University Education, Controversy and

Democratic Citizenship Nuraan Davids

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/university-education-controversy-and-democratic-citiz
enship-nuraan-davids/
University Education,
Controversy and
Democratic
Citizenship

Edited by
Nuraan Davids · Yusef Waghid
University Education, Controversy and
Democratic Citizenship
 Nuraan Davids • Yusef Waghid
Editors

University Education,
Controversy and
Democratic
Citizenship
Editors
Nuraan Davids Yusef Waghid
Department of Education Policy Studies Department of Education Policy Studies
Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch University
Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa

ISBN 978-3-030-56984-6    ISBN 978-3-030-56985-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56985-3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Foreword

As an emerging scholar who has delved into the trajectories of democratic

peacebuilding and citizenship education and its pedagogies for the past
eight years, I am privileged to offer a few comments on this excellent
book. As an Egyptian-Canadian, I am also familiar with the politics and
dynamics of the African continent, as well as that of relatively democratic
western settler societies, in which democratic citizenship is still evolving
in spite of its portrayal as a foundational backbone in their charters of
human rights. While the notion of citizenship often implies conformity
to the rule of law and a sense of patriotism and belonging, democratic
citizenship questions the essence of the very laws that govern people in a
particular setting. Hence, for citizenship to be democratic it has to be
unsettling to enable people to examine their differences and learn to live
together peacefully.
University Education, Controversy and Democratic Citizenship explores
democratic citizenship at the university as a higher education institution
in the South African context. I find that every chapter in this book con-
firms a theory that democratic citizenship education encompasses four
essential components: addressing conflictual issues, practising dialogue,
recognizing diversity and building a pedagogical learning community.
Starting with the Preface, Nuraan Davids and Yusef Waghid emphasize
the indispensability of allowing students in higher education institutions
to dig deeper into the structural and systemic causes of controversies that
v
vi Foreword

plague society in general and post-apartheid South Africa in particular.

Indeed, the context of South Africa is very unique since the black major-
ity of the population faces discrimination, gender-based violence, and
unequal access to social capital to name a few. Yusef Waghid’s chapter on
‘Controversy and the public sphere: In defence of pluralist deliberation’,
uses Habermas’s account of the public sphere to encourage academics
and students at universities to handle controversies through eliciting vari-
ous or ‘pluralist’ points of views on unsettling or controversial issues, for
example university fees. The chapter also discusses instances of controver-
sies that took place in the workplace and what could have been done
differently by the various stakeholders to foster deliberation, constructive
communication and critical thinking. Conflict is a normal dynamic in
human interaction, which can be handled in positive, non-violent ways
to facilitate individual and collective learning and transformation.
Denying students in higher education the opportunity to tackle contro-
versies through dialogue, discussions and deliberation reinforces socio-­
political hegemony in society. There is empirical evidence, some of which
is presented in the chapters of this book that teachers who engage in
discussion, debate and deliberation on controversial issues explore with
their students the root causes of hegemony. Stakeholders in the university
public sphere scrutinize hegemony through eliciting alternative perspec-
tives on embedded ideologies, to unveil some of the structural (economic,
political and cultural) forces in society that contribute to the status-quo.
The contributors in this book challenge the status-quo by bringing to
the surface major conflicts and social controversies in South Africa and
briefly, yet descriptively explain the context of South Africa, pre-and
post-apartheid. Gender-based violence is a form of systemic violence
entrenched in the patriarchal ideologies and societal practices of South
Africa. Davids’s chapter ‘Reconceiving a world around our bodies:
Universities, gender-based violence, and social justice’ is a wakeup call for
university administrators and educators to recognize gender-based vio-
lence as a concern of social justice and a violation of human rights. Van
der Walt and Terblanche provide another lens of gender-based violence
through depicting the art of using protests as a critical self-reflective ped-
agogical tool to provide a safe space for students to closely examine the
implications of gender-based violence from a victim’s and a perpetrator’s
 Foreword vii

perspective, thus fostering empathy and perspective-taking, two essential

qualities of a democratic citizen. Hungwe and Divala condemn violent
students’ protests that defy the notion of a responsible citizen and prob-
lematize the glorified conception of violence in the African context in the
public sphere of the university. Thus, violence of any type, shape or form
contradicts democratic citizenship.
The authors in this book did not just identify the various types of con-
flicts students and educators encounter in the university public sphere,
they also discussed pedagogies that could foster democratic citizenship
and enhance students’ democratic skills set. For instance, F. Waghid and
Z. Waghid explore the use of educational technology to create a student-­
centred pedagogical approach to disrupt the ubiquitous practices of
teacher-centred pedagogies and to alleviate cognitive damage that some
students experience due to the absence of agency. Empowering pedago-
gies are essential to enhancing democratic citizenship in universities and
counter what Freire critiques as the ‘banking’ model of education, in
which knowledge is conceptualized as an object to be deposited in the
learner’s passive brain. Simba emphasizes that universities could realize
their democratic role by acting humanistically guided by the African phi-
losophy of Ubuntu to fulfil their legal and moral obligation to society
at large.
Every chapter is an essential piece that contributes to the wholesome
of the University Education, Controversy and Democratic Citizenship
gestalt. A culturally-relevant gestalt to the context of universities in South
Africa is transferable to other post-conflict contexts that are striving to
instate democratic citizenship. Democratic citizenship in a university as a
public sphere starts by acknowledging the prevalent conflicts and contro-
versies, delving into the root causes of these conflicts, promoting dialogue
and deliberation to foster communicative skills, recognizing differences
including various perspectives and finally building a pedagogical learning
community, in which students and academics feel safe and valued in spite
of their differences.

New York, NY, USA  Yomna Awad

 Preface

While it might be possible to consider the latest spate of anti-gender-­

based violence campaigns as yet another instance of student protests –
legitimately brought about by what can only be described as horrific
growing trends of violence against women – it is as important to reflect
on these campaigns as an extension of an existing narrative of unease and
controversy surrounding public universities in South Africa. Taking its
cue from movements, such as #FeesMustFall, #RhodesMustFall, #MeToo,
and the more recent, #AmINext campaign has served as harsh reminders
to universities that social and societal controversies cannot be divorced
from the university. That the anti-GBV protests – reignited by the calcu-
lated and tragic murder of Uyinene Mrwetyana – has forced universities
to reconsider its conceptions of and policies on GBV, is a clear signal that
the business of the university cannot proceed without contextual cogni-
sance and responsiveness. Universities are thus being questioned not only
on their responsiveness to violence but also their awareness of violence
and its impact on all students.
We cannot deny that societal living is under threat – violence resides in
many forms – whether GBV, xenophobia or the realities of so-called ini-
tiation practices that often ritualise and trivialise violence, thereby insti-
tutionalising violence in university spaces. The result is an environment
where students find it difficult to speak out against such violence. The
first set of questions this new volume envisages to address, is: How aware
ix
x Preface

are universities of their own institutional and spatial cultures concerning

the (tacit) perpetuation of violence? What are their understandings of
violence in the disciplines of teaching, research and social outreach?
Secondly, do universities necessarily conceive of themselves as being
under obligation to have an institutional response and responsibility to
the types of controversies mentioned previously? If so, what kinds of
responsiveness are necessary not only for decisive action but for sustained
pro-action and responsibility? In sum, how do universities conceive of
their roles and responsibilities in contributing to, and cultivating safe
institutions as an enactment of peaceful and respectful co-existence?
We contend that the university should do more to advance its public
mission of upholding democratic values for societal change. In the anthol-
ogy of essays, invited authors advocate the moral virtue of democratic
patriotism, whereby universities are seen as institutions of higher learning
that can produce both critical and patriotic citizens who can contribute
meaningfully to the enhancement of democratic education for social jus-
tice in our highly complex and pluralistic society. This is a book about
encouraging people in democratic societies to live together within plural-
ism and diversity; to recognise the significance of disagreement, disputa-
tion, and freedom; and to understand the pragmatic value of democratic
education. Our main argument is that non-violence, tolerance, and
peaceful co-existence ought to manifest through pedagogical university
actions based on the university educator’s desire to cultivate reflective-
ness, criticality, and deliberative inquiry in and through their academic
programmes. In a way, our universities can respond more positively to the
violence on our campuses and in society if public and controversial issues
were to be addressed through education for democratic citizenship and
human rights – the focus of this book.
At the time of writing, one of the world’s most challenging issues on
the theme of democratic citizenship education is the ongoing sociopoliti-
cal conflict in Hong Kong. The controversial developments in Hong
Kong hinge on the advancement of conflicting and competing under-
standings of what it means to be a good, democratic citizen between pro-­
democracy citizens on the one side and the Chinese government on the
other. The pro-democratic group advocates for upholding democratic
values to initiate sociopolitical change, while their pro-establishment
 Preface xi

