Stellenbosch University has withdrawn and promised to reissue an internship advertisement after facing severe criticism from political parties for explicitly excluding white applicants.
The controversy centers on a job posting for two junior research assistants within the Department of Agronomy (Faculty of AgriSciences). According to the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), the advertisement stipulated that “only black, coloured, Indian, or Chinese South African citizens… will be considered.”
Political Condemnation
Both the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the FF+ slammed the advertisement, describing it as “dehumanizing” and a form of “racially-engineered” exclusion.
- The FF+ Stance: Dr. Wynand Boshoff noted that the ad omitted standard legal phrasing such as “preference will be given to previously disadvantaged candidates.” He argued that the wording suggested the positions would rather remain vacant than be filled by a white applicant.
- The DA Stance: Jan de Villiers, the DA’s National Spokesperson, warned that treating South Africans as demographic categories rather than individuals is a “dangerous strategy.”“Whether the target is to give opportunity to white, black, Indian, or coloured citizens, the principle is the same: no one should be reduced to a quota, and no opportunity should be denied to someone based solely on their race,” said de Villiers.
The University’s Response
Stellenbosch University media manager Martin Viljoen confirmed that the advertisement had been redacted. He attributed the error to external funding stipulations but acknowledged that the wording violated the university’s own protocols.
- The Context: The internship is part of a government program designed to broaden participation from designated groups in agricultural sciences.
- The Funder: The external funder explicitly indicated a preference for candidates from specific racial groups.
- The Error: Viljoen admitted that while the funder had preferences, the university failed to frame these preferences in a way that aligned with South African law. “This was not done in this case,” Viljoen stated.
Legal Context: Affirmative Action vs. Unfair Discrimination
The incident highlights the fine legal line between lawful affirmative action and unlawful exclusion under South African law.
The Employment Equity Act The Act prohibits unfair discrimination directly or indirectly against an employee on grounds including race, gender, and culture. However, it does allow for affirmative action measures consistent with the purpose of employment equity.
- Why the ad was non-compliant: By stating that only specific races would be considered, the ad created an absolute barrier to entry for a specific racial group, which constitutes direct discrimination.
- ** The Correction:** The reissued advertisement will be phrased to reflect affirmative action preferences rather than explicit exclusion, ensuring compliance with the Constitution and the Employment Equity Act.
Stellenbosch University reiterated its commitment to fostering an inclusive environment where all prospective applicants are treated fairly, despite the DA’s counter-argument that universities “should not bend on principles to the whims of those with money.”
