E Pahad: Conference towards Understanding and Building Diversity as
Enshrined in the Constitution

3 May 2007

Thank you very much for inviting me to address you on what I regard as a
very important topic. Allow me to begin by identifying two important threads
which are central to my presentation today. First, a full understanding of
diversity requires us to go beyond race and gender and recognise that diversity
also encompasses, among a number of ascribed and achieved criteria; disability,
language, ethnicity, class and socio-economic status, regionalism the
urban/rural dimension and sexual orientation.

Second, the Constitution is the highest law of our land. No other laws stand
above the Constitution and we are all individuals and institutions subject to
the Constitution. It guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms in a free and
democratic society.

The constitutional basis for diversity derives from a number of very
important sections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which forms an
integral part of the Constitution; the Preamble, Section 7, Section 9 which
speaks to equality, Section 10 which is about human dignity, Sections 15-18
which spell out fundamental freedoms, Section 19 which identifies political
rights, Section 30 which addresses language and culture, and Section 31 which
deals with cultural, religious and linguistic communities.

But respecting and promoting diversity is about more than constitutional
provisions, it is about promoting social cohesion in a society that has emerged
from institutionalised and legalised racism and racial discrimination only 13
years ago and it is central to South Africa's nation building project.

In this sense, prompting diversity and inclusive education are both an end
and means to an end. They are an end because diversity and inclusively together
constitute a vision the entire education system seeks to achieve. They are a
means to an end because inclusive education is an important vehicle in the
construction of an inclusive society. And in our case we strive to create a
non-racist, non-sexist, discrimination-free democratic and socially cohesive
South Africa.

Before we address the role of universities in promoting this vision, let us
look at the constitutional basis for the promotion of diversity. The preamble
to the Constitutions speaks of recognising "the injustices of our past". This
recognition brings with it obligations for the state as well as for
institutions of higher learning. In adopting the Constitution the state has to
heal the wounds of the past, respect democracy; rule, based on the will of the
people, respect fundamental freedoms and human rights, and improve the quality
of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person. And one of the
defining values of a democratic South Africa is a commitment to non-racism and
non-sexism.

In constitutional law it could well be argued that the entire Constitution
has to be read and understood through its preamble. Accordingly, universities
have a very high obligation to improve the quality of life of all South
Africans. And we know that education is an important route to upward mobility
and that there is a direct co-relation between education and income, education
and improvements in the standards of living. Institutions of higher learning
also have three other obligations with respect to the preamble to teach about
the past as a living and breathing entity so that we do not repeat the mistakes
of the past, to produce graduates who can go out into the working world and
work to improve the quality of all our citizens, and to free the potential of
those who enter institutions of higher learning.

The requirement to "improve the quality of life" means dealing with poverty,
unemployment and unequal access to education health care. The reality is that
in South Africa the legacy of apartheid was such that in terms of all "quality
of life indicators" historically disadvantaged groups are preponderantly
over-represented in the negative indicators (higher rates of unemployment,
higher rates of high school drop outs, higher rates of poverty, lower rates of
income, significantly lower share of wealth, etc).

Thus to remedy these inequalities which are both structural and historically
derived, institutions of higher learning have to be creative in their
approaches to teaching and learning, promoting success among learners as well
as with respect to knowledge creation and dissemination. It is not a stretch to
argue that failure to do anything about the historical legacy would mean that
institutions of higher learning are violating the spirit if not the letter of
the highest law of the land.

The second section of the Constitution that speaks to the issue of diversity
and transformation is Section 7(2). The government of the Republic of South
Africa is mandated in section 7(2) of the Constitution to respect, protect,
promote and fulfil the rights identified in the Bill of Rights. The key here is
that the state has to do more than protect rights it has a constitutional
obligation to promote equality rights.

This is about formal equality and it is about equality of access. In a
society that is still dealing with the enormous legacy of state sanctified and
institutionalised and legalised racism that engendered inequalities based
solely on race, the democratic state has to uphold the Constitution. Thus to
protect rights is a necessary condition. However the Constitution requires more
than rights protection, it requires rights promotion. This obligation can be
read as the promotion of diversity writ large. Section 7 (2) thus places an
interesting obligation on universities in effect it says diversity in all
spheres of the university, the Board, management, the faculty and student
bases, the curriculum and pedagogy need to be respectful of and infused with
diversity.