counterparts accentuate the importance of patriotic values to sustain the

status quo. However, both pro-democratic and pro-establishment groups,
in their defence of democratic patriotism, seem to be remiss of being
attentive to non-violence in the pursuit of cultivating a democratic
citizenry.
This, of course, is not the first time that such conflict has beset the
Chinese landscape. Tiananmen Square in Beijing is well-known for its
pro-democracy protests in 1989. The protests ignited following the death
of Hu Yaobang – a Communist Party leader who had worked to intro-
duce democratic reform in China. Pro-democracy protesters, mostly stu-
dents, initially marched through Beijing to Tiananmen Square and were
eventually joined by thousands of people. At issue was a frustration with
the limits on political freedom in the country, its one-party form of gov-
ernment (the Communist Party), increasing levels of unemployment and
poverty for already marginalised communities, as well as calls for free
speech and a free press in China. The various names by which the protests
are known, provide some indication of both how it was experienced, and
the intensity with which it escalated – from the Tiananmen Square pro-
tests; the ‘89 Democracy Movement; the June Fourth Incident in
Mainland China; to the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
The protests started on 15 April 1989. By mid-May, several student
protesters initiated a hunger strike, which inspired other similar strikes
and protests across China. This was followed by a disruption of a visit by
the then Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet
Union,, Mikhail Gorbachev. By the end of May, more than one million
protesters had gathered in Tiananmen Square. Feeling the political pres-
sure, the Chinese government declared martial law on May 20, and
250,000 troops entered Beijing. When the initial military presence failed
to quell the protests, the Chinese authorities decided to increase their
aggression. On June 4, Chinese soldiers and police stormed Tiananmen
Square, firing live rounds into the crowd. Hundreds to thousands of pro-
testers were killed in the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and as many as
10,000 were arrested.
Traces of this unrest have resurfaced in the latest spate of protests. It
seems as if the public sphere in Hong Kong – riddled by a series of pro-
tests – is confronted by complex and pluralistic aspirations of its critical
xii Preface

patriotic citizenry. What the Hong Kong controversy reveals is that con-
flict in the public sphere cannot surrender to violent actions as violence
has never been a plausible catalyst for liberty, equality and cooperation –
all virtues of a democratic citizenry.
We have seen similar pro-democracy protests and uprisings – com-
monly referred to as the Arab Spring – in several African and Middle
Eastern countries, including Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Libya, Algeria,
Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain, which started in December
2010. Echoing the absolute frustrations of the Tiananmen Square pro-
tests, the Arab Spring, was put into motion by the self-immolation of
Tunisian university graduate and street vendor, Mohamed Bouazzizi,
whose vegetables had been seized after he could not produce a permit.
The public square, whether it is Tiananmen, a street in Tunis on which
Bouazizi set himself alight, Benghazi Street in Libya, or Cairo’s Tahrir
Square, has long been a space of contestation, antagonism, and agonism.
Calls for democracy – fundamentally understood as the right of people
to exercise their rights and voice – are inevitably wrapped in disagreement
and contestations of what those rights encapsulate. While an individual
has the right to articulate a particular viewpoint on a matter, so does
another to counter or question that viewpoint. Democracy in the prover-
bial public square, therefore, is never without conflict. This is a point
Chantal Mouffe (2000) is emphatic about – if democracy is what is
desired, and if democracy is allowed to play out in a way in which it actu-
ally ought to be understood, then we must allow for the possibility of
conflict and antagonism so that that differences can be confronted. Not
only, therefore, does democracy sometimes emerge from conflict, but this
emergence in no way signals the end of conflict. To Mouffe (2000: 14),
the central question for democratic politics is not how to negotiate a
compromise among competing interests, but how to orientate ourselves
to conflict that makes disagreement and antagonism central for demo-
cratic possibility. She views conflict, contestation, antagonism, as well as
violence as an accepted part of human nature, describing it as the “dimen-
sion of the political” (Mouffe 2000: 130–131).
Following this understanding, Mouffe advances the concept of “ago-
nistic pluralism”. Agonistic pluralism sees conflict not as an undesirable
phenomenon to be overcome by democratic consensus, but rather as
 Preface xiii

constitutive of politics; it recognises the affective nature of political con-

flict, that is, the role of collective passions in politics (Mouffe 2014: 153).
She argues that “It is only when the ineradicable character of division and
antagonism is recognised that it is possible to think in a properly political
manner and to face the challenge confronting democratic politics”
(Mouffe 2014: 150). Moreover, in bringing into contestation existing
patterns of power – as was the case during the Arab Spring, Tiananmen
Square, and South Africa’s apartheid – what happens after that, as Mouffe
(2014: 153) explains, is the emergence of new “institutions and configu-
rations of power”, until these, too, are brought into question.
Why does agonistic pluralism matter in a democracy, and hence in
public spaces, such as universities? Firstly, following Mouffe (2000), ago-
nistic pluralism recognises the existence of multiple, and hence, compet-
ing truths. The public square, like university spaces, provide a paradoxical
convergence of divergent truths, perspectives, perceptions, and experi-
ences, which, in turn, hint at underlying hegemonies. Which, and whose
truth holds the power? Who controls the discourse of decision-making in
university governance? What are the truths embedded and propagated in
institutional norms and cultures? Secondly, agonistic pluralism matters,
because it has the potential to transform otherwise unresolved conflicts
(and violence) into deliberative encounters. In providing space and time
for students to engage in discussions and debates – whether it is about the
normalisation of violence, free education, or decolonising the curricu-
lum – invites the potential for conflicts or antagonisms to shift into ago-
nisms. This, to our minds and argued by scholars like Todd and Säfström
(2008), ought to be a function of education. That is, it should create
opportunities for students to engage in that which might be described as
antagonistic and controversial and reconsider it so that it might warrant
a different perspective, and hence, experienced as less negative or antago-
nistic. In other words, unless students are encouraged to articulate their
differences or competing truths, they will not know what it is like to
consider other competing points of view. The educational imperative,
therefore, is not limited to the university experience but is tied to “larger
political articulations” (Todd and Säfström 2008: 8) – articulations that
students as citizens would, no doubt, need to navigate.
xiv Preface

Of significance to the cultivation of democratic citizenship education

in conflicting societies like Hong Kong, are two studies offering comple-
mentary accounts of how touchstones of democratic citizenship educa-
tion can resolve controversial matters in their societies. The first is by
Koon Lin Wong and Chi Kin John Lee (2019), Learning to live together
in polarized and pluralistic societies: Hong Kong teachers’ views of democratic
values versus patriotic values, which offers a way in which critical patriotic
citizens can cultivate sociopolitical actions concerning critical rationality
and democratic development in Hong Kong. The second article by Mei-­
Yee Wong (2019), Understanding the educational value of the film Please
Vote for Me: A case of a pedagogy course for citizenship education, argues
that reflection and critical thinking ought to be revisited and cultivated
in university programmes to respond to violent disruptions in societies.
Both of these seminal works offer distinctive pathways for how university
education can respond plausibly to issues of conflict and controversy. In
this book, we take our cue from such scholars to proffer our own educa-
tional responses in dealing with controversial issues.
The question arises, what should the role of universities be in ensuring
that violent disruptions in politically charged communities do not esca-
late into unacceptable and uncompromising levels of intolerance? This
anthology of chapters offers a response to intolerant, irresponsible, and
controversial contestations on the basis of reconsidered touchstones of
democratic citizenship education. Our main argument in this edited col-
lection is that universities cannot turn a blind eye to sociopolitical
upheavals. However, the response of such institutions of higher educa-
tion ought to be constituted in touchstones of democratic citizenship
education to deal with conflict and controversy in societies where virtues
of democratic citizenship are seriously being eroded. The types of upheaval
and conflict that often defined universities in South Africa during apart-
heid have spilt over into its democracy. Despite large-scale educational
reform, which has seen dramatic shifts in terms of student demographics,
accompanied with equally significant policy reform, intent on transform-
ing and democratising higher education, universities have remained sites
of intense controversies. These controversies, whether in response to the
student fees, student access gender-based violence, or calls for decolonisa-
tion and transformation, have often descended into chaos, vandalism,
 Preface xv

violence, and worrying displays of hate speech. Inasmuch as these contro-

versies and conflicts have centred on university issues, and was somewhat
contained on campus spaces, the types of contestations highlighted can-
not be delinked from South African society. The issue of high university
fees has a bearing on student access and degree completion, which, in
turn, impacts economic prospects, and hence, concerns issues of redress
of social justice. Similarly, the high levels of gender-based violence
encountered in university spaces are reflective of the unacceptable levels
of violence, especially against women and children in South Africa.
At the time of writing this foreword, yet another student had been
brutally murdered, after being stabbed 52 times. Universities cannot
decontextualise themselves from the inhumanity and injustice in which it
resides. Students, therefore, should not be discouraged or deterred from
controversial topics or. As Malik (2015) reminds us, “The university is a
space for would-be adults to explore new ideas, to expand their knowl-
edge, to interrogate power, to learn how to make an argument; a space
within which students can be challenged, even upset or shocked or made
angry … To be at a university is to accept the challenge of exploring one’s
own beliefs and responding to disagreement”. Ultimately, the task of uni-
versities, and the goal of education, is about cultivating critical thinkers
whose skill is precisely the ability to challenge pre-packaged or ready-­
made ideas (Malik 2018).
We commence this anthology with Yusef Waghid’s chapter, entitled:
“Controversy and the public sphere: In defence of pluralist deliberation”.
The chapter draws on the German scholar, Jürgen Habermas’s (1989)
account of the public sphere, which he conceives as a space whereby peo-
ple come together as a public to engage in debate over rules governing
human relations – that is, a space where people use their reason or where
they (people) invoke “the art of critical-rational public debate” (Habermas
1989: 29). Following, Habermas’s elucidation of the public sphere, it can
be claimed that a university is a social structure of the public sphere. It is
at the university where people, in a Habermasian way, express their opin-
ions, freedoms, judgments and recommendations on affairs of the state
and civil society based on insight and argument (Habermas 1989: 117).
Alternatively, critical debate is the touchstone of truth and by implica-
tion, of university life (Habermas 1989: 118). Considering the above
xvi Preface

