In the Republic of South Africa, the decade of the 1960s began with the massacre at Sharpeville. It was followed by the State of Emergency, and the banning of the two major opposition forces, the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress. A number of laws were added to the books which went a long way towards destroying the remnants of human liberty. South Africa quite unabashedly became a police State. (2)
In his capacity as Minister of Justice, Mr. Vorster was held responsible for much of the repressive legislation and often seemed to enjoy the "prestige" that the destruction of open political opposition brought him. In speeches at political rallies all around the country he launched scathing attacks on the "communists", "liberals", "humanists", and "pinks" who were subverting the Government. In 1966, following the assassination of Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Vorster became Prime Minister.
This is the context in which student activity and student protest in South Africa must be understood. Increased oppression by the Government has been accompanied by a weakening and withering away of those institutions and persons who are prepared to accept the consequences of open opposition to the State. A significant exception to this general trend has been certain segments of the student population. Predictably, these segments have come under increased attack by the Government. A study of three student organisations will illustrate the major issues involved in the struggle between the students and the Government and will also illuminate certain fundamental realities of South African society.
The issues that have stimulated, preoccupied, disturbed and, in one case, destroyed student organisations are relationships between the races - relationships between the English and the Afrikaners, and between South African student organisations and international organisations.
Obviously, South Africa did not become a police State overnight. A brief historical survey of the Students` Christian Association will illustrate the forces that have been at work for generations, leading to the present state of affairs. The National Union of South African Students will be studied next, being the most active student organisation in the critical years following Government action to segregate South African universities. Finally, the University Christian Movement will be dealt with as a new organisation benefitting from the experience of both the Students` Christian Association and the National Union of South African Students.
The birth and early years of the Students` Christian Association (SCA) illustrate the key issues raised in its history. First, it came into being in 1896 at the impetus of the World Student Christian Federation, that is, at the impetus of an international organisation, and it maintained this international tie throughout its life. Second, the founding conference was at Stellenbosch, centre of Dutch culture and intellectual life. Hardly had the association begun when its life was disrupted by the Anglo-Boer War. Conflict between Boer, or Afrikaner, and English has been one of the fundamental forces that has shaped South African society. This conflict was of great importance within the SCA as well. Finally, from 1902 to 1965, the SCA served students of all races. (3)
Problems relating to race were of central importance throughout the life of the association.
From the very beginning, SCA work among Africans was carried on quite separately from work among European students. A speech by the first secretary for African work, given at the University of Stellenbosch in l926, gives a feeling of the times:
"The appearance of Native speakers on an open platform to address European audiences, and especially university students, is an event in the history of the Native question in South Africa, of far reaching consequences ... When students of a university are willing to listen to a Native speaker, we feel that by that very act an important bridge has been thrown over the gulf between black and white in South Africa." (4)
This statement testifies to the reality of the gulf between black and white, but also to the nascent and optimistic belief within the SCA that such events would sooner or later solve the "Native question." There appeared to be a rising tide of liberalism, especially among students, that was looked to with much hope by those who believed that segregation in society was repressive and belonged to the past age. One of the events that inspired this hope was the SCA conference at Fort Hare in 1930.
Opened by South Africa`s famous liberal statesman, Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr, the conference was asked whether or not the gain of one race had to be secured at the cost of the other`s loss, whether or not the races had to be a menace to each other. (5)
In the context of that gathering, the answer to his questions was an emphatic "no".
The African section of the SCA had invited whites to participate in this conference. In spite of the fact that the Africans had arranged for separate eating and sleeping facilities, following the generally accepted customs of South Africa, the European delegates voted in favour of common meals. The number of persons in attendance was about 275, of whom about eighty were European, both English and Afrikaner.
In order to understand the significance of this gathering, it is important to remember that for many in attendance, this was a unique experience. Fort Hare was the only institution of higher education for Africans at the time. The participation of Africans in the discussion of problems of social justice was described as "highly impressive". This is an indication of the fact that it was exceedingly difficult for whites and blacks in South Africa to meet on any kind of equal footing. By and large, relationships were those of master/servant relationships. For most whites, finding themselves in a meeting where they were a distinct minority, guests of the Africans who were articulate and highly concerned about problems of economic justice, industrialisation and relationships between the races would have been an event without precedent in their lives.
The response and ramifications of the conference were indicative of the nature of South African society. Some elements of the press were very agitated by the conference, objecting that such gatherings endangered white civilisation and lowered the prestige of whites. The students were attacked. "Their behaviour was not so much a matter of conviction, as that they had lost their heads." (6)
This kind of objection was raised because black and white had eaten at the same tables, had participated in sports together, and had discussed matters of serious concern to all present.
What was outrageous to some was greeted with applause by others. The National Union of South African Students supported the conference. To some it was a sign of a new day, having implications outside the organisation itself. It was seen as part of a movement: "There are minority groups in both races who have begun to cooperate, realising that no one section of South African society can mould the future of South Africa without the collaboration of the other... Whatever may be the attitude of the general public, the fact remains that dynamic forces are being released in the life of South Africa, looking toward a new order of society. The Fort Hare Conference will probably be remembered as at least one of the sources from which this new life flowed ..." (7)
Hope of new life has frequently been disappointed in South Africa. The 1930s, however, did display a surge of liberalism. In order to put this in perspective and understand the level of consciousness of the problem of all concerned it is helpful to hear what the participants in that era said about their conference. The December l93O meeting of the Council of the SCA issued the following resolution regarding the Fort Hare Conference:
"With regard to the criticisms which have been levelled against certain happenings at the conference, the Council... readily recognises the fact of existing racial differences, as evidence of which recognition it would point to the existence in the SCA organisation of two sections, European and Bantu. This fact and its implications are also fully acknowledged by the Bantu students themselves, as witnessed by the following statement voluntarily made by the members of the SCA branch of Fort Hare:
"`Whereas it has come to our knowledge that certain people entertain some fear regarding our aims and aspirations with respect to the social relationship between Black and White in South Africa, we, the Executive and members of the South African Native College Students` Christian Association, wish to state that although we shall always expect and work for social justice for all, and shall appreciate any helpful offer or invitation from the white section of the community, we do not wish to press for any intimate social intercourse between the two races.
"`The meeting of Bantu and European at the same tables and in athletic competition was unpremeditated and no part of the original programme. Strong exception has been taken to this intermingling of the races, and we recognise that deference is due to the feelings of a large portion of the South African people. From this point of view, we regret that what has happened has given rise to misunderstanding and estrangement. The Council urges all concerned to have considerate regard on all occasions for the country`s feelings in the matter of social intermingling.`" (8)
What is well illustrated is the great evil of custom, enforcing separation even when no laws existed making this separation mandatory. The very quick recognition of "racial differences" and the willingness of the African section to disavow any desire for "intimate social intercourse between the races" were almost inevitable. This was true because of the isolation, the limited vision and the weakness of the forces who shared the hope for a South Africa freed from the burden of race as the primary category with which to judge all of life and its relationships.
The dynamism and hope of that conference were present, but it was also a painful experience, "painful because it was all a dream and who knows how many years must pass and how many lives be spent and how much suffering undergone before it all comes true." (9)
The SCA continued to grow, having, by 1939, 280 branches and 9,000 members in the universities, training colleges and secondary schools throughout the country. The work of the SCA was varied: it included the religious activities of Sunday schools and Bible study groups, with Europeans sometimes going to Coloured and African areas. It also included more intensive urban study tours, with European students going to the African locations to learn about conditions there. The African section of the SCA continued to be quite separate, seeing the growth of the urban population and of non-mission urban schools as a primary challenge. In the 1940s work among Indians was begun and a separate Coloured section established.
1948 witnessed the victory of the Nationalist Party and also the death of Jan Hofmeyr. The year thus symbolised the weakness of liberalism as a significant force in society and the growing strength of Afrikaner nationalist policies. Segregation and separation were the order of the day and were to become ever more thoroughly entrenched in South African society.
