Ideologies of failure tend to arrive slowly, and their consequences suddenly. The radical decision by Stellenbosch University to close Wilgenhof did not happen in a vacuum. Instead, the administration's action results from years of contrivances – a steady project of demoralisation.

The ideology behind this outcome is evident in the panel report. After concluding that Wilgenhof culture is “deeply problematic” due to symbols and practices “associated with white supremacy”, it was decided that these – and Wilgenhof’s “bigotry” – should be “stamped out once and for all”. The panel viewed the residence as irredeemable, and the majority of “experts” concurred. Permanent closure would thus send a clear message: the institution is committed to transformation.

But before reaching this conclusion, several other ideas were floated. The residence might house a majority of black students, creating a “safe space” to “break” and “replace” Wilgenhof culture. Or, it could become a co-ed residence, with female students in the majority. Alternatively, closure might only be threatened, as a “stick” to force compliance. But here Wilgenhoffers would need to “acknowledge their privilege” and “make big sacrifices”.

Another suggestion was to hold campus-wide “TRC-type” critical engagements to address questions like, “What does it mean to carry a legacy of generational exclusion and marginalisation?” or “What does it mean to be the beneficiary of generational wealth and privilege?” But none of these measures sufficed. There was no cure for the ghastliness of Wilgenhof culture. By accepting the report, Stellenbosch University has manifestly embraced an ideology akin to “Year Zero” thinking – seeking a complete cultural reset by eradicating tradition and history.

I

On 30 September, Stellenbosch University’s council released a statement outlining the reasons behind its decision to close Wilgenhof. The chairperson, Nicky Newton-King, said the decision was necessary, because it was “important to make a decisive break” (Emphasis in the original) with the residence’s practices. The phrase “unacceptable and secretive practices” is mentioned ten times, but without elaboration. Evidently, Newton-King and the council relied mainly on the findings of the flawed and irrational panel report (See Part I).

But what, then, is the true nature of the Nagligte and the residence’s traditions? The council cannot claim ignorance. A recent alumnus who held a leadership position for example made an anonymous submission after the panel report was released. The student feared the document might be leaked – a justified concern given the extent of insider leaks to the press. Indeed, his submission was leaked. But as a young professional, he was more concerned about being associated with “Nazism” and “white supremacy” than any other repercussion, further highlighting the manipulative nature of these scandals. Once events are portrayed in their most defamatory light only the most foolhardy would rush into the fire, something which suppresses any pushback against the ongoing spread of falsehoods.

The truth is the Nagligte are Wilgenhof’s internal disciplinary committee (DC) and have existed since the early 1900s. Since 1915, the DC has been officially recognised as the disciplinary authority of the house. Contrary to allegations, the Nagligte are not an “oppressive” institution. They also haven’t been responsible for initiations since 1938, when a Welcoming Committee was created. The tradition is instead “underpinned by a spirit of good cheer and student fun (‘studentepret’)” and of “jest and banter (‘gekskeerdery’)”. The aim is to foster belonging and brotherhood – otherwise known as camaraderie.

Seniors are not allowed to bully younger students. House meeting minutes from 1920 show that no resident is considered “above the law” and “equal punishment” is meted out for “crimes”. In fact, the more senior one’s position, the more is expected of one. These “crimes” are furthermore not serious but pertain to “gees” crimes – or “crimes of morality”.

They are house rules the community chooses to live by, such as not using certain profanities in front of women, not wearing a cap in the dining hall, or not using a phone during mealtimes. In other words, the rules aim to instil what used to be known as basic manners. And while this might seem anachronistic to some, the idea is to cultivate upstanding citizens – inculcating a sense of “gentlemanship” (‘gentlemanskap’).

The tradition is marked by mirth and mythology. The Nagligte spoke in falsetto voices, earning them the nickname the “Falsetto Fairies”. Since inception, they have worn dark robes and are known as “Die Draers van die togas” (the Wearers of the Togas) or “Die Donker” (The Dark). Their personas are theatrical, humorous, and “bizarre”. The submission explains:

“The idea is to have a fair system through which justice can be dispensed, but the experience must remain inherently enjoyable. The regalia of the DC members serve to separate the persona of the Naglig from the individual within the suit, creating an entity distinct from the person behind the mask, achieved through the sheer absurdity of the attire.”

