I’ll make my point at some undetermined future date. I couldn’t be said to have missed the point because I haven’t made my point as yet. I don't have a solution to the problem but merely observations.
I support the fees must fall protest. I don’t support infringing the rights of others, destruction of university property and violent approaches to a real problem.
The ‘fees must fall,’ protest is yet another implosion in our capitalistic economic system. The reasons why it seems that solutions can’t be found to free tertiary education, is because the solution seekers are looking in the wrong places for solutions, misinterpreting the Constitution of 1996 and presenting a problem statement namely free tertiary education for everyone, which has no sustainable, feasible and readily available solution which can be implemented immediately.
The problem lies with the economic system we have in South Africa, namely a capitalistic economic system. In this economic system we have unlimited needs with limited resources.
If we had socialism as an economic system, then free tertiary education for everyone would be a reality. That said, a compromise needs to be reached within our current capitalistic economic system.
I support free quality, decolonized higher education for academically deserving poor students. I cannot with good conscience support free tertiary education for the rich. We live in an unequal society with a class struggle. Free tertiary education for academically deserving poor students will break this class struggle.
The government has already conceded that it is willing to support free tertiary education for academically deserving poor students, so there’s no need whatsoever for any constitutional court battles. I would think that this would appease the vast majority of university students. From the on-going protests, it doesn’t seem to appease academically deserving poor students. My question is why? Please help me to understand
“The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people, and must be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.” John Adams 1787
“Universal compulsory school attendance. Free instruction.” The former exists even in Germany, the second in Switzerland and in the United States in the case of elementary schools. If in some states of the latter country higher education institutions are also “free”, that only means in fact defraying the cost of education of the upper classes from the general tax receipts.” Karl Marx 1875
Karl Marx would not accept a situation of free tertiary education for everyone, as this would not contribute to ending a class struggle. If you look closely at ‘Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875,’ you will infer that Karl Marx would support free tertiary education for students from working class families.
Change in socio-economic inequalities is much needed. I support change that benefits the poor of South Africa.
Even from the grave, this is what Karl Marx has to say.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” 1845
These words are inscribed on his tombstone.
There is one other philosopher that I respect. John Rawls was a Harvard University Professor. He lectured for some 40 years. In 1971, he published a book entitled ‘A theory of justice.’ Rawls asks a simple question: What is the fair way to cut a cake? I’m going to modify/simplify Rawls cake analogy. The cake is tertiary education. What is the fair way to cut and distribute this tertiary education cake?
Is it fair to give a large slice of this education cake to individuals who can afford to pay for tertiary education?
Rawls would say that the fair distribution of tertiary education is that it must be to the benefit of everyone and if this is not possible that it must be to the economic benefit of the poorest individuals in South Africa.
I’m aware that this is an over simplification of Rawls. I’m also aware, that I’ve excluded many other components in his philosophy.
Photo[1]
“According to the difference principle, it is justifiable only if the difference in expectation is to the advantage of the representative man who is worse off.” [1]
[2]
I know there is a passionate professor of legal philosophy out there, who can explain these graphs in simple terms. An explanation with specific regard to the distribution of tertiary education as a ‘primary good,’ would be most appreciated? What I'm asking for for for someone to modify Rawls 'Cake,' where the cake for cutting and distribution is tertiary education.
Rawls difference principle can be reconciled with section 9(2) of the Constitution of 1996 which allows for unequal treatment where such treatment benefits previously disadvantaged individuals.
Section 9(2) of the Constitution of 1996 provides
Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
[1] Rawls J A theory of justice (Harvard University Press 1971) 68.
[2] Rawls J A theory of justice (Harvard University Press 1971) 66-67.
[1] https://www.google.co.za/search?q=ka...PpMpVTHyXkM%3A
Reply With Quote
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.