"Race Relations in South Africa" was the theme of the 1951 General Conference of the SCA, a conference which set up the structure that would eventually lead to the death of the SCA. This conference is instructive because of the issues raised and the decisions taken. The concerns were population and land distribution, white dominance and racial segregation. There was also a discussion of the constitution of the SCA which necessitated a concrete decision on the nature of race relations within the SCA itself. One of the major addresses at the conference outlined possible solutions to the race problem as territorial, social and economic segregation. This solution was sharply challenged by the African secretary. He said that the English and the Afrikaner stood for essentially the same thing: segregation. Further, he pointed out that apartheid was impracticable because economic integration and the Westernisation of the African were irrevocable. Non-Europeans would not look to Europeans for solutions to race problems as Europeans had failed to be united, even among themselves.(10)
The critical discussion became that of the organisation of the SCA. The decision taken set up distinct sections: English, Afrikaner, Bantu, and Coloured. The mere fact that all four groups were present in the discussions earned the conference condemnation as "communistic and liberalistic". However, this structure was a disaster, conforming to the South African way of life, the institutionalisation of apartheid into the SCA. Branches withdrew from the organisation both because it was too conservative and because it was to liberal. But the sectional structure was accepted and carried forward. (11)
Over the years the SCA continued to grow in numbers. By 1959 there were 66,000 members. There was also an increased concern with non-political matters. The SCA, for example, felt that it could include within its ranks persons of very wide political differences and that it was unnecessary and even undesirable to make a statement about its stand vis-a-vis apartheid. European tours to urban locations continued and some of these were very important to the individuals involved. The participants were only English students, for the Afrikaner students had withdrawn.
The tensions within the association increased. In 1961, the SCA sent a delegation to the World Student Christian Federation conference in Strasbourg. The statement of that delegation spells out the problems:
"We South Africans are involved in an intricate situation with two types of nationalism facing each other in one geographical area. The Dutch-speaking South Africans have only recently realised their nationhood; for example, only in 1925 did their language become a recognised language although they had been a political entity long before that. Generally speaking, the English-speaking South Africans naturally do not share many of the Afrikaans sentiments. They feel their nationalism realised in the British Commonwealth, and so on. In opposition to this nationalism which strives to retain what realisation it has achieved, we have the awakening of African nationalism which again strives to get rid of any elements which obstruct the realisation of their self-fulfilment... Within (our) population we find a great diversity of cultural, religious, and social differences. It is to be understood that hardly two of our nine delegates share exactly the same sentiments or opinions, for within this complicated situation the SCA is planted.
"Apartheid is the political policy by which the predominantly Dutch Government is following a policy of separate development for each group. Some of us in the SCA, knowing true Christians who believe in apartheid and who are serving the people of South Africa in loyalty to Christ, feel we cannot condemn absolutely; and on the other hand, knowing Africans, Asiatics, Coloureds, and whites who are suffering because of the implications, cannot confirm absolutely. However, there are those among us who absolutely condemn or confirm.
"As an SCA which has in its fellowship people from these groups, we face the situation as men and women seeking... We are seeking to have more and more traffic on the bridge which the SCA is seeking to be, as the only movement in South Africa which includes all shades of political thinking and religious conviction.." (12)
There was not a neat balance of power between the differing groups: the SCA became more and more dominated by the Afrikaans students with Dutch Reformed Church affiliation. The English speaking students began to work through denominational societies such as the Anglican and Roman Catholic societies. By this time, the major churches in South Africa had very little contact with or stake in the SCA. In spite of the large number of its students who participated in the SCA, the Dutch Reformed Church, the church of all of the Nationalist politicians, was not happy with the SCA. Quite understandably, the leadership was unhappy with an association that was still multi-racial, and which was quite independent and not a direct youth and student branch of the Dutch Reformed Church.
Further, there was a split in the SCA between those who wished to be affiliated with the World Student Christian Federation (WSCF) and those who sought alliance with more conservative Christians around the world. The SCA found itself becoming less socially and politically concerned at the very time that the WSCF was becoming more politically involved. Before 1964, the SCA was already moving away from the WSCF, but the action of that body that year caused the SCA to disaffiliate. (13)
The substance of the WSCF action was contained in two letters: the first letter sent to the South African association by the Committee criticised it sharply for its failure to "disassociate itself in word and act from the policy of apartheid". It told the Association that in its opinion the situation "has become a threat to world peace and will, if it continues much longer, end in a bloodbath which may have a chain reaction all over the continent and beyond".
"Further," it said, "the South African Association had made `little or no attempt' to comply with a Federation request made four years ago that it re-examine and clarify its stand on the matter..." (14)
The second letter, addressed to other member movements of the Federation, called upon their governments "to apply massive pressure to compel a radical change in South African policy..."
In the letter cutting its ties to the Federation, the South African SCA charged that the WSCF had "overstepped" its functions and was turning into "a superstructure... which is now busy enforcing the will of the majority on the minority". It said the Federation was leading its member movements to become "political pressure groups" and that "to this our Association cannot and will not subscribe. (We) have no other choice to make than to terminate affiliation with the WSCF... This decision is final!"
The breakaway from the WSCF was the first step in the break-up of the SCA. The international tie was cut. The Afrikaans section enthusiastically endorsed the division of the SCA because this supported apartheid and enabled them to be more directly related to the Dutch Reformed Church. It became evident to all concerned that the time had come to end the life of the Association. This happened in January of 1965. Four independent sections were recognised: the Afrikaans, the English, the Bantu, and the Coloured. However, at the very time that the break-up occurred, there was a desire on the part of some for continuing contact. The African section invited the new SCA, which was the English group, and the Coloured section to unite into a new movement. It looked for a time that rather than a genuine break-up occurring, what would really happen would simply be a secession of the Afrikaans branch. Before long it became clear that it was more responsible to allow the whole organisation to die. Then and only then could new life be possible.
The SCA had tried to deal with the inherent tensions in South African society by isolating people from each other, by becoming less and less political, by avoiding a clear confrontation with the rulers of society. The result was that there finally was nothing to hold the various sections of the association together. The experience of the SCA illustrates well the superhuman task that exists if the attempt is made to include persons of all races and faiths in one organisation. Non-confrontational withdrawal was tried and it failed.
The National Union of South African Students (NUSAS), more than any other student organisation, has stood up to the Government and has borne the brunt of its attacks. As it was committed to freedom and equality for all (the principles of which are embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations), these attacks were to be expected in view of the South African Government`s policy of racism and inequality. The recent history of the Union is a series of conflicts with the State because of the Union`s attitudes about race and because of the publicity that NUSAS has made for South Africa throughout the world. The English-Afrikaner split in South Africa has been an indirect factor in the life of NUSAS, as the Afrikaans universities are not members of NUSAS, but rather are supporters of the policies of the State that NUSAS continues to fight.
NUSAS has never been an organisation favoured by the Nationalist Party, but it was not until the mid-1950s that the organisation became involved in active opposition to the policies of apartheid, this in response to the policy of the Government to segregate the universities. (15)
Before that, since its establishment in 1924, NUSAS had been like many other student unions, limiting its concern to student affairs. The direct interference of the Government in the internal affairs of the universities, culminating in the legislation of 1959, made impossible the distinction between "student affairs" and "political affairs". (16)
NUSAS played a leading role in the organisation of opposition to the legislation and it was this that set the pattern for the organisation`s subsequent opposition to apartheid.
The legislation of 1959 made segregation at the previously "open" universities complete. Neither the University of Cape Town nor the University of the Witwatersrand had ever accepted total integration in the university. Both had propounded the policy of academic integration while maintaining a considerable degree of social segregation. The governing bodies of these two universities made clear their attitudes in their opposition to the 1959 legislation. On December 12, 1956, the Council of the University of Cape Town passed the following resolution:
"(1) It is opposed in principle to academic segregation on racial grounds;
"(2) It believes that separate academic facilities for non-Europeans and Europeans could not be equal to those provided in an open university;
"(3) It is convinced that the policy of academic non-segregation, which as far as possible the University of Cape Town has always followed, accords with the highest university ideals and has contributed to inter-racial understanding and harmony in South Africa..." (17)
Two days later, the University of the Witwatersrand adopted a similar resolution. Throughout the campaign against the legislation, the question of non-academic social segregation had been carefully avoided and both the universities and the students argued for "academic freedom" and university autonomy. During the 1950s, few students had campaigned actively against their own universities to destroy the practice of social segregation on the campuses of the "open" universities. The campaign of 1959, however, made clear the dichotomy between academic integration and social segregation.
