Martin Luitingh: Wilgenhof – RIP Doc Craven, your boys came through for you
In the wake of the University of Stellenbosch's controversial decision to close the Wilgenhof men's residence, the narrative of justice reveals deep flaws in governance and judgment. Martin Luitingh, a seasoned barrister and former human rights advocate, critiques the university's approach, highlighting a lack of insight and inadequate processes that unjustly tarnished innocent students. His analysis underscores the need for accountability, reflecting on the broader implications of standing on the shoulders of giants versus the skulls of the fallen. A resounding call for truth and reform emerges from this poignant reflection.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
By Martin Luitingh
A wise man once said to me, "There are two ways to get to the top: to stand on the skulls of those that you have crushed or to stand on the shoulders of the giants that you have nurtured."
I am astounded that the University of Stellenbosch (US) initially opted for the former approach in their decision to close Wilgenhof, a men's residence at Stellenbosch, for inappropriate behaviour by some students.
The decision to adopt this approach was fraught with poor decision-making, hopeless and inadequate processes for resolution, and a serious lack of insight. The decision had little regard for not only the SU's reputation, but also for the injustice it would have visited on many innocent victims. A policy which favoured standing on the skulls of (Wilgenhof), those they wished to crush by obliterating its historical footprint on the face of South African history.
Unfortunately, these errors are symptomatic of a more sinister governance which shames the University, its magnificent legacy, its to date impeccable reputation. It begs the question, what has changed?
To the uninformed, the case has now been settled, and the settlement terms have been published. To its credit, the US acknowledged the injustice.
"SU regrets and deplores the fact that current Wilgenhof students may have been unfairly labelled, ostracised and isolated. SU recognises that Wilgenhof students may have experienced unfair victimisation, abuse, reputational harm and trauma. "
This couched apology, apart from being inadequate, is at least a damning indictment on the evident and foreseeable harm, the misguided process adopted by the SU visited on innocents. The harm was much broader; the report accused a community of more than 100 years old of a conspiracy of silence in support of an evil regime without evidence to support the allegations. Throughout the public furore, the SU was a disinterested observer to the accusations of Nazism, racism, sexual abuse, demonic practices, and clan mentality without negating those allegations.
From the outset, the Wilgenhof community adopted a reformative approach, preferring to take comfort by standing on the shoulders of the "giants" they have nurtured. This is reflected in the settlement.
"The AWIR (Wilgenhof Community "TWC") ……. acknowledge the need for ongoing renewal and express their commitment to participate in the facilitated renewal and rejuvenation process."
Why did the University not take up this spirit of accommodation from the inception? Why did it not preserve its own reputation and that of other innocent victims by adopting the "giants" approach rather than the "skulls" approach from the outset? It was a fundamental and severe lack of judgment, governance, grandstanding, overzealous political correctness, and pernicious tall poppy assassination that does not belong in an academic institution of this calibre.
Did the SU ever doubt that TWC would rise up against this injustice and have no option but to challenge the university's intransigence and unsubstantiated allegations? Did the SU ever, for a minute, believe that they could successfully defend libellous and false allegations made against the TWC? If the SU thought it could overcome the gigantic task of discharging this onus, it is trapped in a world of political correctness, fantasy, and naivety.
The" settlement ", despite the SU's self-serving undertone, is a resounding victory for truth and balance that has been advocated by the TWC from its inception.
Where did it all go wrong? and is there any utility in this inquiry? In my view this analysis is key for future learning.
De Jager SC was likely the driving force in that triad of hysterical adjudicators that filed the initial report. If it was sensationalism that was being sought, he certainly achieved that. Did he serve his client well? was there circumspection? and consideration of what the proposed outcome may hold for the future? was there any foresight exhibited?
There is a gigantic leap between being an advocate and being an adjudicator of fact, a distinction which he did not appreciate, resulting in a dismal failure of his obligations. De Jager SC 's approach was a sub-intellectual blunt instrument that generated more heat than light.
The lack of consultation with TWC or flippant dismissal of their views, or even the lack of inclusion of a valued member of TWC in the inquiry is a failure of process, that De Jager SC should have recognised. His cross-examination in the High Court in defence of his report would have been a comedy and a career-ending event.
It was not satisfactory that the SU could hide behind this report to justify its decision to close the residence. Admittedly, SU called for submissions, but ultimately, it is the SU that would be called upon to decide based on fact. The TWC fully participated in this process; the facts were clear and recorded. The TWC drew the line at associations with demonic practices, Nazism and racism, which the University persisted with.
The US owes more than a limp apology to what the existing students "may" have suffered. The US owes an apology to the whole of the TWC, past and present, for the insult of the alleged conspiracy to protect demonic practices.
This was not a " settlement" but a landslide victory for Wilgenhof. Rest in peace, Doc Craven; your boys came through for you.
Read also:
*Martin Luitingh is a barrister at the Sydney Bar in Australia. He was a Human Rights advocate in South Africa. Advocate Luitingh was counsel of Victims in the Harms Commission of Inquiry into Death Squads, representing amongst others, the deceased estate of Anton Lebowski and the murdered David Webster. He was the Lead Counsel in the Queenstown Six, where on a re-trial the sentences of six accused, were reduced from the death sentence to sixty months improvement. Mr Luitingh was the lead Counsel in the indictment of 18 South African Transport employees accused of murdering, co-workers that crossed the picket line after large scale termination of employees by the South African Transport Services then assisted by Advocate Eric Dane and advocate Gys Rautenbach SC of the Johannesburg Bar. Before leaving for Australia Mr Luitingh gave evidence in the Inquisition of the death of David Webster who was killed by shotgun in front of his family in Johannesburg. This led to the conviction of Ferdi Barnard for the death of David Webster.