Cape Town - Written submissions on the future of the Wilgenhof residence closed week and a decision on whether to close it, is now in the hands of the Stellenbosch University Council.
A public poll by the Executive Committee of the Convocation via the internet in which more than 3 000 members participated, 97.8% voted against the rectorate’s recommendation to close Wilgenhof.
According to the Stellenbosch Convocation following the closure of submissions on July 31, some alumni were seeking legal advice to take on SU should it decide to close the residence.
Last month the alumni launched a petition dubbed “Save Wilgenhof” on Change.org. which has received over 6000 signatures so far.
Earlier, the rectorate received and considered the final report of the panel appointed to review the matter, and took a unanimous decision to close Wilgenhof by the end of 2024.
The report followed media and social media expose of the initiation ‘chamber of horrors’ at the 120 year old male residence of Wilgenhof.
Shocking images of Ku Klux Klan-like hoods, and drawings of men involved in violent sexual acts were revealed; while former students shared their horror experiences at the residence with the media.
In a response to Weekend Argus this week, SU said, “The Stellenbosch University Council has received a number of written representations pertaining to the future of Wilgenhof, following Council’s conclusion that the matter warrants further consultation and consideration.
“Council will advise on the way forward once it has had the opportunity to consider all representation received.”
The Stellenbosch University Convocation Executive Committee said the closure of Wilgenhof, as recommended by the rectorate, would probably be one of the worst and “most unscientific decisions” made by SU.
“This will not only cause extensive damage to their reputation, but it is also based on a report that cannot pass the test of fairness or science,” they said.
“The report on which these recommendations are based is incomplete and distorted, and its dissemination in the public domain has already had serious consequences for the public image of the university and its research integrity.
“As Executive Committee of the Convocation, we received some input from alumni and current and former staff members from around the world, as well as from associations within the broader environment of the university.
“Based on that input, we present this report to the Council of the University, together with a recommendation on how to deal with the issue.
“In an effort to keep this report as concise as possible, we will not elaborate on the shortcomings of the report on which the rectorate’s recommendations are based, other than to say that the range of criticism from various institutions, individuals from across political, cultural and ideological spectrum, and even of the students themselves, is already an indication of the climate against the report and recommendation.
“An analysis of media coverage (both Afrikaans and English media, as well as social media platforms) clearly shows that the community in and around the Stellenbosch University finds the report and the recommendations that follow from that, to be ridiculous and absurd.
“Given that academics, students, managers and scientists from other universities are reading how clothing, artefacts, and graffiti or inscriptions are linked without evidence to Hitler and Nazi Germany or the Ku Klux Klan, is an embarrassment to the convocation and all other stakeholders who had access to this report.”
The Convocation said court action could follow should an “unfair” decision be made.
“Some alumni are already in the process of raising funds to challenge any possible action by the university against Wilgenhof, but they are not the only ones preparing to stop a possible implementation of these recommendations in a court of law,” they added.
Jaco Rabie, spokesperson of the Wilgenhof Alumni Association said in its submission, the Wilgenhof Alumni Association rejected the closure of Wilgenhof as an option and indicated the implications it would have.
“Apart from a disruption to current students, the closure could lead to a rupture between the SU and its loyal alumni network,” he added.
“It is clear from an internal alumni survey by the Convocation and a well-supported online petition that the general sentiment among Stellenbosch alumni is firmly against the closure. Protracted and expensive legal proceedings could also follow the closure.”
Rabie added during the submissions, the Association apologised for the distress and embarrassment the contents of the two rooms caused.
Rabie claimed the media and the Investigative Report had made defamatory accusations of racism and oppression.
“Misrepresented and decontextualized, the two rooms resulted in damage to the good name of the residence and the university. Wilgenhof is not a racist or oppressive space,” he said.
Rabie revealed that 288 submissions were received and 59 interviews were conducted and that no evidence of racism, abuse, Nazism, torture or any of the other sensational claims were found.
They previously stated that Wilgenhof residence had a rich history and had housed esteemed former residents such as Beyers Naudé, Frederick Van Zyl Slabbert and Edwin Cameron, who made significant contributions to South Africa.
The Wilgenhof Alumni Association earlier said it was the first residency to open its doors to all races in 1983, and that it had invested nearly R600 000 in bursaries.
Among the former students who have called for the closure of Wilgenhof include Stellenbosch Masters in Philosophy student Paul Joubert, who said it was time for change.