17-year-old learner has been suspended from school
By Nompendulo Ngubane
9 June 2017 Pietermaritzburg Girls’ High School parents accompanied
by members of Cosatu and Nehawu outside the school on Thursday following
a racists rant by a learner went viral on social media. Photo:
Nompendulo Ngubane
A
racist rant by a Grade 11 learner at the Pietermaritzburg Girls’ High
School which went viral on social media this week has sparked widespread
outrage. Some parents accompanied by members of Cosatu and Nehawu
protested outside the school on Thursday.
The 17-year-old white learner, whose identity is known to GroundUp,
is heard using the “K” word while referring to black learners after they
allegedly misspelt her name. In a voice note, which has been making its
rounds in a WhatsApp group since Sunday, the learner is heard using the
“K” word twice.
She has since been suspended from school, but was allowed to write
her exams at the Department of Education’s regional office. On Thursday,
a learner attending the protest who asked not to be named said that her
name has two dots on one of its letters. “After she realised her name
was misspelled, she got angry and called black students by the ‘K’ word.
The voice note went viral on Sunday and it got other students and
parents angry.”
Parent protesting outside the school demanded that the school resolve the matter.
A parent, who asked not to be named, said, “We are devastated about
how the school is handling the matter so far. The students are not told
anything. Instead they are told to stop whining. This child is taking us
back to what our forefathers fought for. The school must fix this. We
can’t stand racism and no one deserves it.”
The Department of Education spokesperson Muzi Mahlambi said that the
Department had taken steps in a bid to avoid incidents of this nature
from recurring.
“The student will be suspended while the matter is being
investigated. If the student is found out to be at fault, the school and
the Department will take further steps. We cannot ignore such
behaviour,” said Mahlambi.
Nehawu regional secretary Zamisile Giyane said that since the incident, the school has increased security.
“All we want is for them to fix this as this school has heavy weight
in Pietermaritzburg. We respected this school so they have to clean up
this mess. We will fight this until something is done,” said Giyane.
In a statement, the school’s governing body “condemned in the strongest terms” the racist language used by the learner.
“We are attending to the matter with the urgency and importance it
deserves. We cannot confirm the identity of the party involved as she is
a minor. Please respect this … The acting principal, a departmental
official and the School Governing Body chairman have addressed all
learners and staff at the school, to make it clear that action is being
taken. The correct procedures and disciplinary actions are being
followed. We do not tolerate racism,” it read.
Published originally on
GroundUp
.
As protests, demonstrations and clashes escalate across the world, global discontent seems to be reaching levels not seen since the fallout of the 2008-2009 financial meltdown.
What is driving this wave of popular mobilisation?
Well, inequality, at least in part. When national hopes are raised by new national opportunities and then, in certain sectors of society, dashed by ongoing structural inequality, we see popular protest break out.
Both countries have highly entrenched inequality, with class, ethnicity, and skin colour defining from birth the opportunities available to their citizens. According to the World Bank, Colombia and South Africa are among the top 10% of the world’s least equal countries.
They are also both in the midst of profound national transitions, with South Africa trying to move beyond the apartheid era and Colombia seeking peace after half a century of armed conflict.
This is a relatively new phenomenon for the country. Though Colombia saw its share of protests in the 1960s, the emergence of armed violence over the following decades stifled further citizen mobilisation.
Generally speaking, violence muffles and trumps moderate voices. Thanks to Colombia’s 50-year internal conflict, voices and movements not aligned with either the state or the guerrillas were weak throughout the latter half of the 20th century.
That has changed since the government demobilised Colombia’s paramilitaries in 2006 (a process that, some argue, remains incomplete) and, in late 2016, signed a peace deal with FARC guerrillas.
Today, that great limiting factor that prevented the state from realising its promises to citizens – armed conflict – has disappeared. Gone, too, are Colombians’ fear of reprisal, and their patience for the government’s inability to meet their most basic needs.