The Nagligte were also not “clandestine”. They are democratically elected by the residents and are accountable to them. Since 1935, the positions of Chief of the Nagligte and Vice-Primarius have been held by the same person, ensuring further accountability. House rules are electorally agreed upon and subject to quarterly review. The reporting of “crimes” must be seconded to ensure the “transgression” took place as fabrications are not permitted. A crimee can also contest the claim.

The allegation that Wilgenhof is incapable of reforms is also untrue. The panel based this claim on a private, voluntary event held on a farm in 2023 and the mere existence of two rooms, including the historical archive ("For what purpose?" they opined). However, the submission to the council noted that the “majority of the ‘shock factors’” reported by the media were “irrelevant to the modern Wilgenhof,” and there had been many self-initiated reforms over the years to align the residence with changing times.

For instance, more than two decades ago there were concerns about ensuring voluntary participation in the Nagligte tradition. In 2002, Edwin Cameron recommended implementing a Parallel System, which was then introduced. Any student who chooses not to participate in Nagligte activities may perform community service.

If someone decided not to participate, it is “entirely possible for them to complete their Wilgenhof career without ever meeting the DC”. These students would not be maligned for this decision either, as the parallel system is considered “a perfectly legitimate avenue of Wilgenhof’s disciplinary system”. Another option included opting out of any disciplinary system entirely.

The university has long been aware of the Nagligte's existence. The document mentions there was an understanding that as long as the parallel system was available and well-managed as an alternative to the traditional system, it was considered fair and responsive to individual needs. It should further be noted that, despite the three available options, the vast majority of students elect to participate in the Nagligte, as it was a beloved tradition.

Furthermore, in 2019, some members of the house became concerned about the use of pointed hoods. Although there was no actual or intended association with any “white supremacist” group or tradition, they worried about the hoods' “potentially” offensive nature. The decision was made to pin them back with safety pins. By 2021, the hoods were discontinued and nailed to the wall in the Toe Argief, the residence’s historical archive. A mannequin wearing the discontinued regalia was stored in a glass cabinet – a photograph of which was gleefully splashed across the country’s media pages earlier this year.

Front page of Die Burger newspaper showing the discontinued regalia stored in the Toe Argief. [SOURCE: Submission by an alumnus to the council.]

In 2020, the residence also established the Wilgenhof Renewal Committee. The aim of this committee was to “continuously investigate and reform the traditional practices”. The committee was elected annually and consisted of house members from all the year groups and was “culturally, linguistically and ethnically diverse”.

In 2021, a newcomer mentioned that the 88 symbol might also cause offence, given that the number had recently come to be associated with neo-Nazism. The room, Hool 88, was summarily rebranded as Hool 44. Many visible references to the number were also altered, for example by turning the symbol into a flower:

[SOURCE: Submission by an alumnus to the council.]

Also in 2021, nudity was banned. In any event, first years did not participate nude in activities, and those who chose to do so later did so voluntarily. Instead, they wore “battle gear” – shoes, shorts, and a t-shirt. After the ban, all residents were given PT shorts and t-shirts, so as not to dirty their own clothes and with the hope that these would become “part of the ‘lore’” of the residence’s traditions.

For the past ten years, then, the traditional system has mainly involved physical exercise and team activities in the quad. The methodology has been experimented with and changed over the years. During the 2021/2022 period, for example:

“[T]he physical exercises that the participants had to do were sometimes done in the form of a ‘Zumba class’ hosted by the DK as the ‘Zumba instructors’ to make the atmosphere light and jovial while still having the residents exhaust themselves as part of the disciplinary function. A kiddies’ pool was also placed in the Quad [into which] the crimees would jump before doing a lap of the Quad to the tune of Ice, Ice Baby.”

