Following the publication of this article, Media Manager of Stellenbosch University (SU), Martin Viljoen, contacted MatieMedia with the following updates:
The two students who completed their community service portion of their sanction also “completed substantial sections of the assignment portion of their sanction,” which the newly-constituted Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC) has deemed sufficient, says Viljoen.
Viljoen also added that despite Ms Felicia van Rooi claiming that all three students are still registered at the university, Dean Dart was in fact expelled during 2017.
Under the Division of the Registrar, the Head of Student Discipline at Stellenbosch University (SU) – Felicia van Rooi – said that two of the three students involved in the Nazi-inspired poster incident of 2017, complied with the community service portion of their sanction but not the assignment portion.
“We recently became aware that this matter has dropped off our register during the handover process from the previous HSD to the current HSD in January 2018,” she explained. “The monitoring process regarding the implementation of the assignment portion of the sanction did not occur. This outstanding issue is receiving attention. The remaining one of the three students lodged a review at the High Court and [the] matter is pending before the High Court,” she says.
The remaining student – Dean Dart – is currently involved in litigation against the University and the matter must still be argued in court, says Dart’s attorney, Marius Stenekamp, who offered no further comment.
This follows the university releasing a media statement in 2017, announcing that each student was found guilty of contravening clauses within SU’s Student Disciplinary Code and would therefore have various sanctions imposed upon them.
One of the Nazi-inspired posters put up on Stellenbosch University campus. PHOTO: Supplied.
According to the statement, the CDC imposed the following sanctions on all three students:
- “A total of 100 hours community service to be completed before the end of the first semester of 2018. Of these, 60 hours must be completed by the end of the 2017 academic year.
- The students must complete a restorative assignment of which the key topic must be on how to constructively engage on campus and address different narratives. The first draft must be submitted to the panel not later than the last day of the third term of 2017. The final assignment must be submitted by the first Monday of February 2018.
- The remaining 40 hours of the 100 hours community service referred to above, must be used to implement the ideas of constructive engagement as determined in the restorative assignment.
- If any of the three students fail to comply with any of the above elements of the sanction, they will be expelled immediately from Stellenbosch University.”
All three of the involved are still registered as students at the university, according to Van Rooi.
On Tuesday, the 9th of May 2017, the SU community woke up to the Nazi-inspired posters which these students had displayed around campus. The posters were titled “the Anglo-Afrikaner student” and called for other students to “fight for Stellenbosch” as well as attend a meeting at the university’s library on the following Thursday evening.
The three students involved had distributed the posters without approval but had not actually booked the library as a venue for their meeting.
On the university’s website, the administration posted three updates. The first one, on the 9th of May, condemned the posters which they described as inciting racial polarization. “An investigation is currently underway while the posters were also reported at the University’s Equality Unit,” reads the update. On the 10th of May, it was added that the individuals involved had been identified and that they were being interviewed by the Equality Unit (EU), which was supported by the staff of the Student Discipline division.
According to the coordinator of communications and marketing of the EU, Nadine Christians, “the EU is responsible and mandated to implement policy and not implement recommendations but to assist stakeholders where possible.”
The last update made by the university was published on the 11th of May, announcing that Professor Wim de Villiers, Rector and Vice Chancellor of SU, had decided to suspend the three students while a disciplinary process was being followed. The EU had investigated the matter and then made recommendations to both the CDC and management.
“The Equality Unit reported that the posters and advertised event promoted racial polarization/superiority – combined with highly offensive references to Nazi propaganda and Neo-Nazism – were in breach of SU’s Policy on Unfair Discrimination and Harassment,” reads the update.
When asked whether students should ever be consulted when producing recommendations in situations such as these, Christians said that the EU’s work is guided by policy. “The main aim throughout the procedure is to serve the complainants’ interests as far as reasonably possible,” she added.
No further update was made on the SU website.
However, almost two months later, a media statement was released, announcing that the disciplinary hearing of the three students had concluded on the 12th of July, where the CDC found the students guilty of contravening – specifically – clauses 9.3 and 9.6 of SU’s Student Disciplinary Code.
These clauses being;
“9.3. A student shall not act in a manner that is racist, unfairly discriminatory, violent, grossly insulting, abusive or intimidating against any other person. This prohibition extends but is not limited to conduct which causes either mental or physical harm, is intended to cause humiliation, or which assails the dignity of any other person.
9.6. A student shall not act in a manner so as to disrupt, or potentially disrupt, the maintenance of order and discipline at the University.”
Following the publication of this statement, the involved students had five days in which to file a notice of appeal.
Despite the fact that none of the three students completed all the imposed sanctions, Van Rooi says that the disciplinary process at the University is adequate and in line with the Student Disciplinary Code.
When asked why the University did not continue to make updates on their website with regards to the incident, Viljoen said, “In the absolute minimum of cases would the university give updates on the progress of particular disciplinary cases on its website. In this case, there was a campus-wide and even national and international interest in this particular case. For this reason, the university placed updates on its website.”
“The last update clearly indicated that the case would now be an official student disciplinary case and from there on it is the prerogative of the Central Disciplinary Committee to decide on whether and on what level the campus community should be informed of cases. That said there was indeed a media release that outlined the steps taken,” he added.