understanding of a university within the space of the public sphere, it

seems inconceivable, argues Waghid, that university academics and stu-
dents should become disengaged from a critical debate about controver-
sial matters. To Waghid, controversial matters infer matters that require
deep and reflective thinking concerning what people (dis)agree on. In his
chapter, he espouses the ramifications of a lack of critical debate on con-
troversial issues in the (South African) public university. Waghid specifi-
cally focuses his attention on how a disengagement with controversial
issues at public universities could lead to the disintegration of the public
sphere. However, he argues that public deliberation should not be con-
ceived as strictly a mode of argumentation and debate among partici-
pants, but rather, a pragmatic way of pluralist joint activity through
which shared agreements can ensue and manifest in the public sphere.
Waghid’s focus on Habermas (1974) is aptly followed by Nuraan
Davids’ leaning on Nancy Fraser’s (1990) account of the public sphere.
Unlike Habermas, Fraser is more forthcoming in recognising that the
public sphere provides neither equal access nor equal participation. In her
chapter, “Reconceiving a world around our bodies: Universities, gender-­
based violence, and social justice”, Davids highlights that for as long as
students have protested for access to and participation in universities,
female students continue to be at the centre of what appears to be a col-
lision between gender and violence. She asserts that despite its implied
specificity, gender-based violence (GBV) emanates from a complex inter-
section of not only normative constructions of gender, but of race, class,
culture, and religion, as well as power and education. As such, GBV is as
much about the entrenchment of hegemonic norms as it is about the
need to disrupt the structures and discourses sustaining these norms. To
address GBV, argues Davids, is to bring into question the societal and
social dictates that designate power to some through denigrating others.
In this regard, Fraser (1990) is particularly useful in drawing attention to
the prescriptions that dictate women’s participation in the public sphere,
and the ensuing violence which might unfold should these prescriptions
not be followed. To Davids, therefore, because GBV impacts upon issues
of access, participation, mobility, and safety, GBV has to be considered,
and tackled as an issue of social justice.
 Preface xvii

Also on the topic of GBV, Charlene van der Walt and Judith
Terblanche’s chapter, “Violent pedagogy?: Critical pedagogical self-­
reflection in the midst of engaging the silencing effects of gender-based
violence within the context of higher education”, focuses on the alarming
reality GBV has on all communities in South Africa. The level of distress,
often undermined by the under-reporting of GBV, have seen numerous
religious scholars appeal for urgent critical reflection and prophetic action
by religious institutions and faith leaders. Their chapter provides a critical
reflection on the role of protest within the pedagogical practice of theo-
logical education in the South African context and draws on insights
gained from relevant pedagogy and gender theorists. Beyond the descrip-
tive task of the chapter, Van der Walt and Terblanche deliberates on the
process of critical pedagogical self-reflection as a counter-measure to the
possibility of violence.
In his chapter, “Re-posturing the African university for social justice in
light of increasing violence”, Chikumbutso Manthalu argues that the
nature of the current frameworks that anchors the African university, ren-
ders the university largely desensitised from meaningfully committing to
identifying, appreciating and addressing the challenges of its social envi-
ronment – especially the increasing gender and xenophobic violence. To
him, this is due to the fact that the African university is primarily driven
by an agenda that almost necessitates detachment of the university from
its social context to ensure global relevance and competitiveness. By
drawing on Freire’s (2014) notion of domination, Todd’s (2007) thinking
cosmopolitanism and Waghid’s (2008) conception of the civic role of the
university, Manthalu contends that as long as the standards for a thriving
university generally exclude and tacitly undermine the centring of local
interests in higher education research and pedagogy, the resultant educa-
tion materially perpetuates the different forms of abuses such as gender,
racial, xenophobic, and even epistemic violence. Manthalu maintains
that unless there is a democratic transformation that ultimately centres
local interests as legitimate objects of focus in academic research and ped-
agogy, the African university will not only fail to realise democratic
change in society but will continue tacitly retaining and reproducing dif-
ferent structures of violence.
xviii Preface

Zayd Waghid and Faiq Waghid, in their chapter, “Re-examining an

education for cognitive justice in relation to virtues of democracy”, take
cognisance of the reality that despite the South African government‘s
continued attempts to redress the social injustices of the past, progress is
seemingly marred by the complex and complicated racial categorisation
and identification of its citizens. They posit that Sen’s (2007: 89) dialec-
tics of the colonised mind can be used to make sense of an individual’s
self-perception and attitudes towards particular races, and what may pre-
vent such individuals from moving beyond historical and political differ-
ences. Zayd Waghid and Faiq Waghid cite their own witnessing of
violence during the #fallist campaigns, which they ascribe to a break-
down in dialogue between the South African government, universities
and students. In response, they argue that the level of cognitive damage –
an instance of cognitive injustice – among students, is perhaps one of the
significant underlying factors denying democratic relations in both the
university and societal contexts. They firstly explore how Sen’s (2007)
explication of three tenets of democracy, namely the instrumental, intrin-
sic and constructive values of democracy unpack how universities can be
more responsive to instances of cognitive injustice. They then explore a
Rancière (2006) enactment of educational technology for the alleviation
of cognitive damage in defence of democratic action. Lastly, they offer a
pragmatic approach, drawing on Diana Laurillard’s (2012) ways of learn-
ing, to how university educators could disrupt instances of cognitive
damage in the university classroom.
Precious Simba’s chapter, “Responding to the needs of the republic:
Investigating the democratic/social role of the university in contempo-
rary South Africa”, casts a spotlight on how the university should enact/
dispense its responsibility. Without a formal guide, the university is left
to define its own obligation, which has culminated in the university
either being oblivious to the issues plaguing the broader South Africa or
being part of those issues, as made manifest in the array of protests, unrest
and violence encountered on university campuses. To Simba, the need
for a clearer democratic/social role of the university has become exacer-
bated by the growing trends of violence within the country as well as
within the university campus. Questions, therefore, have to be asked
about the role and obligation of the university. In response, she argues
 Preface xix

that the university should act in loco humanus, that is, in the place of a
human; and in the “African” context to be human is circumscribed by the
notion of ubuntu. If the university is to actualise its role as a democratic
citizen or social agent, then its endeavours must be humanistic, guided
by ubuntu.
In her chapter, “Identity (re)construction in higher education spaces”,
Sinobia Kenny explores the intersection of individual identities and the
institutional cultures and norms practised within higher education
spaces. There is a tacit institutional assumption, states Kenny, that it is up
to the individual to navigate his/her way, to (re)construct his/her identity
(if necessary), if the individual is to fit into the existing culture and dis-
course of the university. The university, she contends, appears to be
unconscious of the impact of its institutional norms and practices on
students’ identities. Drawing on Honneth’s (1995, 2007) theory of rec-
ognition, Kenny contends, firstly, that institutions of higher education
should aim to facilitate the inclusion of all identities so that no student
feels subordinated or marginalised within higher education spaces.
Secondly, by adopting a proactiveness, higher education institutions lend
themselves to cultivating the self-respect and self-esteem of individuals,
and hence, a dignified society.
Janine Carlse, in her chapter, “Institutional culture and the lived expe-
rience of violence on university campuses in South Africa”, contends that
the upheavals and crises confronting universities presents an opportunity
for the university to reflect on its practices and cultures that might per-
petuate climates of racism, exclusion and non-belonging. Considering
the long history of discrimination and dehumanisation that the South
African higher education system embodies, the first section of the chapter
looks at the university as product, producer, and purveyor of systemic
and ideological racism. This is followed by Louise Vincent’s conceptuali-
sation of institutional culture as operating at a nexus of intra-action of
the material–discursive, discussed through the lens of “new material-
ism” – that is, the interplay of the material environment with the dis-
courses promoted on our university campuses. Carlse continues by
exploring the lived experiences of black students concerning institutional
culture and covert racism on historically white university campuses. She
xx Preface

