Extracts from the minutes of the meeting of the Student Representative Council of the Stellenbosch University held on 8 February 2016 in the SRC boardroom at 21:00.

IN ATTENDANCE Axolile Qina, James de Villiers, Lianda du Plessis, Marc Rudolph, Lethiwe Mbatha, Mynhardt Kruger, Lwazi Phakade, Wim Steyn, Inge Barac, Kara Meiring, Nicholas Wayne, Daniele Bezuidenhout, Bradley Frolick, Carina Stapelberg, Tumelo Motse, Khadija Bawa, Reane Olivier, Farai Mubaiwa, Tino Muzofa, Marike Madsen-­‐Leibold, Bandile Mndebele, Nonkululeko Radebe, Siya Duna

OTHER ATTENDEES Judy Lombard (minute taker), Sascha-­‐Leigh Williams, Casper Durandt

DISCUSSION AND FEEDBACK

6.1  Heemstede incident

Mr de Villiers suggests the SRc wait 12 hours before releasing any statements regarding incidents. Mr Frolick suggests shortening the period. Mr De Villiers feels it is better to wait a while longer to get all facts. Ms Meiring suggests If it is urgent to rather call everyone to inform them. Ms Mubaiwa is concerned that usually it is only a few people who respond to problems, as an SRc they all need to respond and cannot be silent. Mr Steyn says for some it is not easy to word their feelings so fast and for them it is important to first have a conversation to process what they are thinking. When writing a statement it is also an opportunity to educate those who do not understand. Mr Qina agrees that it is sometimes necessary to have time to process your thoughts.

Mr Frolick emphasises that it is then even more important to contact those who can easily formulate a stance. Mr Frolick suggests that we push the waiting period to three or even four hours. Mr Phakade says if people do not respond on a whatsapp group they are not able to know if they have a problem or what they are thinking. It is not always a good place to raise issues on the whatsapp group, but then contact the relevant person like Mr De Villiers. Issues do not wait for others understanding it to occur.

We need to think on our feet. Mr Wayne concur that as leaders they need to have an opinion and that is a commitment that all need to take to speak up if they have a problem with a statement being made. Ms Bawa is concerned that to wait 12 hours in for instance a rape case is too long. Ms Bezuidenhout says a time constraint is not always practical but it is impractical to expect a meeting to happen 5 minutes after an incident occurs but rather one or two hours after an incident.

As an SRc they have to stand up to discrimination but they need to represent everyone on this campus. She feels they needed to make sure if the girls were painted black or purple. Ms Bezuidenhout stated four times in the SRc office that they must check what colour they are actually painted. Mr Steyn says that the whatsapp group is not the most comfortable place to share opinions.

Not all is comfortable to express their feelings also in a specific language. Mr Qina states that the principle behind the 12 hour idea is to give more time to process thoughts. Personal messages and calls to get an idea of others thoughts are also advisable to help each other to state their opinion. Mr Qina concludes that everyone gets an hour during working hours to gather their thoughts and after hours situations are discussed immediately. Mr Muzofa reminds that that is where the executive committee comes in to make quick discussions.

6.3 Communication, procedure and stance forward from Heemstede incident

Mr de Villiers is concerned that their stance was bias and harsh and would like to issue an apology to the students involved.

Mr Phakade asks for clarification. Mr Kruger does not see any reasons for regrets, and no reason to apologise. Mr Rudolph concurs with Mr Duma and Mr Frolick and feels they covered many points and the opinion was not based on the photo but on the outcry of the students. Students felt uncomfortable at the party. The deeper issue is people covering themselves and hiding their true identity not the fact that they were painted purple.

Mr Frolick explains the procedure of how the statement was drafted. Feedback from meeting was used in the statement, it was reviewed and certain sentences were changed that was too harsh. On a technicality it is now purple, but it does not matter if it is purple or black. The SRc is there to look at the statement as a whole they did not make a harsh sentence or said what needed to happen to the students or that they are guilty. But only stated that the students needed to go to the disciplinary committee.

Ms Meiring says the incident happened out of a point of ignorance but that it is important to consider the impact it had on students and how it damaged them emotionally. Ms Bawa is very concerned that in previous incidents the SRc did not take a stand and management did not let anything happen to the students.