Take the city of Buenaventura as an example. For the past three weeks, this very poor port city has seen non-stop protests and a general strike, as Afro-descendants and indigenous residents renounced the discrepancy between the development of large, foreign-funded infrastructure projects and the fact that essentials, such as potable water and basic health care, remain scarce.
Buenaventura also has high levels of crime, including assassinations of citizens by armed groups, and an official unemployment rate of 18% (the national average is 8.9%).
The indignation and frustration of citizens toward the government is at least in part a response to a history of opportunism, corruption, armed violence and racial and economic inequality in Buenaventura – itself a legacy of weak institutions in Colombia’s interior regions – which has not improved with the arrival of peace.
Buenaventura is a striking case of state abandonment, but it is not alone: across the country, Afro-descendants and indigenous populations are subjected to such treatment.
Even as a recent agreement ended the protests in Buenaventura with the government promising to invest US$150 million in the community, a national strike by teachers all but shut down Colombia’s cities earlier this week. Popular discontent cannot be resolved in a day.
Signing of the Buenaventura agreement. Jorge Idárraga, Author provided
Apartheid, the legally enforced regime of racial separation, subjected more than 80% of the country’s population to systematic oppression for four decades. Black and mixed-race citizens regained their legal rights in 1994, but inequalities still run deep in South African society.
These recent uprisings are often referred to as “service delivery protests”, meaning that they seek to reclaim the promises of the country’s 1996 constitution regarding health, unemployment, education, roads, sanitation and housing.
But they are also driven by outrage at the state’s inability to tackle South Africa’s existing – and widening – inequalities. Most of the protests invoke the failed promise of the “rainbow nation”, which vowed to deliver a post-racial and equal society. Instead, South Africans find themselves with the remnants of a myth that has failed to deliver all the promises made: racism, poverty, opportunities and deep inequalities persist.
Frustrated aspirations
The marches taking place in Colombia and South Africa, like those in Morocco, Brazil, the Philippines, Hungary and the United States, share a key feature. They all reflect the contestation of power and citizen demand that the state fulfil the promises enshrined in the constitution.
Inequality gives fuel to this discontent, because where it is salient, social mobility is an empty promise. When citizens are – or feel – disenfranchised by virtue of their race, class, gender or geography, and they perceive an unacceptable gap between their constitutionally guaranteed rights and the real-world realisation of these rights, they get frustrated.
In polities that are in transition, such frustrations may or may not overlap with unhappiness about inadequate or failing state capacity. Effectively moving beyond apartheid and building peace are huge challenges that require not just inspirational rhetoric but a real commitment from governments. In both Colombia and South Africa, the perception that governments are coming up short will continue to dash citizens’ expectations of a better future.
Anger over truncated social mobility can be heightened by cultural globalisation. Today, the aspirations of individuals whose dreams would once have been largely limited to what they observed around them are shaped by global exposure and access.
In this sense, globalisation has been a positive force. It has supported the emergence of the indigenous rights movement, women’s rights, transnational activism and the growth of the human rights, political and environmental frameworks.
Globalisation has, in some cases, also made repression less likely, due to state obligations under international human rights treaties. With increasing integration into the globalised community, the unease and frustration of disenfranchised citizens is likely to increase.
The future of protest
If Colombia or South Africa fail to discern the ways in which inequality is driving citizens to protest and effectively respond to that discontent (as Colombia promised to do in Buenaventura), confidence in state institutions and the state itself will decrease.
That’s a recipe for more protest and, potentially, an escalation of violence.
History reminds us that groups denied adequate, institutionalised democratic participation can come to see the state as illegitimate, leading to revolt. The Syrian civil war came in the wake of protests against the Assad regime’s failure to provide water.
Prevalent inequality also damages trust and social cohesion, making unified national progress nearly impossible. If South Africa hopes to maintain its belief in a post-racial society, and if Colombia is to actually achieve reconciliation, it’s time to start truly tackling inequality.