The central theme of these activities was to “involve the crimees in some activity where they get to interact with the DC whilst being inconvenienced (“tydmors” or “wasting time”) without being harmed.”

The overwhelming majority of past and present Wilgenhoffers have cherished these traditions. The Nagligte ritual was considered a “special and enjoyable experience”, and alumni worked hard to secure placements for their own children in the residence. It seems clear that no parent, except surely the pathological, would seek to do so if the practice were indeed “harmful” or “oppressive”.

II

This then was the reality. The Wilgenhof story, through this year, was reported locally and internationally under screaming headlines about abuse, torture, racism, and Nazism. Some examples include:

- Century-old ‘KKK’ group at Maties was an ‘open secret’ – IOL

- Black students demand justice for their torture at Wilgenhof residence – Sunday World

- Stellenbosch University haunted by ‘chamber of horrors’ and ‘toxic culture’ at Wilgenhof – IOL

- Inside the horrific South African university residence accused of physical abuse and emotional torment - including a 'punishment room', 'urine-like' liquids and a bizarre a capella group called 'The Crows' – Daily Mail

- Pro-Nazi graffiti found at South African university – The Times (of London)

The main driver of the sensationalist reporting was News24. Over roughly eight and a half months, the publication pursued a relentless campaign against the residence, its students, and its alumni, including a dedicated “special projects” section on its website.

A review of these articles reveals that, between the end of January and mid-September 2024, News24 published at least 56 articles – averaging 6.6 articles per month. Prega Govender alone contributed 32 of these, effectively turning Wilgenhof into her reporting beat. This coverage persisted until the final outcome – the closure of Wilgenhof – was achieved.

But the problem was not only one of coverage but also of framing. A more objective examination of the leaked photographs would have revealed that most of the images were no more shocking than what one might encounter on posters or paraphernalia in the heavy metal scene or in a teenager’s bedroom or diary.

And the photographs or mentions of condoms intended, presumably, to convey a message of male sexual assault? Those were used as water balloons. What about the disturbing image News24 captioned as “‘Doop’ (initiation)” equipment? Firstly, the Nagligte did not perform initiations and, secondly, the frightful “equipment” was just a plastic toy.

The sensationalism surrounding the story was thus no different from the narrow-minded verkramptheid that fuelled various iterations of the “Satanic Panic”. And though it has long been said that journalists write “the first rough draft of history”, the arrival of AI has now introduced new problems.

Consider a recent interaction with one such platform: when asked to identify South Africa’s oldest men’s residence, it initially erred by suggesting UCT’s Smuts Hall. When asked about Wilgenhof, it corrected itself but then – unprompted – stated that “Wilgenhof has a long and complex history, and it has been the subject of various controversies over the years”. The two key references cited for this information were News24 – and the outlet’s “Special Projects” campaign.

III

While the panel report chanted the values of “inclusion”, “diversity”, and “transformation”, the media clamoured about “racism”. But neither the panel nor the media cared about the opinions of black people. Indeed, the greatest ambivalence in this entire saga was evident in the near-total erasure of the views held by black students of Wilgenhof.

At the end of July 2024, for example, a group of 77 black Wilgenhoffers and alumni made a collective submission to the council. They warned about cancel culture and called the decision an overreaction, stating the panel report was “not factual”. Wilgenhof was a place of “brotherhood” and “comfort,” where students felt welcome and wanted. The panel “made no conscious effort” to ensure their views were heard, and they expressed a “very strong negative reaction” to the residence’s closure.

They also criticised the media, stating, “We have seen the media go to ridiculous lengths to push their ‘anti-Wilgenhof’ agenda”. Their home faced scrutiny for months and they couldn’t understand why “not one current resident has been approached by any media outlet with a chance to voice the truth.” Another resident expressed his shock, stating, “When the news came out about Wilgenhof, I was completely dumbfounded. It is neither a racist institution nor a homophobic one.”