Beginning in the early 1960s, NUSAS and the Students` Representative Councils (SRC) of Cape Town and the Witwatersrand, against the wishes of the universities concerned, sought to remove this dichotomy. In 1965, at a mass meeting on the campus of the University of Cape Town, students decided to hold no dances on the campus unless the university administration agreed to permit students of all races to attend. The University Council refused and insisted that the dances be segregated. This attitude of the Council has been the source of much recent conflict between the students and the administration.
At the 1967 NUSAS Assembly, student councils at all the affiliated universities were called upon to do everything in their power to abolish all racial discrimination on their campuses. Prior to this Assembly, some 1,700 students at a mass meeting at the Witwatersrand University had decided by a large majority that it was the duty of the university to ensure that there be no discrimination in the university and it was the further duty of the university to guarantee that all university members have free access to all university facilities. The same meeting decided that all functions organised by the SRC should be open to all students, regardless of race.
NUSAS has continued to use this issue as a focus of opposition. One of the most visible actions in 1969 was activity at the time of the 10th anniversary of the loss of academic freedom. Demonstrations were held throughout the country. Police with dogs arrested non-violent protesters. Duncan Innes, president of NUSAS, stated at the close of the week of protests that the fact that the universities were not free was a glaring reminder that the country was not free. He said, "Our opposition to apartheid is just beginning." (18)
One final point should be made concerning segregation on the campuses of the English-language universities. Throughout the history of NUSAS, the annual assembly has always been held at one of the affiliated universities, i.e., one of the English universities. Increasingly during the 1960s, NUSAS petitioned the universities to allow their non-white delegates to the assembly to make full use of the facilities on the campuses, this in particular reference to sleeping arrangements. Again and again the universities refused, and NUSAS was forced to house its non-white delegates off the premises. At the 1968 assembly, the delegates resolved that in view of the fact that congresses could not be held on a basis of equality and non-discrimination at the universities, future congresses should not take place on the university campuses. The possibility of finding a suitable venue for a large multi-racial conference is almost nil in the present South Africa but the delegates refused to continue to accept the universities` practice of social segregation. The NUSAS executive was given the task of finding a suitable alternative.
Of much longer duration than the confrontation between NUSAS and the English-language universities has been the confrontation between NUSAS and the Nationalist Government. One major method of attack by the Government has been an attempt to destroy the leadership of NUSAS. The Government also tried to intimidate potential members by attacking the organisation. In July 1964, several students, including the immediate past President of NUSAS, were detained under the "90-day" law and placed in solitary confinement. In September of the same year, the then NUSAS President, Jonty Driver, was also arrested - the day before he was to leave South Africa to study in the United Kingdom. He was later released without being charged. One of the students arrested, David de Keller, was seized while attending the annual NUSAS conference. By the end of 1964, there had been several "sensational" trials of students for belonging to unlawful organisations and for being involved in acts of sabotage. De Keller, for example, was charged and found guilty of sabotage and sentenced to ten years` imprisonment. He was one of several charged with belonging to the African Resistance Movement (ARM). It was alleged during the trials that another NUSAS past President, Neville Rubin, had been one of the leaders of the African Resistance Movement and another past President admitted membership in ARM in court. As already mentioned, the NUSAS President at the time, Mr. Driver, was released from detention without charges being laid. When he was released the Security Police informed him that "there was no suspicion at all that NUSAS had been involved in any extra-legal activity".
This latter "assurance" from the Security Police did not prevent Mr. Vorster from renewing his attacks on NUSAS. The run of "unlawful organisations" trials had given him sufficient fuel to feed his electorate and at a Nationalist Party meeting in the Transvaal, he is reported to have said that there would be no remission of sentences for persons convicted of political offences except perhaps for those who had been misled by the four past Presidents of NUSAS. "Because of my sympathy for them and for their parents, I will, if their parents can prove to me that they were misled by these offspring of snakes, give them a remission of their sentences." He again stated that NUSAS had become the mouthpiece of leftists and liberals and that, as always, the organisation was tainted with communism.
The newly-elected President of NUSAS, M. Osler, emphatically rejected the suggestion that NUSAS could be held responsible for the individual political activities of all the students at its constituent centres and challenged Mr. Vorster to openly investigate the activities of the organisation. Contrary to Mr. Vorster`s wishes, at the general student elections held at all the universities soon afterwards, NUSAS candidates won all the key positions.
As a number of students had been arrested and convicted, NUSAS initiated a programme to help prisoners with sentences of longer than a year to study in prison. The response to this programme was overwhelming, particularly as study services in South African prisons barely exist, with many prisoners having no access to study materials at all. The original programme included collecting books for prisoners and campaigns to this end were conducted on many campuses in the United States and the United Kingdom. The programme had no sooner been successfully launched than the authorities put a stop to it by refusing to accept any second-hand books, insisting that prisoners order direct from the publishers. NUSAS promptly started a fund-raising campaign to cover the vastly accelerated costs involved. In an attempt to thwart this programme, the authorities refused to accept any payments sent by NUSAS on behalf of a prisoner; only payments direct from "relatives" were acceptable. NUSAS continued to raise money for the relatives, devoting a large section of the programme to assisting many prisoners who had been tried en masse in little known districts. NUSAS also started a Students` Defence Fund which over the years has made possible legal defence for many students charged with political offences. In both these programmes, the NUSAS legal adviser, Miss Ruth Hayman, was instrumental in assuring their success. Like many other NUSAS advisers, she was banned by the Government in 1966 and left the country some time later.
Attempts to smear NUSAS publicly were coupled with more insidious attempts to undermine the organisation, mostly through the activities of the Security Branch. The evidence of police spying on the campuses has consistently been revealed for many years. In 1957, a student at the Rhodes University admitted that he had been paid to pass information about the faculty and students to the Security Police. (19)
In the same year, in a letter to the Minister of Justice, the NUSAS President listed eleven known spying incidents at universities (six at the University of the Witwatersrand, three at the University of Cape Town, and one at the University of Fort Hare). In 1959 wide press coverage was given when a student at the Witwatersrand University admitted giving information on the activities of the students` council to the Security Branch. During the same year, many newspapers carried articles on spying. A faculty member at the Witwatersrand and former NUSAS President, Professor Philip Tobias commented: "There is a widespread network of spies at South African universities, informing on the staff as well as the students." (20)
On August 11, 1961, the NUSAS President stated that he had information that two South African students studying at Cambridge in the United Kingdom were spying on their fellow South Africans. During the student trials of 1964, more cases of spying were reported. At the university in Durban a student was asked to give information about the Student Council President, Peter Mansfield, and another student at the same university told the Student Council that he had also been approached to do the same. A headmaster at a Natal school was asked to give information about one of his teachers, Anthony Levy, a former Student Council President. The editor of the student newspaper at Natal University was interrogated and threatened by the Security Police. At Rhodes, the girl friend of one of the NUSAS Committee members was questioned by the police and was told to tell him that he had better drop politics or his "father`s business might suffer". Also at Rhodes, one of the students active in student politics was several times approached by the Security Police and offered bribes to give information; she refused and informed the University Principal.