How are U.S. presidents and FBI directors supposed to communicate?
A new FBI director has recently been nominated, former Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray. He will certainly be thinking carefully about this question as he awaits confirmation.
Former FBI Director James Comey’s relationship with President Donald Trump was strained at best. Comey was concerned that Trump had approached him on nine different occasions in two months. In his testimony to Congress, Comey stated that under President Barack Obama, he had spoken with the president only twice in three years.
Comey expressed concern about this to colleagues, and tried to distance himself from the president. He tried to tell Trump the proper procedures for communicating with the FBI. These policies have been enmeshed in Justice Department guidelines. And for good reason.
FBI historians like myself know that, since the 1970s, bureau directors try to maintain a discrete distance from the president. This tradition grew out of reforms that followed the often questionable behavior of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who served from 1924 to 1972.
Over this long period, Hoover’s relationships with six different presidents often became dangerously close, crossing ethical and legal lines. This history can help us understand Comey’s concerns about Trump and help put his testimony into larger context.
As the nation’s chief law enforcement arm, the FBI today is tasked with three main responsibilities: investigating violations of federal law, pursuing counterterrorism cases and disrupting the work of foreign intelligence operatives. Anything beyond these raises serious ethical questions.
From FDR to Nixon
When Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1933, Hoover worked hard to develop a close working relationship with the president. Roosevelt helped promote Hoover’s crime control program and expand FBI authority. Hoover grew the FBI from a small, relatively limited agency into a large and influential one. He then provided the president with information on his critics, and even some foreign intelligence, all while ingratiating himself with FDR to retain his job.
Hoover found President Dwight Eisenhower to be an ideological ally with an interest in expanding FBI surveillance. This led to increased FBI use of illegal microphones and wiretaps. The president looked the other way as the FBI carried out its sometimes questionable investigations.
But when John F. Kennedy became president in 1961, Hoover’s relationship with the president faced a challenge. JFK’s brother, Robert Kennedy, was made attorney general. Given JFK’s close relationship with his brother, Hoover could no longer bypass his boss and deal directly with the president, as he so often did in the past. Not seeing eye to eye with the Kennedys, Hoover cut back on volunteering political intelligence reports to the White House. Instead, he only responded to requests, while collecting information on JFK’s extramarital affairs.
By contrast, President Lyndon Johnson had a voracious appetite for FBI political intelligence reports. Under his presidency, the FBI became a direct vehicle for servicing the president’s political interests. LBJ issued an executive order exempting Hoover from mandatory retirement at the time, when the FBI director reached age 70. Owing his job to LBJ, Hoover designated a top FBI official, FBI Assistant Director Cartha “Deke” DeLoach, as the official FBI liaison to the president.
The FBI monitored the Democratic National Convention at LBJ’s request. When Johnson’s aide, Walter Jenkins, was caught soliciting gay sex in a YMCA, Deke DeLoach worked directly with the president in dealing with the backlash.
One might think that when Richard Nixon ascended to the presidency in 1968, he would have found an ally in Hoover, given their shared anti-Communism. Hoover continued to provide a wealth of political intelligence to Nixon through a formal program called INLET. However, Hoover also felt vulnerable given intensified public protest due to the Vietnam War and public focus on his actions at the FBI.
Hoover held back in using intrusive surveillance such as wiretaps, microphones and break-ins as he had in the past. He resisted Nixon’s attempts to centralize intelligence coordination in the White House, especially when Nixon asked that the FBI use intrusive surveillance to find White House leaks. Not satisfied, the Nixon administration created its own leak-stopping unit: the White House plumbers – which ended in the Watergate scandal.
Not until after Hoover’s death did Americans learn of his abuses of authority. Reform followed.
In 1976, Congress mandated a 10-year term for FBI directors. The Justice Department later issued guidelines on how the FBI director was to deal with the White House and the president, and how to conduct investigations. These guidelines have been reaffirmed, revised and reissued by subsequent attorneys general, most recently in 2009. The guidelines state, for example: “Initial communications between the Department and the White House concerning pending or contemplated criminal investigations or cases will involve only the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.”