It was only on 27 July, more than a month and a half after the release of the panel report, that a black former resident’s views were shared in News24’s “Voices” section, meaning it was reader-submitted. The writer, Samora Menze, stated: “In all the many words written about Wilgenhof, it is remarkable that one group of voices has been largely neglected: that of black residents.” He added that “being a racist there was never acceptable. In fact, racists would have hated Wilgenhof.”

It took three more weeks before Govender, on 17 August, published an article about the views of these black residents, headlined ‘My best moments were in Willows’: Black Wilgenhoffers want Stellenbosch University to keep res open. The council announced its decision to close Wilgenhof on 16 September.

The patent disinterest from the panel, the media, and the university in either the views or well-being of those they claimed to be protecting from harm points to a broader issue. Namely, the emergence of a ideological and cultural movement on the campus which regards the university’s great residences as unwelcome and abnormal bodies which need excising from the university community.

Indeed, in recent years radical elements within the institution have contrived or seized upon isolated incidents to drive an ideological agenda of “reform”, usually employing expensive and biased inquiries. Though many senior leaders of the university must know better they lack the fortitude to stand up to radicals and the prevailing intellectual orthodoxies and so just go with the flow, regardless of the harm being done to the students in their care. At Wilgenhof, this threat to their existence became apparent several years prior.

IV

The year is 2019 and, during the month of August, two significant events unfolded. Early in the month, Stellenbosch hosted an event for Pieter du Toit’s book, The Stellenbosch Mafia – Inside the Billionaires Club. SMF News, a publication produced for local residents by students of the university’s journalism class, covered this discussion with News24’s editor Adriaan Basson. The article, titled Othering: The Cornerstone of the Stellenbosch Mafia Network, noted that members of this group were mainly Afrikaans, white males who had studied at Stellenbosch University – and many had resided at Wilgenhof.

News24’s Pieter du Toit and Adriaan Basson in discussion at the book launch for ‘The Stellenbosch Mafia’ [SOURCE: SMF News]

Later in the month, Uyinene Mrwetyana, a UCT student, was tragically raped and murdered at a Cape Town post office, sparking nationwide protests and reinvigorating the Anti-Gender Based Violence (GBV) movement. At Stellenbosch University, on 6 September, the Anti-GBV Movement SU thus launched on Facebook, adopting a Venus symbol and black power fist as its logo. Hundreds of students rallied, chanting “Enough is enough!” and demanding action from the administration. “Where is Wim?,” they shouted. And: “Fuck your rape culture!”. Later, the protesters continued their march to several men’s residences.

Dewald Pieterse, a former student and Wilgenhof resident, described it to me as a “very sensitive and heated time” on campus. The protesters’ demands were based on the view that male residences were “misogynistic patriarchal cesspits” and the narrative of closing them down “started to gain traction.” As Pieterse put it, “That was during the time of, you know, All Men Are Trash, and that kind of rhetoric.”

Indeed, the Anti-GBV Movement SU’s online activity that year suggested it was evidently “time for the patriarchy to start listening”, with several marches and actions targeting the alleged problematic culture in men’s residences. In a memorandum handed over to the administration, the movement demanded a “formal inquiry into the culture of secrecy and ‘traditions’ in men’s residences.”

Stellenbosch University responded by releasing a report of its own, titled “Enough is Enough”: Stellenbosch University Takes a Stand Against Gender-Based Violence. The report outlined existing initiatives to end “rape culture” and gender-based violence and committed to intensifying efforts to “eradicate unacceptable practices and behaviour under the guise of ‘residence traditions’”.

V

Given the climate on campus and the university's preoccupations, 2020 could not have gotten off to a worse start for Wilgenhof. Pieterse explained that the local media conflated two issues. The first was that a Wilgenhof mentor had quoted scripture on his WhatsApp status saying, “It is wrong to call the Bible homophobic, because it’s not fear, it’s disgust.” This upset Wilgenhoffers as well, given the residence has had many gay students in leadership positions over the years, and the mentor was internally removed from his role.

