Issue 7, Vol 10: 5 April 2013

In this issue:

YCLSA UCT Complaint to the South African Human Rights Commission
 

YCLSA UCT Complaint to the South African Human Rights Commission

By YCLSA UCT Branch

The Young Communist League of South Africa, University of Cape Town Branch 
hereby formally launches a complaint against the Varsity Newspaper, the 
University of Cape Town, and the editorial staff of Varsity Newspaper to the 
South African Human Rights Commission on an article published on 2nd April 2013 
in the Varsity Newspaper in an article titled "Is Love Colour-Blind" written by 
Qamran Tabo on page 5 of Varsity Newspaper.

The article begins by pointing to an 'expectation of open-mindedness' about 
race, and more specifically interracial dating. One would assume that the 
writer was hinting towards a direction that did not take racial grounds on 
attractiveness (whatever this may be). In a country that frowned on all sorts 
of interracial mingling, what then constitutes an open-mind? Is it an 
appreciation of such mingling between racial groups? If this is the case, then 
the answer lies within the same article because all the respondents stated that 
they would date outside of their race. The writer went further to investigate 
(we are told) that these responses to interracial dating was to varying degrees 
with Caucasians topping the 'charts of attractiveness'. But our writer was not 
done, he had to attach these 'findings' on some theoretical hook, and we all 
saw it dangling on the proverbial hook of a 'white-crazed' media and then it 
swiftly jumped to 'Darwin's' arms where it was finally rested. What one sees is 
a carelessness that runs through this article about its expectation of an open 
mind insofar as this introduces what the article and the survey is about.
If the article wanted an appreciation of an open mind, it would have been 
satisfied as to the overwhelming response that all participants would date 
outside their race. But this was not enough, there had to be a grid where we 
had a loser and a winner which was the ultimate and foreseeable consequence of 
the question 'if not your race, which one? Issues of race in whatever context 
deserve a measure of care and sensitivity when dealt with as Lwazi rightly 
points out. This wasn't a simple survey on who liked coke more than fanta. This 
horrendous piece of writing dealt with race, one of the primary tools we still 
use to identify ourselves (as to whether we should continue to do so is beyond 
the scope of this response). The article without so much as a shred of 
theoretical and evidentiary leg to stand on cripples the very society it seeks 
to educate (if this really was the aim).
This charade of a survey was aimed at instilling a culture of ranking by race. 
From the outset, the very first question looked solely at 'which race was more 
(than any other) appealing,' the ultimate result of this was always a 
destabilization of the culture of unity that the transformation desk at UCT has 
been fighting to foster and nourish. It can be argued that this is a form of 
divide and conquer with the effect of punting one racial group above another. 
This writing does not add any value to the literature and debate which has been 
about race and transformation. It is based on an unknown survey, supposedly 
conducted at an unknown time and place. With the mediocrity and insensitivity 
that followed the structure of this survey, it always had the propensity to 
elevate one race against all others, and it does just this. It does this 
without an identifiable social aim that it pursues.
The article and its alleged survey were always leading to inculcate a culture 
of one race being the jewel of all others. It is despicable to read and should 
not have been published (even more so that we were without the full details of 
the survey). It should have been apparent to the editors of Varsity Newspaper 
that the manner in which the author of the article dealt with issue of race was 
inadequate, insensitive and out of touch with the transformative route this 
institution and country have opted for. Varsity newspaper cannot hide behind 
the survey and state that it merely reflects the preferences of sixty randomly 
chosen students. The discussion in the article never had a chance at being 
legitimate and thought provoking, it simply sought to discuss general and 
unfounded propositions about race (whites are difficult to attract, they are a 
status symbol) and pass them off as the rule for all. We all deserve a 
retraction and an apology from all concerned with the publication of this filth.
Therefore in light of this article being released to a national platform and 
not on social media the Young Communist League does not accept the retraction 
of just the headline of the pie chart and we regard this action as a frivolous 
attempt by the editorial staff of Varsity Newspaper to wave off the intrinsic 
issue at which the article discriminates not productively, but destructively 
not only towards that national transformational, but the university's 
transformational agenda.

Therefore the Young Communist League would like the following steps to be taken 
by Varsity Newspaper.

The retraction of the article, and their acknowledgement that the article did 
not assist with race relations in the institution. This article instead has 
incited racial divisions within the institution, and through their actions have 
cause psychological harm to the student populations. They should also 
acknowledge that the racial insensitivity in the article such as statements 
such as, "Quite unsurprisingly, Caucasians were chosen as the most attractive 
by non-whites." And further comments such as, "Dating a white person is 
perceived as being the ultimate status symbol for many people of colour." 
Finally, "I have come to realise that we would have better luck creating a 
research wing at Med School dedicated to cloning white people to feed the 
demand than trying to understand the origins of our supposed 'preferences'", 
therefore statements such as these are not only divisive on campus, but also 
misrepresents the entire student body due to the lack of quantitative evidence 
due to the sample size regarding their "study", but rather a subjective view by 
Varsity Newspaper.
Furthermore, the Young Communist League wants the University of Cape Town and 
the Varsity Newspaper to be socially responsibility on race relations, and 
therefore we would like the University to initiate and dedicate an entire month 
on programs regard building race relations within the institutions, and within 
South Africa. Secondly we request Varsity Newspaper and their editorial team 
from now until the end of the year to dedicate a page to a full page article on 
racial issues in regards to contemporary South Africa. If the editorial team is 
not able to fulfil the above requested feature of the newspaper, we as the 
Young Communist League of UCT are prepared to do such an article.
Finally we would like a meeting that with the Vice Chancellor of the 
University, Varsity's Editorial Team, and the relevant staff member that is put 
in charge of Varsity Newspaper. This meeting would be mediated by the South 
African Human Rights Commission.
It is through social responsibility that we as the Young Communist League 
submit this formal complaint against Varsity Newspaper and the University of 
Cape Town.


Sent from my iPhone

-- 
-- 
You are subscribed. This footer can help you.
Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this 
message.
You can visit the group WEB SITE at 
http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, 
pages, files and membership.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You 
don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put 
anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this 
address (repeat): [email protected] .

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"YCLSA Discussion Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to