The 1964 Report of the NUSAS President contains the following account of police activities at Fort Hare: One of the professors at Fort Hare had invited his students to tea on a Sunday afternoon. The local chief of the Special Branch, Sgt. Hattingh, came to the tea party uninvited. He told the professor that it was incidents like this that created a feeling of equality in the Fort Hare students. The professor replied that that was precisely his aim. During the argument that followed Sgt. Hattingh declared that the students present were in a prohibited group area and demanded reference books from them... Those who did not have them were instructed to bring them to his office the following morning. After this the tea party broke up." (21)
Security Police intimidation was coupled with numerous "banning orders" on both students and faculty members. Between 1960 and 1967, the banning of some thirty faculty members led a member of the University of Cape Town Council, Leo Marquard, to remark that "the Special Branch has the final say in the university appointments in South Africa. By banning orders and by refusing people visas, the Special Branch can prevent qualified people from either accepting or continuing in academic posts." (22)
To further restrict the spread of "liberalistic" ideas at the English universities, the Government introduced legislation forbidding faculty members who had been "listed" as communists by the Government from teaching at the universities, effective the beginning of 1965. At the time, only two faculty members were affected by the legislation, Dr. Edward Roux, Professor of Botany at the Witwatersrand University, and Dr. Jack Simons, Professor of Comparative African Government and Law at the University of Cape Town. A third university lecturer, Dr. Margaret Kalk, was not in the country at the time. Although the legislation had been announced in the latter half of 1964, the university authorities had been unwilling to organise any public opposition to the legislation, hoping to persuade the Government to change its mind.
It was again left to students to protest the legislation and NUSAS organised country-wide protests. A meeting of 2,500 students at the Witwatersrand University heard Student President Alan Murray say, "If it was necessary to ban a professor of botany, if it was necessary to go to such lengths, then neither the Government nor the system of apartheid is worthy of preservation." (23)
Dr. Edward Roux was forced to relinquish his post at the university. He died in Johannesburg a year later. Professor Jack Simons left the country.
NUSAS office bearers were among the many who received severe banning orders from the Minister of Justice. In 1964, Thami Mhlambiso and Miss Gillian Gane were among several other students who were also banned. The latter had narrowly missed serious injury the week before when her car was blown up by a petrol bomb.
In July 1965, Ian Robertson was elected NUSAS President. A somewhat detailed study of his experience well illustrates what NUSAS is up against. He assumed office at the beginning of December 1965. For the following few months, he began to collect and document known incidents of police intimidation of students through bannings and interrogations, as well as information regarding interference with NUSAS mail, students being followed by the Security Police and parents of students being visited by the police. At the beginning of May 1966, Mr. Robertson conducted a tour of all the NUSAS-affiliated universities and training colleges, one of his specific intentions being to gather first-hand information of police activity on the campuses. During the course of his tour, he spoke to large student audiences, making public the findings he had at his disposal. On the day following his return to his office in Cape Town, he was visited by members of the Security Police and served with a banning order. This order contained a specific clause prohibiting him from publishing any material.
The banning of Mr. Robertson on May 11, 1966, hardly came as a surprise to students. Soon after his election the previous year, Mr. Vorster had said, "The leaders (of NUSAS) are again playing with fire. I am surprised that the heads of universities concerned have not taken action."
However, the reaction of students to the Robertson banning took South Africa by surprise. Before this there had been more than 500 banning orders issued to restrict South Africans with scarcely a murmur of protest. Banning orders had become so common that newspapers had stopped reporting them in any detail. When the Minister of Justice was given the power to ban without trial, there had been opposition to the principle involved, but by 1966 bannings were an accepted part of police totalitarianism, or so it seemed.
The banning of the President of NUSAS, however, was viewed by students as a direct attack on their own organisation. Within hours, protest action committees had been formed at all the English universities. (The Student Council at the Afrikaans University of Pretoria sent an open letter to Mr. Vorster congratulating him on the action that he had taken against NUSAS.) The English Student Councils adopted resolutions which inter alia reaffirmed their dedication to the principles of human freedom and pledged themselves to the realisation of a new South Africa based on justice and respect for human rights. (24)
In Johannesburg, students started a week-long 24- hour-a-day vigil. The day after the banning, some 7,000 students in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, and Grahamstown marched through the streets to protest the banning. At all the centres, the Security Police took photographs of the demonstrators. Outside the house to which Mr. Robertson had been confined by the ban, they took the names and car registration numbers of all his visitors. The NUSAS Head Office received several abusive phone calls and the acting NUSAS President, John Daniel, was followed constantly.
There was also a certain amount of tension between the students and the university administrations. None of the University Councils openly supported the students and at Cape Town, where Mr. Robertson was a part-time student, the Principal, Mr. Duminy, refused to condemn the banning. Referring to Mr. Vorster and the Government, he said that they were "responsible and sensible men who have the welfare and good name of their country at heart". Only in Johannesburg did student leaders gain support from the administration.
Letters of support for NUSAS poured in from individuals overseas. The English press in South Africa and many foreign newspapers condemned the ban, and the London Observer editorialised: "NUSAS has kept a tiny candle burning in the apartheid State." (25)
Inside South Africa numerous opposition groups which had been dormant for some time gave their support to the students. In Johannesburg, for example, a meeting of 1,500 citizens called on the Minister to revoke the ban. Mr. Vorster was pressed to give his reasons for banning Mr. Robertson. In previous cases he had emphatically refused to do this. In a statement on May 13, he again declined, but invited the Opposition to raise the matter at the following Parliamentary session. Mr. Robertson himself wrote asking for the reasons for the ban. The Minister replied that he was satisfied that since 1964 Mr. Robertson had been engaged in activities that would further the aims of communism, but that the information that he had about these activities could not be revealed without detriment to the public interest. The NUSAS executive cabled Mr. Vorster, demanding an interview which they hoped would lead to an explanation. The demand was widely publicised and eventually Mr. Vorster agreed to meet a NUSAS delegation. This was unusual as he had consistently refused to meet with representatives of opposition groups.
Three senior members of the NUSAS executive met with Mr. Vorster on May 25. They took with them a petition signed by 9,000 students and faculty, which Mr. Vorster dismissed. During a heated meeting which lasted two hours, he told the delegation that Mr. Robertson did not have to be a communist to be banned under the Suppression of Communism Act. He did not contest that NUSAS was a legal organisation involved in legal activities, but when asked to make a public statement to this effect he said that he was not prepared to "whitewash" NUSAS. During the course of the interview, he strongly attacked NUSAS on three grounds: first, because it had elected Chief Albert Lutuli as its Honorary President (a position that had been accepted); second, because of its multi-racial character, something abhorrent to the Nationalist Party; and, finally, and most vehemently, because NUSAS maintained contacts with and had alliances with overseas bodies which were hostile to the Republic. In regard to the matter for which the delegation had sought the interview, he refused to disclose any information, saying that it was not in the public interest to do so and further that it would endanger the security of the State.
At the conclusion of the meeting the student leaders stated that they had not been satisfied with the Minister`s replies and a new wave of student demonstrations broke out. All night torch vigils were held in Cape Town and Johannesburg, supported by mass meetings of students. But Mr. Robertson remained banned. Throughout the protests, the Security Police made their presence felt.
At the Transvaal College of Education, Asian students were refused permission to be absent from lectures to take part in one of the marches: 250 Indian students courageously defied the College administration and joined the march. Two days later the Director of Indian Education visited the College and announced that NUSAS had been banned from the College and the Student Council suspended. Any student who joined NUSAS in his private capacity would have his Government bursary withdrawn. The Director announced that a new student constitution which specifically excluded NUSAS from campus would be drawn up.
The following day a mass meeting of students voted their support for the old SRC and decided to refrain from voting on the new constitution or for a new SRC. A large number of students made their defiance even clearer by applying individually for NUSAS membership. No action was taken against them at the time, but the following year the SRC President was banned and several of the students were suspended from the College and forbidden to teach in any Indian school.
At the white Johannesburg College of Education, the Principal was asked to supply a list of the names of all the students who took part in the march. (All the students at the College are there under government contract.) In Pietermaritzburg, student marchers were attacked by a gang of white thugs who threw bottles, water and sand. Police who were watching the march refused to intervene as they "had not received any orders."