concludes by proposing considerations and strategies for humanising

institutional cultures.
In the chapter, “Burn to be heard”: The (in)dispensability of “revolu-
tionary” violence in student protests and responsible citizenship in
African universities’, Joseph Hungwe and Joseph Jinja Divala critically
examine the concept of “revolutionary” violence as an apparent indis-
pensable practice and responsible citizenship within the purview of stu-
dent protests in African universities. University student protests invoke
images of torched buildings, burnt cars and buses, police tear gases,
bleeding bruised faces and in some extreme cases, there is a loss of human
life. The apparent legitimation of “revolutionary” violence in student pro-
tests remains a highly contestable and contentious matter and contradicts
the notions of responsible citizenship that espouses non-violence, critical
thinking, accountability and civic engagement as some of its central
tenets. By reflecting on universities on the African continent, they argue
that the seeming indispensability of violence among university student
protests is opposed to some of the fundamental tenets of responsible citi-
zenship. The primary objective of the chapter, therefore, is to critique the
logic and contextualisation of revolutionary violence in pursuing genuine
student concerns in African universities.
Nuraan Davids and Yusef Waghid, in the concluding chapter, “On the
controversy of democratic citizenship and its implications for university
education”, acknowledges that inasmuch as this edited collection has
focused on controversy concerning university education, this focus can-
not be remiss of the inherent controversies that exist in the conceptions
and practices of democratic citizenship. As such, debates in and about the
university, its cultures, practices, discourses, and people, cannot be
divorced from its communities, society, and hence, the politics in which
it finds itself. In the case of South Africa, therefore, the university and its
education cannot be dislodged from its context of democratic citizenship.
In the South African context, what happens at a university (its education
and controversies) are embedded in notions and practices of citizenship.
Issues of violence, discrimination, xenophobia, and racism lived and
reviled on campuses, are as symptomatic of a controversial democracy as
they are an indictment on the university to rise to the moral responsibil-
ity to confront these controversies. The expectation, therefore, that a
 Preface xxi

university, or a society, can be without controversy is flawed at its basis.

Indeed, Davids and Waghid argue that the absence of controversy sug-
gests deeper concerns of apathy, passivity, and uncontested agreement –
attitudes which suggest the absence of oppositional voices and actions
that can neither be in the interest of democratic citizenship nor a public
good. In recognising this, they conclude this edited collection by address-
ing the notion of democratic citizenship as a controversial practice and
then sets out to examine some of the implications of controversy and a
lack thereof for university education itself.
In the Coda, Rumbidzai Mashava and Joseph Jinja Divala pose the
question of whether decolonisation (we would prefer to talk about deco-
loniality) of the university in Africa has become one of the elements in
re-imagining transformation in higher education. They argue that decol-
onising the university is more likely to remain a pipe dream given that
post-independent states within whose conditions African universities
exist and operate have other interests to protect. In proposing this argu-
ment, they examine the different conceptions of decolonisation and
claim that a new form of internal colonialism might be at play in Africa
that invariably disrupts the university sector.

Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa Nuraan Davids

Yusef Waghid

References
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique
of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25(26), 56–80.
Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary edition). New York:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopaedia article (1964). New
German Critique, 3, 49–55.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry
into a category of bourgeois society. Trans. from German T. Burger and
F. Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition – The moral grammar of social
conflicts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
xxii Preface

Honneth, A. (2007). Disrespect – The normative foundations of critical theory.

Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns
for learning and technology. New York/London: Routledge.
Ling Wong, K., & Chi Kin, J. L. (2019). Learning to live together in polarized
and pluralistic societies: Hong Kong teachers’ views of democratic values ver-
sus patriotic values. Citizenship Teaching Learning, 14(3), 303–330.
Malik, K. (2015). Free speech in an age of identity politics. Pandaemonium.
https://kenanmalik.com/2015/08/13/free-speech-in-an-age-of-identity-poli-
tics/. Accessed 7 Apr 2020.
Malik, K. (2018). What is education for? Pandaemonium. https://kenanmalik.
com/2018/03/19/what-is-education-for/. Accessed 7 Apr 2020.
Mouffe, C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2014). By way of a postscript. Parallax, 20(2): 149–157.
Rancière, J. (2006). Hatred of democracy. Trans. S. Corcoran. London: Verso.
Sen, A. (2007). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. London: Penguin
Publishers.
Todd, S. (2007). Teachers judging without scripts, or thinking cosmopolitan.
Ethics and Education, 2(1), 25–38.
Todd, S., & Säfström, C. A. (2008). Democracy, education and conflict:
Rethinking respect and the place of the ethical. Journal of Educational
Controversy, 3(1): 1–11.
Waghid, Y. (2008). The public role of the university reconsidered. Perspectives in
Education, 26(1), 19–25.
Wong, M.-Y. (2019). Understanding the educational value of the film Please
Vote for Me: A case of a pedagogy course for citizenship education. Citizenship
Teaching Learning, 14(3): 263–276.
 Contents

1 Controversy and the Public Sphere: In Defence of

Pluralist Deliberation  1
Yusef Waghid

2 Reconceiving a World Around Our Bodies: Universities,

Gender-Based Violence, and Social Justice 13
Nuraan Davids

3 Violent Pedagogy? Critical Pedagogical Self-Reflection in

the Midst of Engaging the Silencing Effects of Gender-­
Based Violence Within the Context of Higher Education 31
Charlene van der Walt and Judith Terblanche

4 Re-posturing the African University for Social Justice in

Light of Increasing Violence 57
Chikumbutso Herbert Manthalu

5 Re-examining Instances of Cognitive Damage in South

African Universities: Invoking Democratic Action
Through Educational Technology 81
Zayd Waghid and Faiq Waghid

xxiii
xxiv Contents

6 Responding to the Needs of the Republic: Investigating

the Democratic/Social Role of the University in
Contemporary South Africa101
Precious Simba

7 Identity (Re)construction in Higher Education Spaces119

Sinobia Kenny

8 Institutional Culture and the Lived Experience of

Violence on University Campuses in South Africa131
Janine Carlse

9 “Burn to Be Heard”: The (In)dispensability of

“Revolutionary” Violence in Student Protests and
Responsible Citizenship in African Public Universities147
Joseph Pardon Hungwe and Joseph Jinja Divala

10 On the Controversy of Democratic Citizenship and Its

Implications for University Education167
Nuraan Davids and Yusef Waghid


Coda: Old Wine in New Skins: Why Decolonisation
May Be a Failed Project in Rising Africa179
Rumbidzai Mashava and Joseph Jinja Divala

Index201
 Notes on Contributors

Janine Carlse holds a Masters in Religious Studies from the University

of Cape Town. She is working on her PhD in Education Policy Studies at
Stellenbosch University. With a deep interest in transformative approaches
to higher education pedagogy and policy making, Janine’s current
research has been spurred by the ideological challenges facing the still
stratified post-apartheid South African higher education sector. Janine
has worked within philanthropic, private and public higher education
environments. Her experience within the higher education sector over
the past few years includes a combination of project management and
administration, stakeholder engagement and partnerships, working with
civil society organisations, student academic support, tutoring, facilita-
tion and lecturing.
Nuraan Davids is Professor of Philosophy of Education in the
Department of Education Policy Studies in the Faculty of Education at
Stellenbosch University. Her research interests include democratic citi-
zenship education; Islamic philosophy of education; and philosophy of
higher education. Recent books include: The Thinking University
Expanded: On Profanation, Play and Education (2020, with Y. Waghid);
Democratic Education and Muslim Philosophy: Interfacing Muslim and
communitarian thought (2020, with Y. Waghid); Universities, pedagogical

xxv
xxvi Notes on Contributors

encounters, openness, and free speech: Reconfiguring democratic education

(2019, with Y. Waghid).
Joseph Jinja Divala is associate professor in the Department of
Curriculum Studies at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa.
His research focuses on a decolonial notion of philosophy of education.
Joseph Pardon Hungwe is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the
University of South Africa in the College of Education (Educational
Foundations). His PhD in Education awarded from the University of
Johannesburg, researched on Afrophobic tendencies and practices as
social, political and economic impediments on internationalization of
public higher education within the Southern African region. With
research interests in internationalization, global citizenship education,
student activism and decolonization of higher education, he has pub-
lished book chapters and presented at several academic conferences.
Sinobia Kenny is a doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Education at
Stellenbosch University (SA). Her current doctoral study explores lived
experiences of professional mathematics educators in higher education
spaces. Her research interests include identity construction in higher edu-
cation, professional learning of mathematics educators and reflective
learning of teachers. She holds an MA from Edgehill University’s Faculty
of Education in the Department of Professional Learning (UK), a PGCE
from Southbank University (UK) and a Higher Diploma in Education
from the University of the Western Cape (SA).
Chikumbutso Herbert Manthalu is a Senior Lecturer in philosophy of
education in the School of Education, at Chancellor College, of the
University of Malawi. His research interests include education for demo-
cratic citizenship, global justice and education, and African and political
philosophy.
Rumbidzai Mashava is a doctoral candidate in philosophy of education
at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Precious Simba is a doctoral candidate in the faculty of education at
Stellenbosch University and a researcher at the Stellenbosch Centre for
Pedagogy (SUNCEP). Her current doctoral research is a feminist critique
 Notes on Contributors xxvii