Sections 26 and 27 identify basic human rights linked to a human needs
approach that obligates the state to pay attention to in its policies, laws,
programs and expenditures. These two sections require the state to act
reasonably and decisively in the spheres of socio-economic inequalities, to
redress unequal access to housing, water, health care etc. This is about
transformation of a society that has inherited huge inequalities on the basis
of race, gender, disability, etc. And the question that needs to be posed here
is what role institutions of higher learning see themselves playing with
respect to transformation (internally and within society at large) and in
decreasing socio-economic inequalities.

The next constitutional imperative to transformation and the promotion of
diversity derives from Section 9, the equality section. Section 9 (3)
enumerates equality seeking grounds and in so doing provides us with a
constitutional basis for protecting and promoting diversity: "The state may not
unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more
grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or
social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion,
conscience, belief, culture, language and birth". And section 9 (4) then
extends this to read "No person may unfairly discriminate directly or
indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3).
National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair
discrimination".

The extension identified in 9 (4), coupled with the reality that
universities are public institutions makes for an interesting argument about
the relationship between university autonomy on the one hand and accountability
for the protection and promotion of diversity in all spheres of activity of the
university on the other hand. This is fundamentally about transformation of the
university in all spheres of its activity through embracing diversity.

Educational equity, diversity and inclusion are necessary in order to deal
with the history of discrimination and to ensure that it is prevented in the
future. We must always make explicit the relationship between the history of
systemic discrimination and future practices as there can be no separation of
prevention and remedy, and because there is no prevention without remedy. Past
patterns of discrimination need to be effectively eliminated in order for
diversity in all our institutions to flourish and in order for our nation to be
united in its diversity.

Thus transformation of the institutions of higher education, expecting them
to embrace and promote diversity has a strong constitutional basis. But it
requires dialogue, vision, and the active engagement of all the relevant
sectors of these institutions (including the students) and of South African
society at large. Undoubtedly universities are unique institutions because of
"university autonomy" and academic freedom. But universities are still publicly
funded institutions and as such, there must be a delicate balance between
autonomy, academic freedom, social responsibility and the realisation of South
Africa's national development imperatives.

Let me now turn to an understanding of diversity. Concepts such as diversity
and inclusion in education are all socially constructed and historically
mediated. To suggest that the notion of diversity is socially constructed is to
suggest that the obstacles to inclusion in education are not located at the
individual learner level; rather they result from systemic, attitudinal and
physical barriers continually reproduced in society at large. Therefore race,
gender and disability as biological conditions should not be confused with
their social ramifications.

Certainly, the education system mirrors and reproduces tendencies in society
at large in its definition and treatment of diverse learners. And most
problematic in this regard are learners with disabilities who, in higher
education have been largely neglected, objectified and assigned as "other".
Educators create certain kinds disabilities (e.g. learning disabilities) by
labelling and marginalising learners they are unable or unwilling to deal with.
And this is particularly the case in relation to race and gender.

Overall, inclusivity is a response to a significant trend that education
world wide is undergoing massive restructuring as a result of complex factors
including:

* the emergence of a rights discourse in education and society
* technological change
* pressures from students, parents, governments, and the private sector
* budgetary constraints.

In the context of promoting diversity, equality of opportunity for all in
education is best served by a fundamental shift in education policy that
embraces inclusion. Inclusive education is the most effective way of respecting
the basic human rights of all learners and respecting their diversity.

A commitment to inclusivity requires a focus on learner diversity. We now
acknowledge that learner diversity cuts across many intersecting lines among
them race, gender, ethnicity, poverty, language, religion, culture, disability,
marital status, income, education and sexual orientation. South Africa is a
multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-faith, pluralistic society and diversity is
an unalterable fact of life both in our society and within our educational
institutions. As such we have an educational, ethical, legal and constitutional
obligation to meet the challenges diversity poses.

With respect to women, South Africa has made significant progress in terms
of the number of female learners entering higher education. Enrolment of female
learners in higher education has increased from 44% in 1994 to 54% today and
black students now account for over 74% of enrolments in higher education.

In the public sector Cabinet has taken the decision that 50% of all senior
decision makers must be women by 2009 and two percent must be people with
disabilities. These requirements reflect the government's commitment to
equality and representation but they also involve institutions of higher
learning as these are the very institutions responsible for graduating future
public servants and responsible for ongoing training and development.

These positive developments aside, there remain challenges in terms of
gender for example; which revolve around a school system that has a tendency to
stream female learners into traditional female dominated professions where they
are accorded a lower status and lower pay. Women are not well represented in
the sciences and engineering (with the exception of medicine). Data still point
to occupational ghettoisation and income inequity and inequality for women. The
educational system therefore needs to address how gender inequality in
education reproduces and replicates gender inequality in society at large.
Inclusive education needs to address the systemic and attitudinal barriers,
discrimination and oppression experienced by females in society and in
education.