At the new Parliamentary session, Mr. Vorster was subjected to heavy questioning by members of the Opposition, in particular Mrs. Helen Suzman (Progressive Party). He implied that some of the reasons that had led to the banning of Mr. Robertson were that he had been a member of the Defence and Aid Committee (since banned) (26) and that he had visited Swaziland and Basutoland for some ulterior political motive. In reply, Mrs. Suzman drew the Minister`s attention to the fact that Mr. Robertson had been an ex officio member of Defence and Aid Committee and had never in fact attended a meeting of the committee. He had visited Basutoland for a holiday (and had affidavits from friends who accompanied him to the effect that he had attended no political meeting of any description). Finally he had never set foot in Swaziland. Mr. Vorster said that he had made a mistake when he said "Swaziland"; he had in fact meant Bechuanaland. The following day Mrs. Suzman said that she had checked with Mr. Robertson and he had stated that he had never set foot in Bechuanaland. The result of the debate was that hundreds of students were confirmed in their lack of confidence in the practice of arbitrary banning without trial. Mr. Vorster`s later statements that he had "three fat files" on Mr. Robertson, and that "I was mindful of the fact that I had to prevent a second Leftwich affair, and that is why I took action" did little to restore their confidence. (27)
Mrs. Suzman voiced the opinion of many when she said, "I feel that the explanation that he (Mr. Vorster) gave to this House as to the reason for the banning of Ian Robertson ... is one of the flimsiest and most fatuous explanations I have ever listened to." (28)
The Robertson affair occupied the front pages of the newspapers for weeks and the NUSAS executive used the opportunity to draw attention once again to the erosion of liberty in South Africa, especially to bannings in general, to the people who had been detained without trial, first under the "90-day" law and then the "180-day" law, to those who had been "house arrested" and to the many hundreds who had been "named" or "listed" as communists. NUSAS appealed constantly to overseas students, universities and organisations for support, and it was this that most angered the Nationalist Party. In its desire to project an image that is acceptable to the outside world, it is absolutely intolerant of any group which makes known the real conditions in South Africa.
NUSAS again hit the headlines weeks later when their invited guest, Senator Robert Kennedy, arrived in South Africa. Mr. Kennedy had been invited by Mr. Robertson, and most political commentators had linked the invitation to his banning order. Senator Kennedy may have been an embarrassment to the South African Government, but he drew record-breaking crowds wherever he spoke. In Cape Town he was the guest speaker at the Annual NUSAS Day of the Affirmation of Academic Freedom, where over five thousand students and faculty heard him say, "NUSAS has stood for and worked for the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, principles which embody the collective hopes of men of goodwill all around the world... Your work at home and in international student affairs have brought great credit to yourselves and your country." (29)
If Mr. Vorster had hoped to break the spirit of NUSAS by banning its President, the annual conference in July, 1966, proved him wrong. With renewed strength the delegates outlined policies for the coming year which indicated that far from swinging to the right as had been anticipated, the Assembly made clear its opposition to apartheid. There was considerable press speculation as to who would take over the post of NUSAS president, offering as it did almost certain retaliation from the Government. To succeed Mr. Robertson, the Assembly elected Miss Margaret Marshall.
It is impossible to list all the ways in which the South African Government has attempted to destroy NUSAS. Direct and indirect methods of attack continued to be employed. Nevertheless, NUSAS held to its principles. Students felt the hidden pressure of the Government. At the University of Rhodes, delegates to the NUSAS Congress were refused permission to make use of the university`s facilities because of the multi-racial composition of the delegates. The University announced that non-whites would not be allowed to eat in the university`s dining halls, nor could any multi-racial social functions be held on the campus. Prior to the Congress, the NUSAS President had been informed that all the delegates would be able to use all the facilities. The University explained its change in attitude as caused by a ruling that it had received "from the Government". The NUSAS President sought legal advice and that advice directly contradicted the interpretation of the University. But the University refused to alter its decision.
Far from receiving support from its own universities, NUSAS had again been sacrificed to Government pressure. NUSAS Assembly delegates boycotted university dining halls and held social gatherings at the homes of sympathetic faculty members off campus. Throughout the Congress, Security Police were in evidence. Students arriving for the Congress were questioned by police at the railway station, and security men were placed outside the homes of people housing some of the delegates. Families who had agreed to receive non-white students were visited by the police and told to refuse to accommodate them. Several NUSAS executive members were told that they were "heading for trouble" and were warned that their parents would be warned to stop them from continuing their NUSAS affiliations. Indian and African delegates were molested by the police and were threatened with expulsion from their universities if they continued to take part in politics. For some months after the conference, delegates and other NUSAS personnel were frequently interrogated by the Security Police.
During the later half of 1967 there were renewed Government reprisals against NUSAS personnel. The Chairman of the NUSAS advisory board, Dr. Raymond Hoffenberg, was served with severe banning orders. The occasion was marked by renewed student protests. Dr. Hoffenberg was a senior lecturer and researcher at the University of Cape Town. His banning orders specifically prevented him from continuing to teach after the end of the academic semester. Students were again dissatisfied with the reaction from their university administration. The Council decided to send a deputation to the Minister to ask for an explanation of the banning, but refused to stage any protests until after the meeting as this might prejudice their reception. At the meeting, the Minister failed to give a satisfactory reason and the Council then found it too late to protest the banning as the Minister seemed to have convinced them that there would be no possibility of the ban being lifted. Nine months after his banning, Dr. Hoffenberg decided to leave South Africa. Despite the fact that he was one of South Africa`s most respected scientists and a valuable asset to the University, the administration attempted to stop students from holding any meetings and the final protests took place without its support or approval.
John Sprack was elected in 1967 to succeed Miss Marshall as President of NUSAS. He was visited by the Security Police in August and told that although he held Rhodesian nationality, he was by birth a South African citizen and his citizenship was being revoked because he had used a British passport to travel the year before. Mr. Sprack was deported two weeks later. His successor, John Daniel, had been unable to leave the country because of the withdrawal of his passport, no reasons being given. At the completion of his term of office, Mr. Daniel left South Africa on an exit permit. He later had his citizenship revoked.
One of the principal occasions for conflict between students and State in 1968 concerned the appointment of Archie Mafeje, an African lecturer, to the faculty of the University of Cape Town. The Minister of Education, Arts and Sciences objected to the appointment and threatened to take steps to ensure that the University conformed to "the traditional outlook" of South Africa. The University Council rescinded the appointment.
Students returned to the university in mid-August and a mass meeting of some 1,200 students deplored the action of the Council and demanded that the University Council and the faculty join the students in a 24-hour strike. About 500 students then marched to the administration building and staged the first "sit-in" demonstration in South Africa while waiting for negotiations with the Council to begin. The administration refused to call an emergency meeting of the Council. The students responded by refusing to leave the building until this had been done. From the beginning, Security Police were present, taking the names of the strikers. At no stage did the University officials ask them to leave the campus.
The following day some 200 faculty members signed a petition of support for the students and some of the faculty joined the students in the administration building. One of the professors resigned his post with the following statement: "Now it is quite clear... that everybody who has a job here has it with the tacit or explicit approval of the Government. The present situation at the University of Cape Town is absurd. On the one hand you have the Minister manufacturing a `tradition' for us of which we have no knowledge at all. It is laughable and unreal."
Students at the other universities came to the support of the Cape Town students. In Johannesburg, a petition collected some 5,000 signatures, mostly of students and faculty, and was personally presented to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor in Cape Town. After a mass meeting, about 600 students formed a picket line along one of the major highways in Johannesburg, having been refused permission by the city management to march through the city. The Prime Minister had telephoned the Johannesburg Council and told them to refuse the request. The demonstrating students were pelted with paint, eggs and other objects thrown by students from a nearby Afrikaans university. A group of students who travelled to Pretoria to try to seek an interview with the Prime Minister were seized by students of the Afrikaans University there (under the observation of the police who refused to offer any protection) and were beaten, shaved and splattered with paint.