of Ubuntu as a philosophy of education centred on education policy in

Zimbabwe. Her research interests are in Ubuntu, education policy, femi-
nist theory, intersectionality, and democratic citizenship education. She
has an MA from Sussex University’s Institute of Development Studies
(IDS) where her studies focused on gender and development with a spe-
cial interest in education.
Judith Terblanche is a chartered accountant and working as a senior
lecturer in the Department of Accounting at the University of the Western
Cape. She obtained her PhD in Philosophy of Education from
Stellenbosch University. Her research interest is focused on the intersec-
tion of commerce, theology and education. She is co-author of the book,
Cosmopolitan Education and Inclusion: The Self and Others in Deliberation
(Palgrave Macmillan, 2020 with Yusef Waghid, Chikumbutso Herbert
Manthalu, Faiq Waghid & Zayd Waghid).
Charlene van der Walt is the head of the Gender and Religion
Department at the School of Religion, Philosophy, and Classics at the
University of KwaZulu-Natal. She is also the deputy director of the
Ujamaa Center for Contextual Bible Study at UKZN.
Yusef Waghid is distinguished professor of philosophy of education at
Stellenbosch University in South Africa. He is the co-author of the fol-
lowing books: Teaching, Friendship & Humanity (with Nuraan Davids,
Springer, 2020); Teachers Matter: Educational Philosophy and Authentic
Learning (with Nuraan Davids, Lexington Publishers, 2020); and
Cosmopolitan Education and Inclusion: The Self and Others in Deliberation
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020 with Chikumbutso Herbert
Manthalu, Judith Terblanche, Faiq Waghid & Zayd Waghid).
Zayd Waghid is senior lecturer of business and economics education in
the Faculty of Education as the Cape Peninsula University of Technology
in South Africa. He is the co-author of three books, Educational
Technology and Pedagogic Encounters: Democratic Education in
Potentiality in 2016 (Sense Publishers); Rupturing African Philosophy of
Teaching and Learning: Ubuntu Justice and Education in 2018 (Palgrave
Macmillan); and Cosmopolitan Education and Inclusion: The Self and
Others in Deliberation in 2020 (Palgrave Macmillan). His current
xxviii Notes on Contributors

research interests are in the field of social justice education and educa-
tional technology within the context of teacher education.
Faiq Waghid is an academic at the Cape Peninsula University of
Technology’s (CPUT), Centre for Innovative Educational Technology
(CIET). His research interest includes the use of participatory action
research towards improving teaching and learning practices, augmented
through the use of educational technologies. Of Faiq’s noteworthy
research endeavours include the publication of three international co-
authored books, ‘Educational Technology and Pedagogic Encounters:
Democratic Education in Potentiality’ (Sense, 2016), ‘Rupturing African
Philosophy on Teaching and Learning: Ubuntu Justice and Education’
(Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) and more recently ‘Cosmopolitan Education
and Inclusion: Human Engagement and the Self ’ (Palgrave Macmillan,
2020). He is rated by the National Research Foundation (NRF) as a
promising young researcher.
 1
Controversy and the Public Sphere:
In Defence of Pluralist Deliberation
Yusef Waghid

Introduction
The German scholar, Jürgen Habermas’s (1989) account of the public
sphere, is one whereby people come together as a public to engage in
debate over rules governing human relations – that is, a space where peo-
ple use their reason, or where they (people) invoke “the art of critical–
rational public debate” (Habermas 1989: 29). Following, Habermas’s
elucidation of the public sphere, it can be claimed that a university is a
social structure of the public sphere. It is at the university where people,
in a Habermasian way, express their opinions, freedoms, judgments and
recommendations on affairs of the state and civil society based on insight
and argument (Habermas 1989: 117). Alternatively, critical debate is the
touchstone of truth and by implication of university life (Habermas
1989: 118). Considering the above understanding of a university within

Y. Waghid (*)
Department of Education Policy Studies, Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
e-mail: yw@sun.ac.za

© The Author(s) 2020 1

N. Davids, Y. Waghid (eds.), University Education, Controversy and Democratic
Citizenship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56985-3_1
2 Y. Waghid

the space of the public sphere, it seems inconceivable, to say the least,
that university academics and students should become disengaged from
critical debate about controversial matters. By controversial matters, I
mean matters that require deep and reflective thinking about what people
(dis)agree on. Usually, controversy surrounds decisions that people reach
that some might find agreeable and others reprehensible. For instance,
although some university students in South Africa consider the payment
of tuition fees as necessary to university education, other students might
find the payment of such fees as burdensome. The controversy arises
when decisions are made that adversely affect both groups of students. In
this chapter, I elaborate on the ramifications of a lack of critical debate on
controversial issues in the (South African) public university. I specifically
focus my attention on how a disengagement with controversial issues at
public universities could lead to the disintegration of the public sphere.
However, as I argue, public deliberation should not be conceived as
strictly a mode of argumentation and debate among participants, but
rather, a pragmatic way of pluralist joint activity through which shared
agreements can ensue and manifest in the public sphere.

On the Downfall of the Public University

I shall now look at three controversial issues that emerged at the university
where I work. Firstly, when a university academic antagonistically
affronted some students in her class because they (students) questioned
her for teaching in a language that categorically excluded them, she
momentarily suspended what a university actually stands for – academics
engaging critically with students about controversial matters. Lecturing
black students in Afrikaans – the language of instruction formerly con-
sidered as compulsory in public universities in the apartheid past – with-
out acknowledging their incapacity to comprehend important pedagogical
concepts and to engage critically with them, is not a matter of only flout-
ing the institutional language policy, but also one of misrecognising one’s
students and treating them with contempt. How does a university aca-
demic who bluntly refuses to engage with irate students on the grounds
that they have been excluded from pedagogical understanding, advance
 1 Controversy and the Public Sphere: In Defence of Pluralist… 3

the claims of a university to openness and deliberative engagement?

Simply put, if a university academic dismisses her students on the basis
that she considers it her legitimate right to lecture in the language of her
choice, even though doing so would disengage them, then such an aca-
demic has put the university’s responsibility to engage one another criti-
cally, at risk. When critical debate is not constitutive of what a university
ought to be encouraging, then the downfall of the public university is
imminent. Habermas aptly states that a university that fails to ensure the
coherence of the public as a critically debating entity can be said to have
been considerably weakened (Habermas 1989: 162).
Secondly, and quite controversially, a group of academics at the
institution where I work decided to publish an article on coloured (a
racist term referred to people of colour) women’s apparently low cognitive
functioning. The ensuing fallout played out on many levels – institution-
ally in terms of ethical compliance and regulation; academically, in terms
of racial essentialism; politically, in terms of the continuing humiliation
and degradation of a historically maligned category of people, superfi-
cially referred to as “coloured”. Condemned as racist research, the outcry
from certain groups of academics was to the extent that the journal even-
tually withdrew its publication due to public pressure. In seeming uncer-
tainty, the initial response from the university was one of detachment and
disengagement – under the auspices of academic freedom. This was fol-
lowed by a response of disappointment in this type of research – an inves-
tigation to be launched immediately that would hold the academics
accountable.
When senate convened, about two months later, the university’s vice-­
rector was asked to provide an update on the promised investigation into
the research, and how the researchers were able to attain ethical clearance,
considering that pressure was mounting from inside and outside the
institution to hold the responsible academics accountable. Instead, the
vice-rector called upon the dean of the faculty where these academics are
based. He, in turn, appealed to the senate to “forgive” these colleagues
even though the case was still under investigation by the institution as it
was claimed that it is more feasible to follow such an approach than to
marginalise and even penalise the responsible academics. It would seem
that the dean’s articulation of the coloured women affair was biased
4 Y. Waghid

towards the academics, who had written the article, as opposed to a will-
ingness to bring into question the apparent disregard of ethical conduct.
Stated differently, there appeared to be a need to dismiss the incident for
fear of reputational damage to the university, rather than going to the
trouble of dealing with the pain and harm that had indeed been caused
by this article. This reminds me of Habermas’s (1989) assertion that con-
versation and discussion in the public sphere and universities are no
exception, have been prearranged and become superfluous on the basis
that critical debate has been pre-planned and engagement avoided
(Habermas 1989: 164). If a controversial university matter such as that
which deals with the humiliation of a marginalised group of women can
be side-stepped in a very organised way in the highest academic body of
the university, then it simply means that the university has not adequately
fulfilled, what Habermas refers to as “its publicist function” (Habermas
1989: 164). On what basis does university management encourage rec-
onciliation and forgiveness when the issue about demeaning other women
has not been subjected to critical-rational engagement? This only leads to
the inference that reconciliation and forgiveness are unconditional
human acts that do not require any form of argumentative substantiation
and or deliberation. I cannot imagine that a university should abandon
such an important virtue that has been endemic to its illustrious histori-
cal legacy.
Thirdly, another controversial matter that seems to raise its head every
now and then at major research-intensive universities in the country,
including the university where I work, is that of dis-invitation. In early
2019, it was heard that several Israeli academics withdrew from a confer-
ence, entitled Recognition, reparation, reconciliation: The light and shadow
of historical trauma, held at the end of 2018. The conference focused on
historical wounding and its transgenerational repercussions. As it turned
out, a contingent of Israeli scholars did not attend citing the university’s
inept manner in which it dealt with anti-Israeli activism. The university’s
management subsequently offered a public apology, but by then, Israeli
scholars were already excluded from the conference. If the Israeli scholars
were to have attended the conference at the university, it would have
sparked controversy, on the one hand, because it was felt that their pres-
ence could have enflamed emotions by a religious minority that could
 1 Controversy and the Public Sphere: In Defence of Pluralist… 5