Nevertheless, the Anti-GBV Movement SU and another organisation, QueerUS, marched to Wilgenhof. SMF reported that Paul Joubert, the then-Education Executive of QueerUS, said they were tired of being “polite” and decided to be “non-violently impolite.” When the protesters started banging on Wilgenhof’s doors, the Residence Head chose not to lower the drawbridge, so to speak, as he’d already met with them earlier in the day. The crowd then moved to an annual Woordfees event, knowing Prof. Wim de Villiers, Premier Alan Winde, and “other important people” would be there.

On the same day, Joubert attended a Student Representative Council (SRC) meeting. According to the minutes, he said the students were dissatisfied with the Residence Head’s response. Joubert also spoke about a practice called “Nagligte” that involved “garbs similar to the KKK”, with rumours of rituals involving nudity. As such, Wilgenhof was under scrutiny. An SRC representative said he’d spoken to Prof Wim de Villiers who said that several processes were taking place, including “an investigation into the culture and practices of Wilgenhof”.

Four days later, on 14 March, Paul Joubert published an article on iLizwe – a student-run publication he co-founded – titled The Truth About Wilgenhof. This article included several online tags, formatted in all caps, for search-engine optimisation: CULT, NEO-NAZIS, STELLENBOSCH MAFIA, TOXIC MASCULINITY, WILGENHOF.

From these tags, particularly the one referencing the “Stellenbosch Mafia,” it appears that Joubert was enthralled by a certain politics of envy. Indeed, a post-script to his article lists a short bibliography. Joubert wrote, “I strongly recommend reading The Afrikaner Privilege Machine by Deon Wiggett (2017).” Wiggett, a former News24 journalist, wrote that Stellenbosch was filled with “achingly rich Afrikaners”. These Super Afrikaners, all nasty capitalists, had “captured the university”. He provided no real evidence for this alleged capture, but posited that they did it through rugby – and male residences (like Wilgenhof). He wrote:

“Here’s how the incubator works: Privileged Afrikaner men from across the nation arrive in Stellenbosch after matric. They go straight into residence to get subsumed by “koshuis kultuur”, which essentially consists of rugby and bullying, ensuring only the fittest survive for national selection.”

Joubert was clearly inspired by Wiggett’s obliquely satirical piece. His article's language was loaded. The opening scenes likened the Wilgenhof building to slave quarters and mentioned a slave bell used to call residents to mealtimes, despite both the main building and bell tower being constructed in the 1960s. Joubert opined that the “pictures of white men who had walked there before” were a sign of “enduring traditionalism and romanticisation of ‘koshuisgees’”. He wrote, “This, in combination with the inherent gender segregation of a men's residence, results in a feverish feedback loop of toxic masculinity.”

The article appears to be the first online trace of the allegation that Wilgenhof Nagligte used “black Klu Klu Klan uniforms” or “KKK regalia” and subjected their victims to physical abuse. He also falsely alleged that one of the rooms, “Hool 88” was a “Neo-Nazi dog-whistle”. He likened Wilgenhof to a religious cult and decried their “dizzying mess of signs, symbols and regalia – mostly from white supremacist groups, but also including the Soviet hammer and sickle.”

Two months later, Joubert made a broadcast on behalf of QueerUS. Somewhat bizarrely, numerous images of one of the greatest mass murderers of the Twentieth Century can be seen staring benignly on from his wall in the background. The Facebook video was posted on Stellenbosch University’s official Equality Unit page:

Joubert’s article was presented as authoritative, and heavily quoted, from by News24’s Prega Govender in her article about the Wilgenhof House of Horrors.

The second issue of 2020 also occurred at the start of the year. Pieterse recalls the events of Welcoming Week. “Wilgenhof has had the same welcoming week programme for as long as I know,” he said. “But midway through, the university stopped the programme and expelled the House Committee members from leadership.”

Online documents show that a parent of a first-year student had laid a complaint, and the Division of Student Affairs, led by Dr Choice Makhetha, and the Vice Rector of Learning and Teaching, handed over the allegations for investigation.