True to form, Mr. Vorster resorted to threatening tactics. Speaking at a large Nationalist meeting, he said: "I want to make it quite clear. I and the Government will not tolerate this... I want to make use of this opportunity to tell the councils of the universities concerned, `I will give you a reasonable time for solving the things going on at the Universities of Cape Town and the Witwatersrand yourselves, but if you do not do it, I will do it thoroughly and effectively'." To this the students replied that Mr. Vorster was vastly underestimating them if he thought that this kind of threat would deter them from doing what they knew was right.
Protests were held at the Universities of Natal and Grahamstown.
As in the past messages of support for the students poured in from overseas and student leaders said that these had meant a great deal to the demonstrators. Speaking in London, Professor Robert Birley, a former visiting professor at Witwatersrand, said: "It should be realised that, while there is very little danger in organising a `sit-in' in Britain, it needs great courage to do so in South Africa in the face of a Government very ready to act vigorously against its opponents... Only someone who has lived in South Africa can realise how difficult it is to struggle against the dead weight of public opinion which tacitly supports apartheid, and the ever-present sense of fear inevitable in a police State. It is quite extraordinary how the students at the English universities have maintained their stand against the Government`s racial policies." (30)
The reprisals against the students were severe, and more than ever before, the police indicated their intention to finally call a halt to student opposition to the Government. Within a week of the "sit-in" in Cape Town, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police had all stated their intention of "bringing the days of student protests to a close." The Minister of Police said that Communist sympathisers had fomented unrest at certain universities and that the matter would be discussed at Cabinet level. He added it was clear that if he was to maintain law and order, he could not allow student unrest to develop further. The Prime Minister said that student demonstrations were influenced by Germany and France and that it was the right and the duty of the State to stop these if the universities failed to do so.
A week later, the Minister of Education, Senator Jan de Klerk, announced the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry with a wide mandate to investigate the activities of the "white" universities. The terms of reference included an inquiry into student relations in general and in particular the role students could play, in cooperation with the academic authorities, "in maintaining a healthy spirit and code of conduct on the campuses." No students were appointed to the Commission which has only two English members, one of whom is a known Government supporter.
Meanwhile the Security Police started to take action against the student leaders of the demonstrations. Both the NUSAS President and another student "sit-in" leader had their passports withdrawn. (Both had stated their intention to travel overseas to take up scholarships which had been offered to them). The NUSAS Vice-President and another executive member were told to leave South Africa by the end of 1968. Both were Rhodesian students studying at South African universities. (In the past, Rhodesian students had automatically been allowed to stay in South Africa.) The Students` Council President at Rhodes University was interrogated by members of the police and was later informed that his citizenship had been revoked. A number of foreign students at the University of Cape Town were interrogated and told that their visas would be terminated.
Another NUSAS executive member in Johannesburg was asked by the Security Police to act as an informer on the campus in return for money and the opportunity for further study. He refused and divulged the information to the press despite the fact that he had been threatened with serious consequences if he were to do so. A member of the Students` Council in Johannesburg was threatened by members of the Security Police, and repeatedly questioned about his political activities. He was twice attacked by "thugs" and lost his job as a result of police pressure. In Natal, an executive member was interrogated and ten students informed the Students` Council that they had been asked to act as spies, with offers of financial reward. In reply to this, the head of the Security Police said, "I think these students are just seeking publicity. If we had 12 failures recently, as reported in the press, then we could assume on the law of averages that we had had 100 successes. This is really becoming amusing." (31)
Indian students at the University of Natal were also asked to act as spies. One was told that he would never have any difficulty in getting a passport if he wanted to go overseas. Another said that he had been warned by the police that if he disclosed that he had been approached to act as an informer, it would be considered a "breach of confidence" and the police would meet him again "in different circumstances".
This account of NUSAS events in recent years is by no means complete. Only some of the broad patterns have been discussed. The reasons why white students, who form the bulk of NUSAS, continue to oppose apartheid as strongly as ever is one of the peculiarities of South Africa. NUSAS is banned from all the non-white campuses and reprisals against Africans and Indians who take an active part in NUSAS are swift.
Analysts of NUSAS have always anticipated that the organisation would grow increasingly conservative as it was exposed more and more to Government pressure. But if anything, the reverse has been the case. At a crucial stage in the movement`s history, the NUSAS leadership decided to maintain NUSAS as a broad-based organisation in open opposition to the Government, rather than to close the ranks of NUSAS and involve it directly in the "liberatory movements". It is debatable whether NUSAS could in any case ever have fulfilled any function in the latter capacity.
Whatever the historical reasons, NUSAS is one of the most outspoken critics of the policies of the Government from within South Africa. Whether the issue be the "Terrorism Act" or the implementation of Christian National Education, more often than not the leaders of NUSAS have found themselves out on a limb in their opposition to apartheid. As this account has shown, the English-language universities have become increasingly hesitant about directly opposing the Government. They have consistently tried to bargain with the Government, despite the fact that they have quite as consistently lost in the process. The present regime blatantly favours the Afrikaans universities, allocating large funds and advantages in their direction. Wherever possible, they have tried to stifle the English universities, but the administrations refuse to see this, succumbing again and again to Government pressure, particularly with respect to the control of students. NUSAS students know this and feel themselves caught between an oppressive Government on the one hand and weak-kneed university administrations on the other. Nevertheless NUSAS has held to its principles. One can only expect that it will continue to be a prime target of Government attack as long as it continues to stand for an open society.
A survey of student activity in South Africa would be incomplete without at least mentioning the protest of students at the African "university colleges", even though it is somewhat outside the organisations being reviewed. NUSAS and the University Christian Movement are banned from the African campuses. However, African students are related to both organisations.
In 1968, Fort Hare University College was the scene of a major confrontation between African students and their administration. A somewhat detailed account of the action at Fort Hare illustrates well the situation of the African student in South Africa.
In order to understand the Fort Hare situation, it is important to know that the students at the college had refused to appoint an SRC for a number of years. The reason for this was that student leaders appointed to the SRC had unfailingly been acted against by the university authorities, who had often expelled or refused to re-admit duly-elected student leaders without giving reasons, and by the police who had interrogated such students.
In the absence of an SRC, the only means of communication between the students and the authorities had been through elected deputations. There had been similar consequences for the members of deputations. On one occasion, a written guarantee from the authorities that no action would be taken against a deputation was not adhered to. Thus there was an understandable reluctance on the part of the students to appoint representatives for consultation.
On August 16, 1968, Professor de Wet was installed as the new Rector of Fort Hare and Blaar Coetzee, the Minister of Bantu Education, was the guest speaker. The vast majority of the students boycotted the ceremony. Following this, certain offensive remarks concerning Professor de Wet, Mr. Coetzee, Mr. Vorster and Dr. Verwoerd were painted on the walls of various university buildings. On Sunday, August 18, seventeen students received notices instructing them to meet with the Rector at 9.00 a.m. on Monday. It is not known how the seventeen names were selected. They were accused of being either directly or indirectly responsible for the painting on the walls, and when they denied all knowledge of who was responsible, they were told that they were known to be student leaders, and therefore must be implicated. They were warned that should there be any further student disturbances on the campus, they would be held responsible and sent down. Thus without having any administrative, disciplinary or legislative powers, they were made responsible for maintaining student order at the cost of their careers.
Subsequently, the Security Police were called in and most of the seventeen were taken to the charge-office for interrogation, and their rooms were searched. It was this action on the part of the Rector and the police against students whose guilt of any offence had not been established that led to reaction from the student body.
Two requests to hold a student body meeting to discuss the matter were refused by the Rector, and his approval to hold such a meeting on the evening of August 27 was given late that same afternoon. At this meeting a resolution outlining the student grievances and requesting the Rector to address the whole student body on the matter was passed. The students decided to gather the next day outside the administration buildings and to remain sitting until the Rector addressed them. The Rector left for Pretoria on university business early the next morning. In accordance with the resolution, the students did not attend lectures on August 8, but staged a quiet sit-in near the administration block. During the day, a notice was posted in the hostels saying that if the demonstrations were continued until Friday, the 30th, the College would be closed. This notice carried the authority of the Rector who was still in Pretoria. As Thursday was the first day of the short vacation, the students had not, in any case, intended to make any demonstration after Thursday noon. On Thursday, another notice appeared on the official notice boards stating that the University Christian Movement had been banned from the campus. This arbitrary and authoritarian action intensified the resentment of the students. Thursday noon, the College closed for the vacation during which the Rector returned.