These rules were intended to ensure the integrity of criminal investigations, avoid political influence and protect both the Justice Department and president. If Trump attempted to bypass these guidelines and woo Comey, that would represent a potentially dangerous return to the past.
Accusations of theft and assault against eviction squad in Ivory Park
By Andrew Bennie and Moeketsi Monaheng
9 June 2017 Scorched earth after the violent evictions at Ivory Park. Photo: Nyoni Mazibuko
On Monday 22 May, the Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department (EMPD)
and the Red Ant Security Relocation and Eviction Services (commonly
referred to as the Red Ants) arrived to demolish a few hundred new homes
erected on a piece of land dividing Ward 133 of Ivory Park and Tembisa
townships.
According to Chief Superintendent Wilfred Kgasago, the Department of
Human Settlements requested the EMPD to attend to the land occupation
and erection of illegal structures. Residents claim that by the end of
the day a number of people had been assaulted by the Red Ants. They also
claim belongings were stolen, and one person was so badly injured that
he died five days later.
The following week, on 31 May, members of Samuel Mabunda’s family sat
outside the shack where he had lived in the crowded Mantolo settlement
in Extension 7 of Ivory Park.
His family members say he left his shack at 8am as usual to go to the
business that he ran out of a small tin structure next to the Swazi Inn
shopping centre, cutting hair and repairing shoes. The 40-year-old from
Mozambique had been running this business in Ivory Park since 1997. He
used the money he earned to support his wife and two young children in
Mozambique and, together with his older brother, supported an extended
family network. He had nothing to do with the land occupation, but after
seeing people running and hearing the commotion, he went to see what
was happening.
It is not clear how he got involved, but community members say that
he was running away from the Red Ants when he fell. They claim that when
they reached him, members of the Red Ants started beating him. They say
that when they made attempts to rescue him, they would get shot at with
rubber bullets. It was only after about 15 minutes of him lying and
bleeding on the ground that they were able to reach him and carry him on
a wooden board to a car to be taken to the hospital. He was in theatre
twice during the week.
When the family went to visit him on the Saturday, they found his bed
closed off with curtains. Staff informed them that he had passed away
after succumbing to his injuries. His brother says these included gashes
to the head, a sliced-open stomach, and a bullet wound through his left
side. (GroundUp is not in a position to confirm this description yet
because we have not seen an autopsy report.)
A case of murder has been opened at the Ivory Park police station and
is being referred to the Independent Police Complaints Directorate
(IPID) in order to investigate the role of the EMPD in Mabunda’s death.
The EMPD’s Wilfred Kgasago says the City of Ekurhuleni is continuing
its own investigations as well and that “the City of Ekurhuleni regrets
the loss of any life no matter the circumstances.” A land occupier shows wounds he says were inflicted by
members of the Red Ants with a crowbar after they pursued and cornered
him. Photo: Andrew Bennie
Violent eviction
Bordering on Tembisa, Ivory Park is a growing township of over
180,000 residents. It was established in 1990 to accommodate shack
dwellers from Alexandra township and those who had occupied land in
Tembisa.
In December 2016, local EFF members started organising to occupy a
long narrow stretch of land between Tembisa and Extension 7 of Ivory
Park which runs under Eskom pylons.
But a split soon developed in January 2017, and non-EFF members moved
further down the strip. They organised a list of land seekers and a
registry system for demarcating small land parcels, extending the
occupied land area from Extension 7 through to Extension 10, next to the
Swazi Inn shopping centre. They called this new section Extension 4.
The land occupiers claim they were left alone by the Red Ants until now.
Land occupiers say that by the time the EMPD and Red Ants arrived on
the morning of 22 May to demolish the erected structures, 202 structures
were still being constructed, 398 had been completed, and 25 had been
moved into, along with belongings, according to their register.
