Charges, countercharges and column inches later, the situation appears no closer to resolution. Escalation appears inevitable.
I find it hard to fathom where my sympathies lie. The students concerned were seeking to draw attention to a residence event - the residence being Huis Bekfluitjie, whose proud traditions include the forced cold showering of female students who venture too close to the residence and associated theft of watches and jewellery, the physical assault of male students from other residences who utter the word "bekfluitjie", and -most recently and infamously - the shooting of passing female students with a pellet gun.
A proud tradition, stretching back many generations. One of our own Deans came close to being physically assaulted on the occasion of the one-and-only-ever protest march held at the "university" before the then-Rector proclaimed that the holding of dissenting political views was inconsistent with the nature and function of being a university, and banned any further action.
Upholding this tradition of thuggery, then, does not elicit a sympathetic response from me. But then, neither did the actions of the lecturer. Currently director of the centre for applied ethics, the lecturer concerned was among my philosophy teachers during my undergraduate years. His alignment was clear - a compulsory module on The Philosophy of Religion was in fact an extended discussion of different threads of Calvinism more appropriately located in the Theological Seminary down the road. His tolerance of dissent, too, was questionable.
As, allegedly, was his tolerance for interruption recently. According to the report, he grabbed one of the students and pushed him around after ordering him to leave the class - releasing him only when members of the class shouted "assault". I find it difficult to distinguish this kind of behaviour from the thuggery of the students. Particularly when one considers the rank and seniority of the lecturer, his training and his disciplinary allegiance. Would he consider the physical manhandling - technically assault - of a student by a lecturer to be "ethical behaviour", I wonder.
I find it difficult to read this incident outside of its context. This "university" has a long tradition of physically assaulting, and psychologically abusing, new students during initiation - practices which, while recently outlawed, are rumoured still to continue underground (albeit in less severe forms). A recent visit to the village convinced me that racism is still very much part of the local climate, that tolerance for anything "other" is limited and old models of authority an abhorrence of critical engagement still persist. That "boys" still resort to their fists to settle disputes thus comes as no surprise to me.
"Stellenbosch staan vir 'n idee" (Stellenbosch stands for an idea), we were told often, and proudly. An idea still, it would seem, best expressed with fists.
The full text of the News24 article, given that clicking the link reports network errors, is pasted below:
12/03/2006 22:04 - (SA)
Stellenbosch - A G-string in the class of an ethics professor might lead to a first-year student at the University of Stellenbosch facing disciplinary action.
But, Lodi Gouws, 18, a Wilgenhof resident and former Pretoria Boys' High pupil, and Roelof Nel, the head student of the residence, have decided to fight back.
They have got legal advice and have given a sworn statement to police after a well-known professor apparently man-handled Gouws in class and had threatened another Wilgenhof resident with expulsion.
It all started when Gouws, a first year student in actuarial science, recently arrived wearing a G-string with a fun appendage for Professor Anton van Niekerk's class.
Van Niekerk is the head of the centre for applied ethics.
The joke was intended to add zest to Wilgenhof's "leap-year celebrations" on February 28.
Nel, a fifth-year theology student, said: "The idea was that students would upset classes by asking funny questions. It was my idea.
"The philosophy class was ideal for this."
G-string wearer sent packing
However, the joke turned sour when Van Niekerk failed to regard Gouws's outfit as a joke.
That was after Van Niekerk had spent 10 minutes trying to answer obscure questions from Wilgenhof residents.
Apparently, Van Niekerk lost his cool and sent Gouws packing because of his outfit.
Gouws said: "Prof Van Niekerk screamed at me to leave the class. On my way to the door, he grabbed my T-shirt and pushed me around. He insisted on knowing my name. I didn't answer."
Gouws said some of the students had shouted "Assault!", and Van Niekerk had let go of him.
Nel said the university was investigating the incident, and had started disciplinary steps against himself, Gouws and four other Wilgenhof residents.
Nico Katzke was in trouble for saying in class that the university would have male cheerleaders, Hoffman van Zyl because he had aimed a water pistol at Van Niekerk, and Matthys Streicher because he fell with his crutches.
Nel said: "We have obtained legal advice and given sworn statements to the police."
Considering criminal charges
"Lodi and I have apologised to Professor Van Niekerk.
"He called Lodi's parents and threatened to institute disciplinary action, and that he was considering criminal charges.
"He said he was a member of the council and would make sure the matter received attention at the highest positive level at the university," said Nel.
Lourens le Roux, head of security services at Stellenbosch University, and a former detective chief in the town, is investigating the case.