By Jaco Rabie
A recent opinion piece by “social commentator” Bianca van Wyk carried by IOL is illustrative of the irrationality that characterises so much of today’s public debate. The absurd intensity of Van Wyk’s misguided arguments would have been easy to disregard, but the misinformation and defamatory statements she makes cannot be left unchallenged.
Stellenbosch University’s decision to close the Wilgenhof men’s residence for a full academic year (and then replace it with a “re-imagined” residence) has drawn a lot of attention, but often sensationalist media reporting and a deeply flawed investigative report have resulted in the good name of former and current residents being sullied.
In her piece, Van Wyk writes: “If you can imagine the depravity of people willing to openly agitate for the right to torture and sexually abuse prisoners, you can begin to understand the power dynamics of the Wilgenhof cult of ruthless entitlement” linking a men’s residence in Stellenbosch (filled with 19, 20 and 21 year olds) with “the genocide currently happening in Gaza”.
The extreme leap of logic made here is unfortunately often seen in South African race agitation. To “social commentators” like Van Wyk there is no difference between something like genocide and Wilgenhof - they apparently sprout out of the same culture.
This line of argumentation is bizarre, dishonest and deeply offensive.
Van Wyk should note that despite receiving written submissions from 288 people, conducting 59 interviews and extending its deadline, the university’s investigative panel did not find any evidence to substantiate claims of actual “racism”, “white supremacy” or “torture” at Wilgenhof. Yet the claims are still being made in the media, where facts are apparently no longer important.
In a certain sense, Van Wyk has to bring Gaza into her argument, because the violence she is so desperate to find is absent in Stellenbosch.
She won’t mention that a group of 77 former and current black residents of Wilgenhof defended the residence and its culture, expressing strong disapproval of the closure of the residence. She also won’t mention that several black Wilgenhoffers have said in the media that they want to send their own sons to Wilgenhof in the future, highlighting the residence as a place of unity and support. And she also won’t mention that human rights expert John Dugard supported the residence publicly, foregrounding the misrepresentations made of its history and stating that he had no regrets about his time there as resident.
In her piece Van Wyk summarises Wilgenhof alumni’s public arguments against the closure of the residence as follows: “We are a law unto ourselves [...] we will rape and torture and abuse and humiliate to our hearts’ delight to achieve our goal of blind loyalty and privilege.” She further claims that “the men you’ve bonded with over alcohol, sweat, excrement and dark sexual secrets will forever have your back”. The idea of Wilgenhof as a place of rape and abuse is a dark fantasy concocted out of cultish horror clichés. In absolutely no way does it reflect the history or reality of Wilgenhof.
One wonders if Van Wyk has ever spoken to a Wilgenhoffer, or any resident of any male residence for that matter, or has ever seen the inside of a male residence.
That Wilgenhof’s history (like that of Stellenbosch University itself and, actually, most institutions in the country) is a complicated one and partially marred by some of the unacceptable practices of our country’s past, is roundly acknowledged by its alumni.
But if Wilgenhof should be closed for what happened in the past, then, by that same logic, the entire university should be closed. Wilgenhof as it currently stands is not a place of racial discrimination or oppression.
And it has been so for many years. Yet, loud voices call for its closure.
According to Van Wyk, the alumni “wilfully refuse to consider other ways of doing and being because they are too scared to imagine alternatives to the systems that keep delivering privilege and power so effectively”. A perfunctory internet search would have enlightened her on the immense strides made in continually transforming Wilgenhof in the last two decades - a process in which the Wilgenhof Alumni Association was proud to be involved.
Commentators and analysts should tread carefully. They are defaming the current and former residents of Wilgenhof - a diverse group of men who have created an accepting brotherhood that has immense value as a developmental space.
The Wilgenhof controversy has been hijacked by race agitators and self-serving activists. They cast their own agendas onto an institution that one Wilgenhoffer describes as follows in a recent submission to the university: “I don’t want to lose my second home only because people misunderstand us, due to rumours. We are always given a bad rap for stuff we know nothing of. I love Willows with all my heart. My race has never been a factor anyhow. Everyone there is my brother. I’ve developed into a decent man because of that place. I really hope and pray that they don’t close it, and that people would stop judging us based on stereotypes about us, that they know us first.”
The irrationality of some of South Africa’s “social commentators” has very real consequences. They create a frenzy and a political climate in which institutions eventually start to make illogical decisions. The closure of Wilgenhof is one such decision. Just a single consequence to highlight: the residence will now stand empty for a whole academic year, in a student town wracked by an accommodation crisis.
The decision is being fought in court. The Wilgenhof Alumni Association is much more hopeful that facts and rational thinking will prevail in a court of law.
* Jaco Rabie is the spokesperson for the Wilgenhof Alumni Association.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.