According to residents, nine Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department
vehicles arrived at about 8am and told them that they should remove
their belongings from their shacks and demolish them as the Red Ants
would be arriving later in the day to remove all structures. (The EMPD
has confirmed that residents were only told this on the day.)
Residents refused, saying that many people were at work and so had
not been given a chance to demolish their shacks and remove their
belongings, and that another date should be negotiated for the removal
of the structures. In protest, land occupiers sat down on the ground.
According to the land occupiers, the Red Ants arrived at about 11am
and rubber bullets were immediately fired at the sitting residents.
Chaos broke out as people fled. They blew whistles to call land
occupiers from nearby to join the defence of the settlement. (The EMPD
has confirmed that rubber bullets and tear gas were used.)
Land occupiers say they tried to stop the Red Ants by throwing rocks at them to defend their structures and the belongings.
“We were trying to stop them … We wanted two weeks at least so we can
find another place to go, but they didn’t listen to our cries. They
came with a full force,” says Mduduzi, a young man of 23 who has been
living with his mother in a rented backyard room in Extension 7 of Ivory
Park.
He showed GroundUp gashes on his shaved head and fresh wounds on his torso.
Mduduzi says, “I want my own things, my own house. That’s all I want in my life.”
Lebo, who recently moved into her shack with her two-year-old child,
was at work at the time of the evictions. “I heard on the phone that
they are messing our houses.”
When she got home, she found the doors she had chained were open.
“All my stuff was messed up inside. I tried to pick up documents like my
ID, drivers licence, my child’s birth certificate, but I couldn’t
because they [Red Ants] were coming, running and beating us, so I left
everything and ran away so I could save my life. Because they didn’t
want to talk or to tell us take your stuff and move. They were just
attacking us.”
Mugged by Red Ants
This is when the battle began. Residents claim that live ammunition was used, but the EMPD denies this.
The Red Ants chased people into adjacent streets where they fled into people’s yards and homes.
Zelda, who lives on a street near the land occupation, says that she
came home to find the window of the shack she rents in a backyard
smashed, the roof caved in, and part of one side ripped away. She was
told by a neighbour that the Red Ants had tried to get to a land
occupier who had fallen through the roof.
The neighbour said the Red Ants demanded cellphones and that they eventually made off with her cellphone chargers.
Siyamtanda said she had just taken her morning bath when her mother
told her what was happening. She went to the gate to take a look. Young
men entered their yard for cover and continued throwing stones. The Red
Ants charged and forced their way in.
“They started doing a body search of me and touched my private parts,
demanding money and cellphones and they eventually assaulted me with
the crowbar,” she said.
After dismantling the structures, the Red Ants burned the wooden poles and frames.
The Red Ants are a private security and eviction company, often hired
by the cities of Ekurhuleni and Johannesburg to undertake evictions.
The company has not responded to repeated requests for comments on the
allegations.
Organisers say that they ferried 21 injured people to the Tembisa
Provincial Hospital in two Toyota Venture taxis that their owners had
made available. According to the hospital, only three people were
admitted for treatment. The hospital also confirmed the passing of one
patient and said that the other two were put in ICU.
Samuel Mabunda’s family are dealing with the grief of losing a loved
one, trying to figure out how to raise the thousands of rands needed to
purchase a coffin and transport his body to his waiting wife and
children in Mozambique, and hoping that legal justice will prevail.
“They were supposed to come just to demolish the shacks, but not to
kill. So our wish is that the law must take its course and the people
who killed Samuel must answer to their actions,” says his brother
Published originally on
GroundUp
.
David Goldblatt and Breyten Breytenbach condemn “censorship”
By Natalie Pertsovsky
9 June 2017 Protesters on UCT carry artworks to be burnt in February 2016. Photo: Ashleigh Furlong
In addition to a list of 75 art works removed by the University of Cape Town (UCT), GroundUp has now obtained a list of artworks destroyed
in the Shackville protests last year and a list of works deemed to be
problematic by student representatives on the Artworks Task Team (ATT)
in 2015. The list was obtained from the university via a PAIA request
(Promotion of Access to Information Act) submitted by William Daniels, a
UCT staff member.