On September 4, the eve of the new term, the chaplains of the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational students approached certain members of staff and asked them to request the Rector to meet a deputation of students.
On Thursday the 5th, the students recommenced their sit-in. During the morning there were two communications from the Rector. In the first, the students were warned that if they did not return to lectures by noon, further action would be taken. In the second, they were informed that they had until 4.00 p.m. to send a deputation of students to meet the Rector. The chaplains tried to persuade the students to meet the Rector, but they refused fearing that members of any such deputation would be victimised. They would not accept any assurances that this would not be so, saying that such assurances had been given before and could not be trusted. Finally, the students decided to appoint two members from each house committee to present a written statement to the Rector, outlining the student grievances and again asking the Rector to meet the student body. The Rector merely maintained his decision that a deputation must meet him by 4.00.
On Friday, the sit-in continued. During the morning, the Rector communicated the following statement to the students:
"Seeing that the students of the University College of Fort Hare have contravened regulations by staying away from lectures for three days and have persevered in doing this even after their attention was drawn to the contravention, and seeing that students have not availed themselves of the normal channels that existed, and will always exist, and have turned down the invitation of making known their problems through a deputation, I feel myself compelled, after a full and serious discussion with the Advisory Council, to restore normal conditions by taking the following steps: Students who are desirous of continuing their work for the year and who undertake to submit to the discipline of the college, must in the course of the morning cease their demonstration, and must indicate their intention of doing so by signing the lists which will be available for this purpose at their respective hostels before noon today.
"The admission of students who have not ceased their participation in the sit-down strike or any other form of demonstration, and who have not signed the mentioned list at their respective hostels before twelve noon, will be cancelled forthwith, and such students will have to leave the hostels and the campus of the University College before 4.30 p.m. in the vehicles which will be available for the purpose.
"Students who have signed the undertaking at their respective hostels and who at any stage during the rest of this year stay away from lectures without the permission of the warden or the head of the relevant department shall be considered to have broken the agreement and shall be subjected to the same measures as are mentioned above."
After the appearance of this notice, the students appointed a deputation of five students which then attempted to meet the Rector. Permission for such a meeting was twice refused, on the first occasion because the Rector was busy and on the second occasion because the deadline for the delegation had already expired. After the failure of the deputation, the students signed the lists signifying their readiness to continue their lectures and to abide by the College regulations, but stated that they would continue to sit-in until the Rector agreed to meet their request to address them.
When the sit-in reconvened after lunch, the following statement was communicated to them:
"All students still in front of the administration block must please note that they have been suspended as students of this University and are contravening regulations by their presence there. This is a final warning, and if students are still there at 3.00 p.m., steps will be taken against them."
At 3.00 p.m. over 300 students were still gathered in front of the administration block. At 3.05, large numbers of police, who had been in Alice from mid-morning, arrived at Fort Hare. At least ten police vans and an estimated thirty policemen arrived. The vans were used to block entrances and roads. The police, with six dogs and equipped with tear gas bombs and gas masks, surrounded the demonstrating students. The students were then addressed by the commandant who stated that they were under arrest for trespassing, and that they had only two options open to them, either to be imprisoned in the local police cells, or to pack their belongings and return to their homes under "protective police custody". They were advised that the matter would be referred to the Attorney-General for his decision on further action. None of the students was formally charged, but police, seated at tables, took the names of all the students and their home addresses. They were then taken under police escort to their various residences to pack their belongings. They were not permitted to go into town to withdraw any money for the journey, nor were they allowed to collect articles of clothing from the laundries.
Under frightening circumstances, which some students felt could easily have led to panic and drastic police reprisals - especially with the dogs present - the students remained calm and orderly, and at no stage resisted the police. They sang "Nkosi Sikelele Afrika" and "We Shall Overcome" before moving off to their residences.
Some students, who had not been in the sit-in at 3.00 p.m., saw the police action, joined in with their fellow students and accepted suspension and removal. The students never really believed that the Rector would take such drastic action against them for their simple request and orderly demonstration.
By 7.00 p.m., all the suspended students had been put onto the railway buses provided for the purpose and sent to Amabele junction and Cookhouse station to await trains to take them home. Students who did not have tickets for the journey were not given tickets, and they were not given an opportunity to make arrangements to get from the terminus to their respective homes. They were provided with neither food nor money for the journey, and some had to wait at the stations for a considerable length of time before being able to get connexions or seats on the available trains. Attempts were made by individuals to contact the students at the two railway junctions to provide them with food and money. However, large numbers of police were present at both stations. At Cookhouse, the police threatened with arrest those who attempted to contact the students, took the names of individuals and prevented any communication with the students. At Amabele, there was no police interference and it was possible to talk to some of the students and to give them some money.
Shortly thereafter, the authorities at Fort Hare communicated with the suspended students, indicating that they could be readmitted if they agreed to sign admissions of guilt. All but twenty students were readmitted. A short while later, unprovoked by students or demonstrations, police raided the campus. The Rector refused to intervene on behalf of the students, saying that it was a police matter that did not concern him. Seven students were interrogated and beaten by the police. The police later refused to say whether the arrested students had been moved to another location, and the Chief of Security, Brigadier Venter, said that it is not policy to disclose the whereabouts of persons arrested, no matter what the reason for their arrest.
As could be expected, students at the English universities demonstrated in support of the Fort Hare students. The role of NUSAS in such a situation is indirect, as it has been prohibited on the non-white campuses. There was, however, a new movement of students in South Africa that was more directly involved in that members of the movement were among those suspended from Fort Hare, and the movement itself was banned from Fort Hare in the midst of the trouble. That was the University Christian Movement.
The University Christian Movement (UCM) was founded on convictions which directly contradict the policies of the Nationalist Government. However, the UCM did not come into being to oppose the Government. It came into being because of the belief on the part of its founders that there was a crucial need in South Africa for a new student Christian movement. The factors which characterise the UCM are these: it is a university movement, not a student movement, which is to say that the total academic community, faculty and students, participate. Secondly, the UCM is an interdenominational movement, being the expression of the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational Churches at the university. Finally, the UCM insists that it is open to all Christians and that despite the segregated nature of South African universities, members of all races must join in the same movement. (32)
The inauguration of the UCM took place in Grahamstown in July 1967. Attended by students, faculty and chaplains from all of the English and non-white universities and colleges, the movement was clearly interracial from the very beginning. The discussion that led to the following motion was perhaps the critical discussion of that first conference. The motion captures the mood of the meeting:
"That we, members of the UCM, as Christians, and citizens of our various countries, (33)
(1) Having discussed the problems such as:
(2) Confess:
(3) Wish to:
Following this meeting, there was very cautious hope for the growth of the UCM. No one could be sure if it would be able to survive and live out its stated commitments. However, the second conference, held at Stutterheim in July, 1968, strengthened the hopes for the UCM. At this conference workshops were held on a number of topics, the most popular one being, "The Church and Social Change". One question emerged in all the groups which demanded attention: What does the Church do, what do individual Christians do, to change an intolerable social situation? There was not unanimity in the discussion. Some saw only violence in the future. Others were still hopeful that non-violent change was possible. But this is where the discussion focussed. (35)
Perhaps the crucial factor in this conference was the presence of a majority of non-whites. Thus, for a few short days, one could experience the true nature of South Africa, a nation with a large majority of non-whites, and escape the unreal world created by white domination in all areas of life.
The annual conference has continued to be of great importance to the UCM. In addition to this large meeting, effort is going into "formation schools" or leadership training, into work camps, and into attempts to continue contact with UCM members after they leave university. Predictably, the more the UCM grows and acts, the more attention it receives from the State. It has experienced many of the same problems that have plagued NUSAS. There is the inability to find meeting places for multi-racial gatherings. There is police intimidation, many members being visited by the Special Branch. In August, 1968, Prime Minister Vorster announced that he was going to investigate the UCM. He said, "It will not be my fault if steps are taken against this movement when I am finished." (36)
The first President of the UCM has had his passport confiscated, and two issues of One for the Road, the magazine of the organisation, have been banned.