have provoked a security risk at the institution. Yet, the organisers of the
conference’s apparent dis-invitation of the Israeli scholars curtailed delib-
erative engagement with the views of the scholars. As it is argued for
elsewhere, “dis-invitation aborts speech instantaneously. A lack of oppor-
tunity to engage with difference, even in the face of vehement onslaughts
against one’s faith, does not help in recognising one another’s humanity
because potential violent responses to difference are never desirable”
(Davids and Waghid 2019: 83).
The point I am making is that a university cannot disallow controversy
in the sense that not only does controversy offer an opportunity for “any
humane form of engagement to transpire” (Davids and Waghid 2019:
83), but it also provides the bedrock according to which the university
could enhance its credibility within the public sphere. As cogently
reminded by Habermas, when the public sphere is no longer devoted to
rational-critical debate, in this instance, about controversial issues, then
its collapse is imminent (Habermas 1989: 247). The latter is so, on the
basis that when critical public scrutiny becomes vulnerable to manipula-
tion and unquestioning decision-making, the communicative intercon-
nectedness of a public university succumbs to the exercise of negative
domination and power that excludes others and otherness. Habermas
(1989: 249) makes the point that a public university should remain one
in which many people express opinions as receive them; and that there is
always a chance for people to respond to any controversial matter in pub-
lic. Unfortunately, dis-invitation, so it seems, undermines the institu-
tional autonomy to engage openly and reflectively with all others – that
is, public deliberation would have been short-circuited, and the univer-
sity would have succumbed to what Habermas (1989: 247) refers to as
“the vortex of publicity that is staged for show or manipulation”.
The question remains: Why does a lack of rational and critical debate
in and about controversial issues enhance the collapse of the university? I
address this in the ensuing discussion.
6 Y. Waghid

 n the Significance of Critical-Rational Debate

O
to Address Controversy
Public deliberation is not just a dialogical process whereby participants
exchange reasons to resolve controversial matters or situations. In this
sense, deliberation does not just imply a form of discourse or argumenta-
tion. Following James Bohman (2000), public deliberation involves at
least three aspects of human activity. Firstly, public deliberation requires
the consensual involvement of participants whereby decisions are sub-
jected to a process of public discussion and debate without decisions
being imposed on the participants (Bohman 2000: 4). That is, when
people deliberate in public, they are moved by a willingness to deal with
controversial matters and the decisions that emanate from their delibera-
tions are the outcomes of pluralist public scrutiny. Secondly, public delib-
eration invites people to “justify their decisions and opinions by appealing
to common interests or by arguing in terms of reasons that ‘all can accept’
in public debate” (Bohman 2000: 5). Put differently, through public
deliberation, pluralist decisions ensue that are justified by convincing
public reasons. “Reasons given must primarily meet the conditions of
publicity; that is, they must be convincing to everyone” (Bohman 2000:
6). Of course, in deliberations about controversial matters, not all public
reasons are equally accepted as persuasive by everyone. So, in a way, oth-
ers might consider public reasons in a sceptical way. If not, their equal
freedoms are undermined. By implication, and thirdly, public delibera-
tion is primarily conceived “as a cooperative activity” in which reasons are
exchanged for purposes of resolving controversial issues (Bohman 2000:
27). More poignantly, public deliberation succeeds on the grounds that
participants in the cooperative, joint activity not only proffer reasons in
the public sphere. Instead, their diverse reasons result in recognised
decision-­making – that is, participants in the joint activity recognise their
pluralist contribution to, and influence on the outcomes of deliberative
decision-making, even when they agree or disagree with it (decision)
(Bohman 2000: 33).
For resolving controversial matters of public concern, the afore-­
mentioned practice of public deliberation as a cooperative activity seems
 1 Controversy and the Public Sphere: In Defence of Pluralist… 7

to be the most feasible. This is so because public deliberation is not aimed

at putting down opposing views or humiliating others’ contending views
on the basis of argumentation basis of an actual decision is acceptable
when the reasons behind it are sufficient to motivate the cooperation of
all those deliberating. In other words, decisions reached are grounded in
non-tyranny, equality, and publicity conditions (Bohman 2000: 35).
What follows from the above, is that a university that does not attempt
to resolve controversial matters on the basis of public deliberation – that
is, the willingness on the part of participants to engage, to proffer justifi-
able reasons, and jointly to cooperate in a non-tyrannical way – makes
itself vulnerable to recurring controversies. Controversies are often pro-
pelled in the public sphere because of the diverse views of the public.
Reaching consensus strictly based on deliberative argumentation might
not always be possible in complex and diverse societies. However, when
public deliberation is conceived as cooperative action, the possibility of
shared agreements in accountable and reflexive ways might just ensue. As
Bohman (2000: 55) avers, “as a joint activity, [public] deliberation pro-
duces outcomes in a non-aggregative way … [which makes] delibera-
tion … one of the many cooperative activities that demands a plural
rather than a collective or an individual agent or subject”. The point is,
controversial issues stand a better chance of being resolved if public delib-
eration unfolds in pluralist (as opposed to collectivist) decision-making
based on which shared agreements manifest in the public sphere.
In the main, what has been argued for above, is that public deliberation
seems to be the most plausible way to address and possibly resolve
controversial matters. This is so on the basis that a diverse and pluralistic
public sphere creates opportunities for people to deliberate together
without “collapsing into sheer conflict or a babble of incommensurable
voices” (Bohman 2000: 69). Likewise, public deliberation as a pluralist,
joint activity engenders new possibilities for cooperation to emerge and
to resolve deep and irreconcilable conflicts in the public sphere. A public
university that advances deliberation would be most appropriately posi-
tioned to resolve conflicts without surrendering the equality of its staff
and students; the non-tyranny of outcomes, and most of all, the publicity
of dialogical experiences.
8 Y. Waghid

 ublic Deliberation and Cultural Pluralism

P
in the University
In any public university in South Africa, emerging forms of cultural
diversity have often produced deep and troubling conflicts that have, in
many instances, escalated the institution’s stability. In all three examples
mentioned earlier – the academic who persists that it is her inalienable
right to teach in the language of her choice, the coloured women affair,
and the dis-invitation of scholars to the institution, it seems that the par-
ties were not all prepared to give in to disputes surrounding the incidents.
By this is meant that each party perceived the incidents through the lens
of their values and principles – the academic who insisted on teaching in
her language of choice considered it her right to do so; the researchers of
the coloured women affair insisted that their research was impartial and
that they did not violate the human dignity of others; and organisers of
the conference felt that they acted with conviction in the interest of other
scholars. These examples accentuate the prevalence of a plurality of points
of view that often highlight the prevalence of rival interpretations of
events. In a public university where alternative and rival points of view
are often rife, it does not augur well for institutional peace and stability
when all participants and or groups hold on to their own rational and
moral convictions. For this reason, we require a deliberative process of
reflection whereby all parties can engage with their conflicting sets of
values and beliefs and the possible construction of an alternative set of
values and beliefs.
Pursuant to the above, Bohman’s (2000: 93) notion of pluralist public
reason offers a framework whereby deeply controversial issues can be
resolved. Firstly, pluralist public reason lends itself to reaching a process
of moral compromise rather than coercion. In a moral compromise, each
party recognises the other’s moral values and standards as constitutive of
the framework of moral compromise. Reaching a compromise implies a
form of give-and-take dialogue whereby people cooperate and deliberate
with the other (Bohman 2000: 91). In a moral compromise, each party
can modify the text according to his or her values and principles, and the
result does not necessarily reduce the plurality of points of view. Although
 1 Controversy and the Public Sphere: In Defence of Pluralist… 9

not all participants will abandon their convictions, enough will find the
compromise acceptable if it fuses and modifies pluralist views that become
acceptable for contending parties (Bohman 2000: 93). Simply put, reach-
ing a moral compromise is tantamount to subjecting two conflicting sets
of values and beliefs to a deliberative process of reflection from which an
alternative set of beliefs and values are constructed.
Secondly, pluralist public reason promotes common deliberation
about conflicts and not about the collective goals of particular cultures.
That is, pluralist public reason endeavours to transform the cultural
framework of each culture through mutual criticism and interpretation
and any attempt at preserving dogmatism will be resisted by all partici-
pants (Bohman 2000: 95). In other words, pluralist public reason “pro-
motes critical reflection on one’s own culture, and open and pluralistic
public forums inevitably change the beliefs and identities of their partici-
pants as they incorporate the new reasons and novel justifications of oth-
ers”. (Bohman 2000: 95). If diverse people are not prepared to engage in
pluralist deliberation, the possibility of a moral compromise will be
unlikely. Furthermore, following Bohman (2000: 105) again, at “a time
when deep conflicts can ignite virulent nationalism and religious fanati-
cism, political liberalism cannot ignore the new challenges of cultural
pluralism to social peace and stability”.
Achieving a moral compromise in disputes is not a matter of giving in
to existing injustice, irrationality, and untruth. Rather, reaching a moral
compromise is a recognition that controversies can be resolved in collec-
tive deliberation and pluricultural frameworks of human engagement,
“which inevitably spills over into deliberation within each community”
(Bohman 2000: 95).