Various artists, including David Goldblatt, Willie Bester, and Breyten Breytenbach, have criticised UCT’s response to student pressure to remove statues, busts, and other works of art from campus.
“In September of last year I wrote to Max Price and said that I
wished to revoke my contract with the university,” said Goldblatt, a
world renowned photographer whose work exposed the oppression of
apartheid. Goldblatt’s decision to remove his collection of photographs
from the Libraries Special Collections, a centre that he helped to
establish, came after “the throwing of shit onto Cecil John Rhodes’
sculpture… following that the burning of over 20 paintings and the
burning, in particular of two photographs by Molly Blackburn.” Blackburn
was an anti-apartheid activist who died in a motor vehicle accident
that some suspect was caused by the apartheid government.
Goldblatt said that the events signaled a new tide in the development
of anti-democratic thought in today’s youth. “Differences are settled
by talk. You don’t threaten with guns. You don’t threaten with fists.
You don’t burn. You don’t destroy. You talk. These actions of the
students are the antithesis of democratic action,” he said.
“For me, the essential issue was that [the university] was in breach
of my freedom of expression. I couldn’t leave my work there… to leave my
work there would be to endorse that policy,” said Goldblatt.
Breyten Breytenbach, whose Hovering Dog is on the list of
works identified as unacceptable by students on the task team, has had
three paintings removed and put into indefinite storage by the
university.
Breytenbach wrote to GroundUp: “I fully support the decision of David
Goldblatt and others to withdraw / remove / take back / take elsewhere
(preferably out of the country altogether) whatever material or artworks
they may have had at UCT, or were kept in custodianship by the
university.”
He said: “If I could do the same, I’d do so.”
Unlike Goldblatt, Breytenbach’s works are part of the Hans Porer
Collection at UCT. “None of these parties – collector, owner, executor
or executioner – bothered to even have the simple decency of informing
me,” he added.
One of the main concerns for both artists is what they call the
university’s disregard for the protection of the freedom of expression
guaranteed to all South Africans under the Constitution.
“The freedom of expression means the freedom of expression. You are
free to express. And if you don’t have that, you don’t have freedom of
expression,” said Goldblatt. “We do have laws in this country that allow
the censoring of work if it’s regarded as being harmful in some
particular way.”
Goldblatt insists that the university’s actions differ from the
curatorship that takes place in museums around the world. Rather, he
says that the administration is blatantly censoring selected works.
“It’s different fundamentally [from curatorship] because they did so
selectively. They selected certain works. Now, to select certain works
is to censor. You cannot do this selectively; either you do this to all
of them or none of them.”
He thinks UCT’s actions are dangerous. “At the end of the day, if
this kind of attitude persists in the university, what will they do when
a group of students come to the archive of photographs and say: ‘You’ve
got photos there of Muslims. We’re not prepared to tolerate that. No
Muslims, no Jews, or the Anglicans, or people with green eyes’,” said
Goldblatt.
“But, if I’m a painter and I choose to show Jacob Zuma with his penis
showing, then the question arises – am I to be censored for that?” he
asked.
“I strongly urge all South African artists, researchers, recorders of
public life etc., and as well those of foreign origin whose products
may end up at South African universities, even if inadvertently so, to
make absolutely sure your work is not allowed to be acquired, loaned or
otherwise used by South African universities,” Breytenbach wrote to
GroundUp. “You have no chance of it (the work) being seen for what it is
intended to be, no guarantee it will survive the orgies of destruction
these institutions foster and no responsibility or accountability (let
alone preservation) will be forthcoming from the ethically and
aesthetically spineless but oh so glib ‘collaborators’ running the
universities.”