Perhaps the most serious action against the UCM has been its being banned from all the African "tribal colleges". In spite of this, Africans continue to be active; the present President is an African. The UCM does have the backing of the major churches in South Africa with, of course, the exception of the Dutch Reformed Churches. As Father Colin Collins, General Secretary, has stated, "Any attempts to intimidate or destroy the UCM are direct attacks against those churches." (37)
Nevertheless, the UCM must function within the South African State. As the first President of the UCM, Basil Moore, has stated, the Government of South Africa has "assumed authoritarian powers far in excess of what one usually expects in a country that likes to call itself a democracy. Under the shadow of this State authority we all live in a perpetual uncertainty, especially if we happen to hold views which are contrary to those of the governing powers". (38)
He further outlined UCM`s position:
"UCM is engaged in a life and death struggle between freedom and authority and, I hope, our churches are engaged with us... Many of us have been afraid to meet because we fear that there is legislation against what we are doing - and because we know that even if it is not illegal, we can be acted against in terms of very sweeping powers - the powers to ban, to imprison without trial, to remove passports and to dismiss from institutions of higher learning." (39)
The UCM is highly aware of the tensions with which it must live. The UCM "must not assume martyrdom for martyrdom`s sake and so commit suicide by foolish and petty acts of defiance... At the same time (the UCM) dare not sell its liberty by meekly bowing before the big-guns of authority. This liberty becomes a farce if members are only prepared to talk about it behind locked doors." (40)
The present President of the UCM, Chris Mokoditoa, states with great clarity the situation of the UCM and what can be expected in the future:
"The question remains whether this year will see further and more consequential student activities. And this question becomes, among white students, a question about the depth of commitment to radical change in South Africa. What change do they envisage? Would they be prepared to accept a black Prime Minister in a truly democratic South Africa? So often in the past, the white students have shown concern only for things in the academic world - the Mafeje issue, for example, was more academic than social. Where did these genuine seekers after change challenge the social evils publicly in a comparable way?
"Among non-white students the question becomes whether the authoritarian, repressive measures of governing bodies and fear of student informers will force them into their shells. It is an uncomfortable fact that the intensity of oppressive response varies directly in proportion to the darkness of the skin pigmentation of the protester. This places a further inhibiting factor on non-white protest, for protest can and does jeopardise careers and even freedom. Can we expect noble suicide to continue among non-white students? And suicide it must be, until the student lead is backed by open, mass support. And that is unlikely to be forthcoming while non-white, like white, student protest focusses publicly on what are essentially academic and university administration affairs.
"So what we can expect is continued, sporadic and not very consequential protest (in terms of social change) to continue among students. We have to wait for the man with the message and the means to mobilise the resources for change into effective action. Until then man cannot live on bread alone, nor can students live on visions stagnating in inactivity. For their own sanity they must do something, even though they have no illusions of grandeur about what they do." (41)
It is appropriate to mention in closing the action of 400 students at the University College of the North in May, 1969. This college is heavily infiltrated with informers and, in the past, political discussion of any kind was understood to be extremely dangerous. Thus it was a surprise to many that these students had the courage to march on the Rector`s office to protest the refusal to allow them to affiliate with NUSAS or UCM. This demonstration clearly gave the lie to all those who still claim that the Africans are satisfied, even happy, with the tribal colleges. (42)
The student organisations in South Africa are a testimony to two major forces in the Republic of South Africa. One is the authoritarian nature of the State, a State that cannot endure even non-violent protest on behalf of the fundamental freedoms of human life as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Christian faith. The State is prepared to harass, imprison, and otherwise silence any opposition. Thus one can only fear for those courageous individuals and movements which have continued to live in opposition to the State. The other reality illustrated by South African student movements is that in spite of intimidation and attack, NUSAS has not been destroyed and the UCM has been born. There is a durability to those few within South Africa who still fight for justice and freedom. Belief in equal rights for all, faith that all men are brothers, persists despite the continued efforts to destroy both the belief and the faith. This paradoxical reality is both a source of fear and a source of hope for the future of South Africa and indeed for all mankind.
(1) From "Notes and Documents", No. 16/70, May 1970. This paper, prepared by the Southern Africa Committee of the University Christian Movement in New York, deals with three student movements in South Africa. It does not purport to be a history of the student movement in South Africa, as it does not cover other student movements, notably the youth leagues of the non-white political organisations.
(2) See Kahn, E. The Separated People
(3) Andrew, M. G., "Historical Foundations", in South Afrian Outlook, Vol. 95, No. 1154, July 1967, p. 103
(4) Haslett, T. M. (ed.) Federation News Sheet, Monthly bulletin of the World Student Christian Federation, February 1926, No. 47.
(5) Paton, Alan. Hofmeyr, (Cape Town, Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 173.
(6) Federation News Sheet, December 1, 1930
(10) Federation News Sheet, September-October 1951
(12) Federation News Sheet, July 1961, p. 49
(14) Federation News Sheet, December 1964, p. 31.
(15) For a more detailed account of the earlier history of NUSAS see Legassik, Martin, The National Union of South African Students: Ethnic cleavage and ethnic integration in the universities. Occasional Paper No. 4, African Studies Center, University of California, Los Angeles, 1967.
(16) The Extension of University Education Act, No. 45 of 1959 and the University College of Fort Hare Transfer Act, No. 64 of 1959
(17) The Open Universities in South Africa. Published on behalf of the conference of representatives of the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 1957, p. 4.
(18) Southern Africa, New York, Vol. 11, No. 5, May 1969
(!9) The Star, Johannesburg, September 6, 1957
(20) Report of the President to the 1964 Congress of NUSAS
(23) Wits Student, March 22, 1965
(24) See, for example, Minutes of the Emergency Meeting of the Students` Representative Council at the University of Cape Town, May 11, 1966.
(25) The Observer, London, May 22, 1946
(26) "I will go so far as to say that no person who has had any dealings with that organisation can be unaware of the fact that one is dealing with a communist front organisation." House of Assembly Debates, (Hansard), August 3, 1966, col. 98.
(27) "The Leftwich Affair" refers to A. Leftwich, a former NUSAS President, who admitted to membership of the African Resistance Movement. For the full parliamentary debate, see House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), August 2, 1966, cols. 27-28; August 3, 1966, cols. 97-98, 122-23, 144-47; August 4, 1966, cols. 175-76; September 22, 1966, cols. 2720-23.
(28)See for example, the speech of J. A. Marais, M.P., House of Assembly Debates (Hansard), August 3, 1966, cols. 122-23.
(29) See Robert Kennedy in South Africa, edited by J. Chisholm and published by Rand Daily Mail, Johannesburg, 1966.
(30) Manchester Guardian, August 27, 1968
(31) For more complete information on police intimidation of students, see statements issued from the NUSAS Head Office: Nos. P/101, September 30; P/110, October 22; P/116, October 25; P/118, November 4; and P/121, November 11, 1968.
(32) Cook, Calvin, "From Breakwater to Open Sea", Pro Veritate, Vol. VI, No. 5, September 15, 1967, p. 10
(33) From the beginning, the University of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland was represented in the UCM.
(34) Report of the Grahamstown Conference, July 1967, Inauguration of the UCM, Motion 18/67
(35) Robertson, R. J. D. "UCM in Action", South African Outlook, October 1968, Vol. 98, No. 1169, p. 161
(36) The Star, Johannesburg, September 7, 1968
(37) The Star, Johannesburg, September 7, 1968
(38) Moore, Basil, "Whither UCM?" South African Outlook, October 1967, Vol. 97, No. 1157, p. 153
(39) Report of the President to the University Christian Movement of Southern Africa, 1967-68
(41) Mokoditoa, Chris, editorial, One for the Road, March 1970