Stellenbosch University’s multiple purposes best served by 2016 Language Policy

“I conclude that Stellenbosch University (SU) appears to have decided that its multiple purposes of preventing exclusion, promoting multilingualism, ensuring integration, and fostering Afrikaans are best served by the 2016 Language Policy it adopted. It clearly considered multiple factors and weighed them all.”

This was the view expressed by the Western Cape Division of the High Court of South Africa in the recent judgement (links to the sections of the Court judgement below) handed down in the matter between Gelyke Kanse and eight other applicants (including the President of the Convocation of the University), and Stellenbosch University.

The applicants sought orders reviewing and setting aside the decisions of SU’s Senate and Council taken on 9 and 22 June 2016 respectively, to adopt the 2016 Language Policy in terms of section 27 (2) of the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997, and the policy itself, while directing SU to implement its previous Language Policy (adopted in 2014). The applicants contended that it was of vital importance that the Afrikaans offering should not be reduced and that it should remain a primary language of instruction at SU.

Court dismisses main application

The Court dismissed the applicants’ main application and application for leave to admit a further affidavit, and to lead oral evidence thereon, with costs.  SU also successfully brought, with cost orders in its favour, two striking out applications to strike out unnecessary, irrelevant and hearsay evidence in the applicants’ founding affidavits and replying affidavits.  SU tendered to pay the costs occasioned by the fact that SU delivered its answering papers out of time. The Court ordered SU to pay these costs in accordance with the tender.

In short, the Court found that the 2016 Language Policy complies with the Language Policy for Higher Education. In the words of Judge Daniel Dlodlo, that the “applicants have not persuaded this Court that the SU 2016 Policy is in any way unconstitutional”, the Court also found in favour of SU that the Policy is constitutionally compliant.

With regard to various allegations by the applicants that the revision of the Language Policy in 2016, was tainted by, among others, the pre-determining of the process and outcomes, bias, undue influence, ulterior motives, failure to consider all information and succumbing to political pressure and threats of violence, the Court found that there was no evidence of improper conduct.

Language Policy is compliant with Constitution and Language Policy for Higher Education

The Court confirmed that the 2016 Language Policy expressively states that its purpose is to “to give effect to section 29(2)” of the ² Constitution in relation to language usage in SU’s academic, administrative, professional and social contexts, as well as 29 (1) related to access to higher education”. This would require an increase in equitable access to SU for all students and staff, and pedagogically sound teaching and learning. Since its campuses are in the Western Cape, the institution is committed to multilingualism by using the province’s three official languages, namely Afrikaans, English and isiXhosa.

Supplied by Stellenbosch University