The untold moral dilemmas of student political life (2)
What you need to know:
- Mandela writes: During that year, I was nominated to stand for the Student Representative Council, which was the highest student organization at Fort Hare. I did not know at the time that the events surrounding a student election would create difficulties that would change the course of my life.
Last two weeks I began by sharing an historical account from Ambassador Mwapachu of a major moral question that had arisen whilst he was a student at the University of Dar. Today I turn to the former president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela (pictured), from his experience at Fort Hare University.
Mandela writes: During that year, I was nominated to stand for the Student Representative Council, which was the highest student organization at Fort Hare. I did not know at the time that the events surrounding a student election would create difficulties that would change the course of my life.
The SRC elections were held in the final term of the year, while we were in the midst of examination preparations.
According to the Fort Hare constitution, the entire student body elected the six members of the SRC. Shortly before the election, a meeting of all students was held to discuss problems and voice our grievances. The students unanimously felt that the diet at Fort Hare was unsatisfactory and that the powers of the SRC needed to be increased so that it would be more than a rubber stamp of the administration.
I agreed with both motions, and when a majority of students voted to boycott the elections unless the authorities accepted our demands, I voted with them.
Shortly after this meeting, the scheduled voting took place. The lion’s share of students boycotted the election, but twenty-five students, about one-fifth of the student body, showed up and elected six representatives, one of whom was myself. That same day, the six of us elected in absentia met to discuss the events. We unanimously decided to tender our resignations on the grounds that we supported the boycott and did not enjoy the support of the majority of the students.
We then drafted a letter, which we handed to Dr Kerr.
But Dr Kerr was clever. He accepted our resignations and then announced that new elections were to be held the next day in the dining hall at supper time.
This would ensure that all the students would be present and that there would be no excuse that the SRC did not have the support of the entire student community. That evening the election was held, as the principal ordered, but only the same twenty-five voted, returning the same six SRC members. It would seem we were back where we started.
Only this time when the six of us met to consider our position, the voting was very different.
My five colleagues held to the technical view that we had been elected at a meeting in which all students were present and therefore we could no longer argue that we did not represent the student body. The five believed we should now accept office.
I countered that nothing in fact had changed; while all the students had been there, a majority of them had not voted, and it would be morally incorrect to say that we enjoyed their confidence.
Since our initial goal was to boycott the election, an action that had the confidence of the student body, our duty was still to abide by that resolution, and not be deterred by some trickery on the part of the principal.
Unable to persuade my colleagues, I resigned for the second time, the only one of the six to do so.
The following day I was called in to see the principal. Dr Kerr, a graduate of Edinburgh University, was virtually the founder of Fort Hare and was a greatly respected man. He calmly reviewed the events of the past few days and then asked me to reconsider my decision to resign. I told him I could not.
He told to me to sleep on it and and give him my final decision the following day. He did warn me, however, that he could not allow his students to act responsibly, and he said that if I insisted on resigning, he would be compelled to expel me from Fort Hare.
I was shaken by what he had said. I spent a restless night. I had never had to make such a consequential decision before.
That evening, I consulted with my friend and mentor, K.D., who felt that as a matter of principle I was correct to resign, and should not capitulate. I think at that time I feared K.D. even more than I did Dr. Kerr. I thanked K.D. and returned to my room.
Even though I thought what I was doing was morally correct, I was still uncertain as to whether it was the correct course. Was I sabotaging my academic career over an abstract moral principle that mattered very little? I found it difficult to swallow the idea that I would sacrifice what I regarded as my obligation to the students for my own selfish interests. I had taken a stand, and I did not want to appear to be a fraud in the eyes of of my fellow students. At the same time, I did not want to throw away my career at Fort Hare.
I was in a state of indecision when I reached Dr. Kerr’s office the next morning. It was only when he asked me if I had reached a decision, that I actually made up my mind. I told him that I had and that I could not in good conscience serve on the SRC. Dr. Kerr seemed a bit taken aback by my response. He thought for a moment or two before speaking. “Very well,” he said. “It is your decision, of course. But I have also given the matter some thought, and I propose to you the following: you may return to Fort Hare next year provided you join the SRC. You have all summer to consider it, Mr Mandela.”
To be continued.