Months later, on the first day of examinations, House Committee members received charge sheets for a disciplinary hearing. Pieterse said these contained “around 31 different charges, including promoting hierarchical power structures and other abstract infringements.” This led to a protracted legal battle that lasted until early 2021. “The university appointed an independent panel of senior advocates to serve as judges,” he said. The university also instructed an attorney and an advocate to represent them, and the proceedings took place in December and January. “We were found not guilty on every single charge,” he said.

VI

Stellenbosch University has always been concerned about residence traditions. But while it's important to care about student safety it would have been regarded as inconceivable, up until not all that long ago, for the institution to connive in framing its own students and many leading alumni as white supremacist Nazis.

The discourse on this topic of residence culture has, however, evolved significantly recently, as seen in a series of official SU reports. A document from 2014 states that the increasingly diverse nature of the student population meant that certain practices might offend “more easily and to a greater extent than before”. The authors were deeply concerned with hierarchy, mentioning the concept over seventy (70) times.

It defines unacceptable welcoming practices as “any attitude, action, rule, or practice that typifies a hierarchical power system and does not promote a value-driven system.” This called for “a complete overhaul of traditions” based on “an unacceptable power hierarchy.” The prohibitions range from obvious bans like physical assault to petty prescriptions like not calling newcomers by strange nicknames, or wearing house committee jackets or high-heeled shoes to create the impression of a “hierarchy of power.”

But these early developments also merged with other ideological concerns regarding institutional culture. A 2017 EndRapeCulture (sic) report confirms that SU views male residences as problematic spaces, stating that “patriarchal culture” is reflected in single-sex residences. The authors emphasised that “the specific focus needs to be on notions of masculinity, male-dominated space, and male residences.”

The authors faced pushback when the report was released. A male editor of a student newspaper questioned where on campus rape was normalised, as the report didn't show specific examples. Monica du Toit, a task team member who managed the Transformation Office, clarified SU's focus was on addressing rape culture, not directly monitoring rape. Interestingly, in July 2019, the university announced Du Toit’s appointment as the new ResEd coordinator for the Victoria cluster, one month before the Wilgenhof events unfolded. Wilgenhof residence falls under the Victoria cluster.

Also in 2017, another task team delivered a report on “decolonisation,” recommending it become a core aspect of the university’s transformation strategy. The report cited academic literature critiquing capitalism and celebrating intersectional feminism. Additionally, a “decolonising the curriculum” workshop found that single-sex residences were "problematic spaces", with "less progression compared to mixed-gendered residences", and “need to be decolonised”.

The Transformation Indaba report also emerged in 2017. Du Toit emphasised the event’s significance, considering it “more important than any council or other meeting”. She believed the Indaba would indicate the university’s real commitment to transformation. “The question of evidence often comes up, but we have evidence in the form of tradition,” the report states. “We can’t divorce rape culture from the institutional culture.”

In 2022, the Khampepe Report highlighted the “toxic culture in the residences,” noting that “traditions and the emphasis on Afrikaans” are “exclusionary”.

Also in 2022, the institution launched Vision 2040. One of the key themes of its Code 2040 is “excellence.” An online page explains that, under “diversity and inclusion”, staff would “prioritise a decolonised and feminist curriculum.” Student key themes include being “intentional and unapologetic” about the university’s “transformation journey” and advancing the “decolonisation of student residences.”

By 2023, the university’s intentions became crystal clear. In April, Die Matie published an article headlined Co-ed Residences in Future for SU. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Deresh Ramjugernath addressed student concerns about certain undergraduate men’s residences becoming mixed-gender, but the decision aimed to better reflect the university’s 60-40 female-to-male gender demographics. The announcement caused heated reactions from student communities, particularly regarding the lack of consultation and the “confusion about the data and the motivations for the decision.”

And yet, if one of the institution’s goals is to end “Rape Culture” by breaking the culture of men’s residences, what then about previous experiments in this regard?

Consider the co-ed residence Metanoia, which opened in 2006. Touted as “the first undergraduate co-ed res encouraging diversity,” News24 praised Metanoia during the attacks on Wilgenhof, publishing an article about “getting tradition right”. Metanoia was a “shining example of inclusivity,” with one resident saying there are no “long-standing traditions, other than a tradition of respect.”