The key questions universities have to ask with respect to diversity
are:

* Do they serve students from diverse backgrounds well?
* Do they accommodate diversity?
* How is this accommodation accomplished?
* Do they create an environment in which faculty and students from diverse
backgrounds feel welcomed and participate fully in all that the institution has
to offer?
* What are the consequences, legal or otherwise of not transforming?

A pro-diversity approach to teaching and learning is certainly the best way
to reach diverse learners. This approach has to centre on a transformative
curriculum and diversified pedagogical approaches which together can better
equip educators to meet the challenges of a teaching and learning environment
at the post-secondary level that has changed remarkably in the past decade and
a half. This approach however, goes beyond the role of a single educator to
create an inclusive learning environment, it is about creating structures,
systems and approaches that foster and encourage the development of inclusive
learning environments, the development of transformative curriculum, and
experimentation with diversified pedagogy.

A pro-diversity approach to teaching and learning however, is about more
than the infusion of curricular materials to reflect the changing demographic
composition of society. Often the refrain is heard that the curriculum in the
sciences does not lend itself to this infusion of materials that reflect
diversity. This is true only if one holds to a very narrow conception of the
anti-discrimination, pro-diversity approach to teaching and learning. A broader
conceptualisation of this approach:
* requires the transformation of the way in which educators conceive of
teaching and learning
* seeks to make educators pro-diversity partners with students in the teaching
and learning endeavour
* values and legitimates the contributions made by diverse learners
* is about changing the culture of teaching and learning, such that students
are empowered to take greater control over their learning objectives, and
educators divest themselves of the notion that they are education banks where
students make education withdrawals
* is equally applicable in all courses regardless of discipline, because it is
fundamentally about respect for and valuing students.

Institutions of higher learning have an educational, ethical and legal
obligation to embrace diversity, which in turn requires us to understand that
what occurs in the teaching and learning environment cannot be separated from
what happens in institutions of higher learning at large. Education diversity,
inclusion and equity refer to the range of activities institutions of higher
learning undertake to attract students, to retain students and to graduate
students from their institutions. It involves admissions policies, student
support services, what is taught, how it is taught and by whom it is
taught.

Diversity in higher education equity involves:

* providing access to post secondary education for those who would otherwise
be excluded
* implementing special measures in order that institutions of higher learning
achieve a representative student base
* providing the necessary student support services to ensure high rates of
retention and ultimately high rates of graduation for all students, and
particularly for those students who "have been identified as being under served
with respect to their needs for post secondary education"
* creating a campus environment that welcomes students from diverse backgrounds
* developing the capacities and talents of all students.

Success in dealing with these initiatives will be limited at best unless the
relationship between faculty and students and the relationship between
institutions of higher learning and diverse communities is significantly
altered. Both are power relationships reflective of power relationships within
society at large. The very way in which an institution of higher learning is
organised, the values it espouses, the way it does outreach speaks volumes
about its organisational culture.

Faculty play a pivotal role in this process because students from diverse
backgrounds are either empowered or disabled as a result of their interactions
with faculty. In order to fully understand how classrooms can be made more
receptive to the needs of diverse student populations it is essential to
understand the debate around diversity, multiculturalism, biculturalism and
anti racism.

Certainly, there is considerable debate both in the literature as well as in
society at large regarding the utility of diversity. At the heart of the debate
however, is a much larger debate about the value of diversity does it promote a
healthy respect for difference or does it detract from the development of a
Pan-South African identity?

Diversity in higher education requires institutions to think through how
to:

* build on the traditions of equality espoused in the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights
* incorporate the ideals of anti racism and anti-discrimination as core ideals
exemplifying South African values
* recognise and support the role of education at all levels in promoting
democratic ideals based on respect for diversity.

Globally, two of the most ardent supporters of multiculturalism and
diversity in education are James A Banks and Henry A Giroux. They write about
diversity in education in socio-political contexts different from our own,
contexts where historically disadvantaged communities are in the minority. We
live in a highly interdependent world and it is important for us to understand
how other societies have sought to deal with issues of diversity in higher
education. Comparative analyses of global trends with respect to diversity,
multiculturalism, bi-culturalism and inclusion provide us with invaluable
insights into the workings of other educational systems and allow us to better
able to understand our own system - its strengths and weaknesses.