 owards a Conclusion: Cultivating a Practice

T
of Teaching Students to Think Controversially
Much of the afore-mentioned discussion involves making a case for a
plausible understanding of pluralist public deliberation on the grounds of
which participants can reach some moral compromise in attending to
10 Y. Waghid

controversial issues. In this concluding remark, I give an account of how

students can be initiated into a practice of pluralist public deliberation in
resolving controversial issues. One way of teaching them about the art of
pluralist public deliberation is for them to be initiated into how to think
controversially.
Douglas Yacek’s (2018) view that students be taught the psychological
condition provides a backdrop to my own claims of teaching them (stu-
dents) to think controversially. For Yacek, (2018: 84) teaching students
to think controversially has two parts: teaching them dramatic directivity
such as directing or steering them to realise a moment of suspense in the
classroom by which they can experience the excitement of discovery in
the pursuit of truth; and, teaching students exemplary directivity accord-
ing to which they engage with a teacher’s defence of a particular contro-
versial view based on the teacher’s position as a role model (Yacek 2018:
84). I agree with Yacek’s claim that students need to be taught through
raising a moment of suspense and in actually engaging with controversial
issues. However, I am less inclined to agree with Yacek’s practice of stu-
dent directivity. When students are directed or steered in a way whereby
they are encouraged to think controversially, there is also the possibility
that a teacher would guide a student towards fixation and certainty. If
students are not provoked to think for themselves about controversial
issues such as global warming and capital punishment, then the possibil-
ity exists that students might not learn how to think controversially on
their own as they are expected to rely on the guidance or directivity from
teachers. My understanding of teaching is that students should be sum-
moned to speak their minds and engage with controversial issues them-
selves – that is, their potentiality to think controversially should be
evoked. Only then, as Yacek (2018: 85) correctly posits, the “presence of
doubt” will be become part of students’ “intellectual tension” that allows
them to think controversially. And, when the “irritation of doubt” (Yacek
2018: 85) becomes part of students’ learning, the possibility is always
there that they can reach moral compromises in and about controver-
sial issues.
Of course, as aptly argued by Stanley Cavell (1979: 431), learning with
doubt – a matter of living with scepticism – implies that humans leave
open the possibility that things can be seen as otherwise. That is, in the
 1 Controversy and the Public Sphere: In Defence of Pluralist… 11

face of doubt, learning is inconclusive which means that one’s learning is

ongoing as any position one takes is tentative and always subjected to
suspicion (Cavell 1979: 440). What follows is that learning is never com-
plete, and one always engages afresh with new thoughts that lay the
ground for any kind of controversial pursuit. Put differently, engaging
with controversial matters invariably depends on being provoked by
doubt on the basis that doubt triggers the suspicion necessary to deal
with controversy.
Now to be suspicious about another person’s view on a particular
matter does not mean that one misrecognises another’s claims or even
treats another disrespectfully. Raising suspicion is a matter of bringing
into play the notion of mistrust that suggests that someone’s views are not
just dogmatically accepted as an axiomatic truth. Instead, treating
someone’s views with mistrust is aimed at raising doubts about such a
person’s views that would invariably provoke one to think much deeper
about the view with which one is confronted. In distrusting the claims of
one’s students, one recognises that what they hold dear and argue for can
be put to question, brought into doubt and perhaps disrepute. But,
equally so, when one mistrusts, it also alerts one to the possibility that
students’ claims can have some value, and by implication, their claims
can persuade one. In this sense, mistrust and, therefore, raising suspicion
or doubt, does not imply an outright rejection of someone else’s claims.
Instead, raising doubt opens one up to become more reflective and open
to the unexpected and that which might still be possible. In sum, I have
argued that public deliberation is a pluralist activity on the basis of which
shared agreements can ensue and manifest as moral compromises in the
public sphere. Although public deliberation among many people with
diverse cultures can most poignantly engage controversy, the latter can
best be realised on the grounds of invoking doubt within human
encounters. Moreover, raising doubt is tantamount to invoking suspicion
that can either persuade or dissuade.
In conclusion, raising controversy, firstly, is a human practice that
ought to feature in university pedagogical encounters. It provokes teach-
ers to question and interrogate the truth claims of their students and,
equally, it raises doubts – that is suspicions – about matters that confront
them. Yet, controversy also allows one to make better sense of the moral
12 Y. Waghid

claims of others. Secondly, embarking on controversial actions prompts

one to search for moral compromises and the basis of shared agreements
on the grounds that diverse and different claims might not always result
in acceptable agreements to all pluralities. Thirdly, through controversy,
public deliberation becomes an act of pluralistic communities according
to which they raise the possibility for shared compromises. It is through
shared moral compromises that deliberations have shown to manifest
tangibly in the public sphere.

References
Bohman, J. (2000). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cavell, S. (1979). The claim of reason: Wittgenstein, scepticism, morality and
tragedy. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davids, N., & Waghid, Y. (2019). Universities, pedagogical encounters, openness,
and free speech: Reconfiguring democratic education. Lanham/Boulder/New
York/London: Lexington Books.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry
into a category of bourgeois society. Trans. from German T. Burger and
F. Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Yacek, D. (2018). Thinking controversially: The psychological condition for
teaching controversial issues. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(1), 71–86.
 2
Reconceiving a World Around Our
Bodies: Universities, Gender-Based
Violence, and Social Justice
Nuraan Davids

Introduction
Like the student protests – captured in the hashtags of #FeesMustFall and
#RhodesMustFall – the more recent anti-gender-based violence
(#AmINext) is not a new concern at South African universities. For as
long as students, during and after apartheid, have protested for access to,
and participation in universities, female students, in particular, continue
to be at the centre of what appears to be a collision between gender and
violence. Despite its implied specificity, gender-based violence (GBV)
resides and emanates from a complex intersection of not only normative
constructions of gender, but of race, class, culture, and religion, as well as
power and education. GBV is as much a matter of violence, as it is about
access, participation, mobility, inclusion and recognition. It is as much
about the entrenchment of hegemonic norms, as it is about a need for the

N. Davids (*)
Department of Education Policy Studies, Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
e-mail: nur@sun.ac.za

© The Author(s) 2020 13

N. Davids, Y. Waghid (eds.), University Education, Controversy and Democratic
Citizenship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56985-3_2
14 N. Davids

disruption of the structures and discourses sustaining these norms. While

the focus of this chapter is on GBV in universities, its discussions and
arguments are not limited to universities.
Universities are ecologies of societies, and GBV is but one scourge
within society. To address GBV is to bring into question the societal and
social dictates that designate power to some through denigrating others.
It is apt, therefore, to follow the previous chapter that drew on Habermas’
elucidation of the public sphere, with one that draws from the work of
Nancy Fraser. Not only does Fraser (1990) call out the relegation of
women to the margins of the public sphere, but unlike Habermas (1974),
she knows that the public sphere does not guarantee access to all. She also
knows that women’s participation in the public sphere is heavily pre-
scribed. As such, and as will be discussed in this chapter, the concern of
GBV has to be conceived and tackled as an issue of social justice.

Making Sense of Gender-Based Violence

Descriptions of gender-based violence are generally understood as vio-
lence against women. Butler (in Yancy 2019), for example, describes
GBV as a masculine prerogative to define the very existence of women’s
lives, and to be dispensed of, as desired. Yet, as Bloom (2008: 14) makes
us aware, GBV involves more than a result of the normative roles and
expectations associated with each gender. GBV brings to the fore the
unequal power relationships between the genders within the context of a
specific society. It is, therefore, as important to recognise the myriad and
disturbing forms of GBV, as it is to note how normative constructions of
gender are, indeed, used as a justification for violence. Commonly, GBV
is associated with sexual harassment, physical violence, domestic vio-
lence, emotional violence, economic violence, sexual violence, and inti-
mate partner violence often conflated with femicide (Vetten 2007;
Sigsworth 2009). The increasing digitisation of our world, and especially
the world of university students, has seen a steady increase in other forms
of GBV through social media. These include location tracking, online
harassment, unauthorised dissemination of sexual images and texts, bul-
lying or harassment of sexual assault survivors, cyberstalking, the use of
 2 Reconceiving a World Around Our Bodies: Universities… 15

deception and anonymity, and shaming – particularly “slut-shaming” of

young women (Fairbairn et al. 2013).
Like violence, gender adopts various forms and enactments – many of
which are neglected concerning GBV. Gender, as Butler (1999: 5)
explains, is not always composed coherently or consistently in different
historical contexts; it intersects with social, class, ethnic, sexual and
regional modalities of discursively comprised identities. Alongside the
incorrect binary man/woman, are the associated narratives of women as
being deductively weak and powerless. Women, as the lived experiences
of LGBTQI individuals will confirm, are neither alone nor unique in
coming up against normative hegemonies that seek to impede, and at
times, expunge their identities (Valentine et al. 2009).
In recognition of the prevalence of GBV, and its determination to
eradicate it, South Africa subscribes to several policies and protocols that
include the:

• Beijing Platform for Action (BPFA) (1995);

• UN Resolution 1325 on Women;
• Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the
Rights of Women in Africa (2003);
• SADC Declaration on Gender and Development; and
• UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women and other international instruments (UN 1993)
Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR 2016).