News24 then criticised Wilgenhof for “crude drawings” of “what appeared to be” male sexual assault. However, the next month, SU suspended two male students from Metanoia for alleged sexual assault. And it wasn't the first time, either. In March 2020, there was another reported case. In other words, at least two separate cases since the activist campaigns against Wilgenhof started.

VI

Wilgenhof has many longstanding traditions involving spectacles, theatre, sport, and song. While some might frown upon certain costumes and activities today, it’s important to remember a time when society believed in the harmless fun of “dress up,” games, and togetherness.

While it’s crucial to be concerned about student well-being, systemically tarnishing reputations and upending lives is irrational and irresponsible, and something which constitutes the opposite of this obligation.

The deeply defamatory media coverage and panel report damaged the reputations and lives of current Wilgenhof students – affecting them for the better part of a year and likely several more to come.

It also legitimated their maltreatment by the university given that "he that hath an ill name is half hanged". Other residences excluded Wilgenhof from their welcoming activities. The university authorities installed cameras and security personnel, placing the students under unrelenting 24-hour physical and electronic surveillance. The students endured a year of high uncertainty as to their futures and faced terrible public scrutiny and abuse. Their leaders were demoralised, with many annual activities banned at the last minute.

The university then self-righteously decided to dismember the Wilgenhof community, scatter the pieces across other residences, and salt the earth, so that it could never reconstitute itself again. Next year, Wilgenhof staff will also have to be “redeployed”.

This whole campaign, it should be emphasised, was not some kind of over-the-top response to an actual live complaint of victimisation by a student. It was rather engineered from the top by powerful officials within the university, assisted by South Africa’s most influential media platform, with innocent youth horribly libelled in the process, all for the purposes of realising a deeply ideological agenda.

As the saying goes, a man who wants to beat a dog will always find a stick. The report doesn’t clarify under whose authority the staff entered Wilgenhof and broke into the residence’s two private rooms. It mentions that the Division for Student Affairs had asked residence staff to be on the lookout for “strange items, artefacts, and symbols” due to “suspected strange activities”.

In 2024, a new Wilgenhof Residence Head was appointed who – for the first time in the residence’s history – was not a Wilgenhoffer. Staff from the Division of Student Affairs planned their search during the 2023/2024 year-end holidays and apparently contacted the new residence head for a “walkabout.” Nothing came of it until they breached the rooms in the week of 9 January, photographed what they saw, and seized all the contents.

The published version of the report redacts the identity of the university official who took the highly intrusive and inflammatory pictures that were soon thereafter splashed across News24 on 27 January 2024. It notes “she has been blamed for leaking the shocking set of photographs that were published in the media. She categorically denies having done so.”

Despite such denials the university administration clearly bears responsibility, directly or indirectly, for these and other leaks to the press; the result of which were that residents had their lives upended, were treated like pariahs on campus, and were defamed in the local and international media as “Nazis,” “rapists,” and “racists.”

Such behaviour is symptomatic of university officials and journalists so concerned with “human dignity” that they have has lost sight of their own humanity.

Stellenbosch University’s vision of diversity, it turns out, demands conformity, requiring perpetual management by functionaries intolerant of political and ideological difference, and independent mindedness. While Wilgenhof is an old-school liberal institution of high-performing individuals driven by excellence, individuality, community, and critical thinking, the university has embraced a contrasting mission of “inclusivity,” “transformation,” and “equity”.

The men and women driving this mission might believe they’re doing good work, but they’re shattering social cohesion and ruining lives and reputations. Their work is not creative but destructive. They are not building but destroying. Their vision seeks to break that which is beautiful and good in the conceited belief that provisional “stakeholders,” if given a clean slate, could “reimagine” society. Given their actions, this is a task at which they are wholly inept.

Indeed, Wilgenhoffers, past and present, are owed a deep and abject apology from activists, the media, and the institution charged with their care. This apology will likely not be forthcoming, but it is a debt that is owed nonetheless.

Follow MLA on X : @MLAntoni