UCT reply
We sent UCT the quotes by Goldblatt and Breytenbach and asked for the
institution’s response. We were sent the same statement written by
Vice-Chancellor Max Price in response to Professor Belinda Bozzoli, previously published on GroundUp.
List submitted to the University by the Artworks Task Team in 2015
The descriptions are by the students who objected to the works.
GroundUp has added the artist and title of the work. (All images
republished as fair use.) Oppenheimer Library:
1. Hovering Dog by Breyten Breytenbach (Student description: Portrait of white man with black woman on his lap having sexual intercourse)
2. Saartjie Baartman by Willie Bester
3. A Passerby by Zwelethu Mthethwa (Student description:
Black woman sitting on a rock with three children with her all in their
underwear in a plastic basin with an impoverished surrounding) Otto Beit Building:
4. Pasiphaë by Diane Victor (Student description: Portrait of a bull inside it is a black man with his genitals exposed) Photo: Ashleigh FurlongKramer:
5. Dialogue at the Dogwatch by David Brown (Student description: A number of sculptures depicting black men with their genitals exposed) Installation of one of the Dialogue at the Dogwatch pieces at UCT. Photo from David J. Brown’s website.
6. Unknown (Student description: Black people with HIV) Hoerikwaggo:
7. Similar to the sculptures on the Kramer lawn by David Brown Chemical Engineering Building:
8. A township scene by Vusi Khumalo (Student description: Portrait of poor black people) EGS Building:
9. Courtyard outside tea room probably by David Brown (Student description: black man with genitals exposed) Michaelis:
10. Dayaba Usman with the monkey clear, Nigeria by Pieter Hugo. (Student description: Black boy sitting next to a monkey made to replicate the monkey) Photo from Artnet.
List of works destroyed in protests
1. James Eddie, Portrait of Mrs Joan Gie
2. Carli Hare, Portrait of Sue Folb
3. Harriet Fuller Knight, Portrait of Dr Rosemary Exner
4. Edward Roworth, Portrait of Mrs Barnard-Fuller
5. Edward Roworth, Portrait of Mrs Doris Spencer Emmet
6. Edward Roworth, Portrait of Mrs Anna Maria Tugwell
7. Roeleen Ryall, Portrait of Mrs Arlene van der Walt
8. Roeleen Ryall, Portrait of Mrs Rosemary Taylor
9. Rupert Shephard, Portrait of Mrs Marie Lydia Grant
10. Bernard Hailstone, Portrait of Harry Frederick Oppenheimer (1908-2000)
11. Neville Lewis, Portrait of Albert van de Sandt Centlivres (1887-1966)
12. Edward Roworth, Portrait of Jan Christiaan Smuts (1870-1950)
13. John Wheatley, Portrait of Edward, Prince of Wales
14. Richard Keresemose Baholo, Graduation Day
15. Richard Keresemose Baholo, Extinguished Torch of Academic Freedom
16. Richard Keresemose Baholo, Release Our Leaders
17. Richard Keresemose Baholo, Rekindling the torch of Academic Freedom
18. Richard Keresemose Baholo, The girl witch
19. Kirsten Lilford, Intimacy
20. Nina Romm, Twee Jocks and a Lady
21. Robert Broadley, Portrait of Prof Theodore Le Roux
22. Stanley Eppel, Portrait of Prof Owen Lewis
23. John Wheatley, Portrait of Prof Alexander Brown
24. Molly Blackburn Collages (not identified by UCT, but confirmed)
Published originally on
GroundUp
.
Prevalent inequality also damages trust and social cohesion, making unified national progress nearly impossible. If South Africa hopes to maintain its belief in a post-racial society, and if Colombia is to actually achieve reconciliation, it’s time to start truly tackling inequality.
These rules were intended to ensure the integrity of criminal investigations, avoid political influence and protect both the Justice Department and president. If Trump attempted to bypass these guidelines and woo Comey, that would represent a potentially dangerous return to the past.