At the university level, the “Policy Framework to address Gender-­

Based Violence in the Post-School Education and Training System”
(DHET 2019: 8) recognises that while GBV “is most often directed at
women and girls as the obvious bearers of the female and feminine,
LGBTQI individuals may also experience GBV, including on the basis of
being gender non-conforming and/or not practising heterosexuality”.
The policy framework continues that “[V]iolence may also be used to
feminise men, or undermine their masculinity, ensuring that they are not
exempt from some forms of GBV either” (DHET 2019: 8). In terms of
the policy framework (DHET 2019: 8), “GBV has thus been coined in
16 N. Davids

recognition of the ways in which gender shapes particular manifestations

of violence.”
The recent student anti-GBV protests have once again shone the spot-
light on university policies, procedures, and understandings of GBV. Despite
a recognition of the growing pervasiveness of GBV on university campuses
by South African universities, and despite a seeming prioritisation of poli-
cies and grievance procedures concerning dealing with GBV, a number of
questions and concerns remain. Firstly, universities in South Africa do not
all have policies that address GBV. Secondly, there is no overarching policy
to address GBV at universities. Thirdly, where policies on GBV do exist,
these are often not up to date with current legislation and best practice.
Fourthly, many universities lack the necessary support structures to address
and respond to cases of GBV (Adams et al. 2013; DHET 2017).
An overview of a sample of policies reveals an emphasis on sexual
harassment without a clear awareness of the inherent complexities within
constructions of violence or gender. For example, Stellenbosch University
specifies three policies that, according to the university, has a direct bear-
ing on the fight against GBV: “Policy on Unfair Discrimination and
Harassment” (applicable to staff and students) (Stellenbosch University,
2019a); “Disciplinary Code for Students of SU” (applicable to students)
(Stellenbosch University, 2019b); “Disciplinary Code for Staff Members
of SU” (applicable to staff) (Stellenbosch University, 2019c). None of
these policies provides a comprehensive definition of what is understood
by GBV. The “Sexual Offences Policy for Students” of Rhodes University,
and the University of the Free State’s “Sexual harassment, sexual miscon-
duct and sexual violence policy” neither unpacks what is understood by
GBV, nor mentions LGBTQI students or staff. Evident from these poli-
cies are generic understandings and emphasis of sexual harassment – with
limited, to scant indications of the myriad permutations shaping both
violence and gender. Furthermore, the policies are couched in a legal
framework of response and remedial action that need to be drawn upon
as required, as opposed to a discourse or ethos that ought to be cultivated
not only in institutional spaces and practices but also in academic pro-
grammes through teaching and learning encounters.
It would not be an exaggerated generalisation to state that while GBV
might differ in form, intensity, and frequency, it occurs in all university
 2 Reconceiving a World Around Our Bodies: Universities… 17

settings across geopolitical and economic contexts (Karjane et al. 2002).

In a study involving 27 institutions of higher education in America, with
responses from 150,000 students, researchers found that since enrolling,
23% of female students had experienced sexual contact involving physi-
cal harm or incapacitation, and 62% had experienced sexual harassment
(Cantor et al. 2015). More specifically, 23% of women; 6% of men; 12%
of students who identified as transgender, genderqueer or non-­
conforming, questioning, or not listed (TGQN); and 13% of students
who declined to state their gender indicated they experienced some type
of sexual violence while enrolled in college (Cantor et al. 2015).
Significantly, according to Cantor et al. (2015), while female students
were the most likely to be sexually harassed, nearly 43% of male under-
graduate students reported experiences of sexual harassment; and TGQN
students had the most reports of sexual harassment. Likewise, according
to a survey by The National Union of Students (NUS) of 2000 students,
studying in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, one in
seven female students had been a victim of serious sexual assault or seri-
ous physical violence, while 12% had been stalked (NUS 2010, cited in
Anitha and Lewis 2018: 3). And, in Northern Nigeria, more than half of
the 300 female students, who participated in a study, reported experienc-
ing one or more forms of GBV (Iliyasu et al. 2011).
Following the above, it would appear that the pervasiveness of GBV is
only surpassed by reports that it is the most under-reported crime across
universities in different contexts. The issue of under-reporting demands
serious consideration since it raises questions and concerns not only
about the nature and impact of GBV, but about university climates and
protocols that might not facilitate or support clear and unhindered
reporting policies and procedures. I will address each of these concerns in
the ensuing discussions.

GBV: Disguised and (Il)legitimised as Culture

The reasons why GBV is perpetrated are complex and intricate – no more
so, because they are often locked in deep social and patriarchal construc-
tions and posturing. Patriarchy, explains hooks (2004: 1), is expressed in
18 N. Davids

a way that holds up maleness as central, as opposed to femaleness that is

deemed as subordinate. Patriarchy, she continues, endows men with “the
right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that domi-
nance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence”
(hooks 2004: 1). This centrality is evident in male domination, whereby
males occupy the most important and visible roles while women who
hold these positions are expected to subscribe to male norms (hooks
2004). This power dynamic is as widespread in society, as it is in univer-
sity spaces.
The very notion of violence being predicated by a social construction
such as gender should raise questions that extend beyond reductive
understandings of violence, aggression and violence. At play here are
norms and narratives of power, and more specifically, what Foucault
(1997: 291) refers to as “relations of power”. To Foucault (1997: 292),
human relationships, whether they involve verbal communication, amo-
rous, institutional, or economic relationships, are always influenced by
power – that is, one individual is always controlling another. Where an
individual is perceived, or constructed to be less than, or at another’s
disposal – that is, an object or thing – the potential to “wreak boundless
and limitless violence” exists (Foucault 1997: 292), as is evident in GBV.
Power, states Foucault (1990: 93), is everywhere, “not because it
embraces everything but because it comes from everything”. Power exists
in “regimes of truth” – that is, in the knowledge that is true and right,
between that which matters and not (Foucault 1991). There is, in sum, a
superficially constructed patriarchal prototype that not only dictates how
men and women ought to behave, but determines access, participation,
and recognition. Power exists in all relationships: between friends, super-
visors, lecturers, students, and within university structures. Jackson
(2019) cites the example of academic conferences – regarded by academ-
ics as a significant space for the advancement of scholarship, professional
development, and the establishment of communities of practice. To
Jackson (2019), conferences are discursive spaces that do not allow for
equal entry or participation; instead, academics enter into and experience
professional environments differently according to culture, gender, race,
ethnicity, class, and more. Historically, continues Jackson (2019), aca-
demia has been white and male. As a result, “many academic societies
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The Love That Prevailed
By F. Frankfort Moore
Author of

"A Trial Marriage,"

"The Jessamy Bride," etc.

1 vol. 12 mo. cloth, gilt, illustrated

"F. Frankfort Moore, author of 'The Jessamy Bride' and many
other pleasing stories, has taken John Wesley as the leading
character in his latest romance, 'The Love That Prevailed.' The
evangelist is portrayed in connection with a group of Cornish
villagers. He actually loses his heart to the Dolly Varden of the
neighborhood, but, his unswerving sense of honor controlling him,
the more exalted love of Truth to which he has dedicated his life is
the love that prevails. But the sensational matter in the story is the
commotion caused by a distraught disciple of the revivalist foretelling
the immediate end of the world. Upon the day he has set for the
cataclysm the elements seem to aid and abet him. His manner of
self-destruction at the stormy crisis is adequately awful. The minor
characters are drawn well, particularly the fox-hunting parson who
tells Wesley he has done great mischief with his Methodism; that
before he came the parishioners were very comfortable—'Sir, there
was not a man of my flock who knew that he had a soul. There was
a healthy condition of things for you!'"—N. Y. Globe.

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES
Obvious typographical errors have been silently changed. Inconsistent
hyphenation has been corrected.
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MASTER
CRIMINAL ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you

derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works
calculated using the method you already use to calculate
your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to
donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each
date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments
should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address
specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user

who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of
receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full
 Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a
user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use
of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full

refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement
copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and
reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
 Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.