Giroux long before the public debate took hold in South Africa notes that:
During the last decade, a national debate has emerged over the meaning and
purpose of multiculturalism and its effects on the school curriculum at all
levels of education. In the traditionalist discourse, debates about
multiculturalism and curriculum are engaged primarily through the categories of
patriotism, culture, and national identity. Within this tidy linguistic
formation, culture is defined in terms that are narrowly Eurocentric in both
context and content. Cultural differences in this viewpoint are strategically
contained if not assimilated, to the overarching imperatives of a common
culture (Giroux, 1993: 2).

This debate, James Banks argues, has "…perpetuated harmful misconceptions
about theory and practice in multicultural education". This in turn has led to
a heightening of "…racial and ethnic tensions and trivialized the field's
remarkable accomplishments in theory, research and curriculum development"
(Banks, 1993; 22).

Both Banks and Giroux point to the significance power, and in particular how
power has the capacity to marginalise, silence, and ultimately dis-empower
certain groups in society. And, by "limiting multiculturalism to issues of
national identity rather than issues of power, politics, and authority,
traditionalists conveniently ignore how multicultural concerns are inextricably
related to structures of inequality and injustice" (Giroux, 1993; 4).

Empowering or dis-empowering students from diverse backgrounds is a function
of the extent to which educators reinforce or challenge traditional power
relations and dynamics in the classroom and in the curriculum. What is required
therefore is an anti-discrimination pro-diversity approach to education. This
approach should not only be about curricular transformation, it needs to be
about five interrelate dimensions:

* content integration
* the knowledge construction process
* prejudice reduction
* an equity pedagogy
* an empowering school culture and social structure (Banks, 1993: 24).

Institutions of higher learning in our country are charged with the
responsibility for developing the talents and capabilities of all students.
Therefore, in a changing and diverse society, they have to change. They have to
value and promote pluralism in order to develop the capabilities and talents of
all students, and in order to avoid strife.

Clearly, all the literature and research on empowering students focus on two
key areas of concern curricular transformation and innovative pedagogy. However
the issues of classroom climate and curricular transformation cannot be
separated from a range of areas in which change has to occur, including:
* the campus climate more broadly defined
* a supportive and innovative teaching and learning environment
* striving for excellence, and avoiding the deficiency model that operates on
the lowest common denominator
* looking outward and developing links to diverse communities
* developing leadership that reflect and promote diversity
* becoming collaborative and exclusionary with diverse communities, with
students, in curriculum and in the teaching and learning environment.

The pro-diversity curriculum for example is essentially a transformative
curriculum that critically assesses and challenges conventional wisdom in
numerous areas. The transformative nature of the curriculum in the humanities
and social sciences derives from its capacity to:

* assess conventional ways of teaching, doing research and validating
research and knowledge creation
* allow students to reflect on definition and self-definition
* generate alternate explanations for the persistence of oppression and
discrimination
* engage in a debate about how best to achieve national development objectives
(including engaging in a debate about their relevance)
* open up a dialogue on how to forge unity out of diversity
* develop a sense of shared vision of social justice among students from
diverse backgrounds.

Unfortunately, no amount of pro-diversity curricular transformation will
work unless a serious effort is also made to make education a positive learning
experience and avoid the excesses of authoritarian teaching practices. The
latter encourages the view that educators are the "banks" and students come to
make knowledge withdrawals in class. Educators who take up the challenge of
developing a pro-diversity curriculum must also reassess their pedagogical
practices.

A commitment to diversity requires collaborative learning which is essential
because it has the capacity to make diversity a positive experience for
students. The key here is that a collaborative learning approach transcends
disciplinary boundaries. It is not confined solely to those subjects and
disciplines that more readily lend themselves to the incorporation of
"diversity material" into the curriculum. Collaborative learning is an approach
to teaching and learning that dignifies and respects the learner regardless of
race, ethnicity, gender, language, sexual orientation and age.

In conclusion let me reiterate that a commitment to diversity in
institutions of higher learning is perfectly consistent with the Constitution.
Curriculum transformation and the development of collaborative learning are
essential ingredients in the creation of a teaching and learning environment
that has dramatically changed since the advent of democracy in our country. As
more and more students from diverse backgrounds enter these institutions the
institution that is best prepared to meet the challenges posed by the diversity
will be the institution that will attract students and faculty from diverse
backgrounds.

Institutions of higher learning, despite their autonomy have an obligation
to provide services to students that respect their dignity and self worth. The
development of the approach suggested in my presentation today puts the student
at the centre of the teaching and learning environment. It is an approach that
cuts across disciplinary boundaries and is an empowering school culture.

Diversity is central to forging unity and developing a national
identity.

Thank you.

Issued by: The Presidency
3 May 2007
Source: The Presidency (http://www.thepresidency.gov.za)