamstown Rates Payers Association will be addressing the same issues that they were fifty years ago in Grahamstown: street lamps, potholes, security in Grahamstown etc. To be a member of the GRA you have to be a resident of Grahamstown. Yet with new social movements we have seen an intersectionality of persons and issues.

Intersectionality in persons means that there is no criteria for membership of the movement. In fact, there is no “membership” per se. No form needs to be filled in. No “sign-up”. No membership fee. In the instance of the “student” movement, you can be a cleaner, a lecturer, an administrator to “belong” or partake in the activities of the movement. However, you come to plenary as equals. Hence, this intersectionality lends itself to all kinds of resources and networks being made available to sustain the movement. Academics tap into their expertise and their networks, as an example.

At the same time the intersectionality speaks to intersectionality of issues too. The student movement takes on a number of issues: symbols and curriculum of colonialism and Apartheid, outsourcing, fees, accommodation, racism, patriarchy, heteronormativity etc. For sure, we could loosely suggest that it’s about “quality higher education” but also it’s about changing the South African society.

Yet intersectionality does have its disadvantages. Who benefited most from the 0% increase in fees? Not the fiscus, the universities nor the poor student but the Barbie living in Camps Bay and the Ken living in Sandton. He upgrades from a 3series BMW to a BMW coupe. She moves from an apartment to a penthouse.

It is best therefore to view it as an evolution of the movement rather than a “fracturing” as Habib describes it. The movement goes into a lull where reflection and articulation takes place. However, factors such as Black nationalism (rather than Habib’s racism) and singling out of specific categories of people does affect the cohesion of the movement’s intersectionality.

For example, during the week of #RUReferencelist protests at Rhodes, a meeting of “males” was called. Never mind that intersectionality deals well with those who don’t define themselves as “male”, this was like calling an all-Indian convention to talk about non-racialism. At this meeting, arranged by “the guys”, “the guys” were expected to talk about the “the girls” issues. As if the solution was in the hands of “the guys” and therefore by “the guys” changing their ways they would “rescue the girls.” This meeting was a blow to intersectionality.

Another example, of the infringement on intersectionality, was a staff meeting called. Many staff members were concerned and wanted to act as a “mediator” between senior management and the students. While some staff members were and continue to be sympathetic to the students, they wanted to “invite” the students to a meeting. Who has the power here? Staff members were hesitant to join students as equals.

Again, a leadership structure (#RUReference List Task Team) emerged which is anathema in new social movements as well as a Black women’s movement meeting was held where a female White student, who was tweeting about the protests, was asked to leave the meeting. 

Singling out identities, such as males, staff, Blacks (whereas up until then there was a large number of White students/survivors participating in the protests but not “in leadership”) was a serious blow to the intersectionality of the movement. One believes this, dividing members of the movement into segments, was more dangerous to the movement than the interdict. Singling out divides, the interdict unites.   

Part 2 and 3 to follow.