If management does not take a stand against students acting ignorantly the SRc needs to stand up for them. Ms Mubaiwa feels SRc members are taking the same ignorant stance as other students. Black students at Heemstede said that they felt victimised and could not understand how students were allowed to go to such a party. A first year did not understand how this was allowed and students spoke to the primaria and said it is black facing where the primaria disregarded their concern.

The suspended students apologised and recognised that it was black facing. The students themselves agreed then that it is black facing. At Heemstede groups of students felt hurt and angry. Mr De Villiers does not have to issue an apology as a white man on behalf of the SRc; he can do it out of his own capacity. They can have a discussion with the students and then issue another statement on the SRc web page but they do not have to retract any statements. Mr Steyn says the statement does not expressly state that the students are guilty, but the term black facing was used in a manner that implies that the girls are guilty. It is quite difficult to say that you cannot paint yourself any colour.

The SRc cannot say that they did not imply that it does not need a fair trial. The pain others feel regarding the incident can still be acknowledged. Mr Rudolph agrees that social media is not enough evidence and the admissibility of it is questionable. They are the loudest voice regarding this topic.

As white men they have a responsibility. Mr Motse says that painting of faces is allowed in the army and asks where should the line be drawn, but parties and costumes are different than camouflaging yourself. In the case of a costume there is no need to paint yourself. Those who think it is acceptable show their ignorance and disregards and mock others in a party scenario. It is not acceptable to paint your face any colour.

Ms Williams states that any colour on faces being used as a costume is an attack on others. Painting yourself purple is alienating yourself from your identity and is insensitive to so many students who feel like aliens in their own land. Being a person of colour and having your skin colour made into a joke is violent and painfull.

The jury always needs to decide if it is black facing and the jury consists of white men. The previous incident was also not referred to as black facing. Often the Williams sisters are also masculinised and she is sure that it would have hurt them as well. The problem is white people are always those who need to decide what is racist and what not. They cannot make all of these decisions.

Ms Barac has a problem with the assumption that as an SRc they did not give everyone at the residence an option to raise their voice. The prim of Heemstede also says she has proof that the first years did not speak to her and that other first years did feel comfortable. As an SRc they should’ve created a more comfortable space for others to voice their opinions. Mr Kruger suggests they listen to opinions of those who feel sensitive and the members involved as well as the first years.

They should allow the disciplinary procedure to go its course. The act itself was problematic thus they do not need to focus on if the statement was problematic. If someone was raped we will not say let’s have a critical discussion about the rapist. Ms Madsen-Leibold says they wear make-up etc, so do they now need to make an extra effort to let everyone know not to make up themselves?

Mr Frolick disagree with the statement that not all first years were heard. The time for discussion about black painting is not now. If the university does not respond the SRc needs to. The University are only worried when their brand is attacked. There is a 7% decline in BCI students this year. Black facing comes from performance arts, it is wrong. If one person of colour is offended it is enough to make sure something like this does not happen again.

Ms Bezuidenhout thinks this is a good way of educating students on why it is wrong to paint yourself even if it is purple. The girls was dressed up as aliens, it is not fair to them to get kicked out of the university for doing something they did not realize was wrong.

Ms Mubaiwa still thinks that after this everyone will not know it is wrong because this campus is not transformative. Black facing will only increase as long as there are less students of colour on this campus. Many first years said they felt scared in the residence. One first year said they felt comfortable and the others told her she was wrong. Just because it is not a physical act does not mean it did not happen, we cannot disregard people’s feelings. Sometimes they do not even feel like human beings the way some people speak of them, also when management disregards their feelings. Ms Barac did not mean that anyone’s feelings must be disregarded.

Ms Radebe suggests they wait for the disciplinary hearing. Mr De Villiers will not make comments on this regarding the whole SRc. He will refer anyone to Mr Qina. Mr Qina concludes that they wait for the disciplinary hearing. When the SRc makes a statement they will all stand together with it. Mr Wim also says that not every SRc member necessarily aggress that nothing should be done. Mx Mndebele reiterates that issuing an apology provides a dangerous platform for cultural appropriations, victimization, microaggressions and macroaggressions. It also undermines the SRC's commitment to intersectionality and its values.

Furthermore it impairs the integrity of the SRC and invalidates the cumulative work of SRC managers.

The full record can be accessed here - PDF.