SU Council will consider Wilgenhof Residence submissions next week
THE future of the controversial Stellenbosch University (SU) Wilgenhof Residence will soon be known as the institution's Council is expected to deliberate on submissions next week.
“Council will consider the submissions made regarding Wilgenhof at its scheduled meeting on Monday, September 16. It is council's prerogative to disclose details on the submissions after considering these at the scheduled meeting and will advise further in due course,” said SU spokesperson Martin Viljoen.
Council, the highest-decision making body at the university, opted to open a public participation process in June inviting all interested, affected persons and stakeholders to submit written representations on issues that the closure or non-closure of Wilgenhof would raise and that would need to be considered.
An extensive debate ensued following the university's Rectorate unanimously agreeing on the closure of Wilgenhof.
The official submissions on the future of the residence closed on July 31.
The rector's additional recommendation was that the building should be retained as an upgraded residence.
At the heart of the matter is a scathing 151-page report dated June 10 recommending the residence be permanently closed over two secret rooms that were found at Wilgenhof.
According to the report, a number of experts and key staff members of SU conveyed the strong view to the panel that Wilgenhof as an institution is irremediable.
“Wilgenhof is seen, especially by black staff and students, as a beacon of SU's troubled and racist history rather than a symbol of change and progress. They see the continued existence of Wilgenhof as an indication of the university's refusal to take transformation and change seriously. The panel was consequently confronted with the views of diverse stakeholders of the university who unanimously seek the closure of Wilgenhof as the only viable option,” the report read.
The panel also received the views of current Wilgenhof residents who were against the action, stating the closure would be a mistake as the residence was “misunderstood”. They made a number of suggestions, including changing its name.