������Ƶ

By Ronald J. Turner 
Executive Vice President Emeritus
University of Missouri

The historic link between the University of ������Ƶand the University of the Western Cape originated in 1986, a time of turbulence and conflict for universities in South African and for the country as a whole. South Africa’s political, social and economic future was oppressed by the forces of apartheid, and the international cultural, economic and academic boycott guided institutional decisions on both sides of the Atlantic. The likelihood that a strong and enduring link would be conceived and would take root between a historically disadvantaged South African university and an American university seemed remote, if not impossible, under the circumstances. The time was not right for envisioning a model international academic exchange program between UWC and any other university on the planet. UWC was under close surveillance by the South African government; it was under resourced as a matter of national policy; its students and faculty members were persecuted for their participation in efforts to end apartheid; UWC’s reputation as a source of extra-parliamentary opposition was well established; its leaders were the architects of the intellectual foundation on which a new non-racial democracy in South Africa would ultimately rest. In short, UWC was in the vanguard of the political, social and educational transformation that would become the hallmark of South Africa in the last decade of the 20th century. UWC, through the heroic sacrifice of its students, faculty, leaders, alumni, and supporters, came to represent the ideals of academic freedom, civic engagement and social progress that are often voiced and less often realized. UWC also had the courage, in the midst of the turmoil of the 1980’s, to open its community to include colleagues from a university in the heartland of America.

Today, after 20 years of close cooperation between UM and UWC, the University of ������Ƶcommunity holds the highest regard for its South African sister university and its example of courage and commitment to social and educational advancement. The lessons lived by colleagues at UWC during the dark days of apartheid and its position at the dawning of the post-apartheid era are a source of enormous pride and confirmation for the University of Missouri; these are lessons that will be long remembered when the role of the university in building opportunity and hope for future generations is called to question.

The UM/UWC relationship began in conflict on the ������Ƶside as well. The Board of Curators of the University of ������Ƶwas under intense pressure to divest its retirement and endowment funds from U.S. corporations doing business in South Africa in the mid-1980’s as divestment gained momentum in the U.S. As a result of this pressure, the Board of Curators approved UM President C. Peter Magrath’s call in 1985 for the appointment of a Special Task Force to review UM investment policy and to make recommendations for the Board’s consideration. The UM Task Force held hearings across the State of ������Ƶand presented recommendations calling for divestment. The Task Force, however, went beyond its divestment recommendation; it proposed, and President Magrath and the Board of Curators agreed, that, if the University of ������Ƶwere truly interested in the future of South Africa, UM should do what it does best; namely, UM should seek to build an academic link with an “appropriate” South African university. The Curators approved this policy in December 1985, and President Magrath appointed the UM South African Educational Program (UMSAEP) Committee in early 1986. He called upon C. Brice Ratchford, President Emeritus of the UM System, to chair the committee, and Magrath assigned me as his Special Assistant to staff the committee.

The UMSAEP committee was comprised of two representatives from each of the four UM campuses. President Magrath also allocated funds to support the work of the committee. In early 1986, after consultation with the South African observer mission to the United Nations, Rev. Leon Sullivan’s group, foundations and corporations, UMSAEP concluded that the most likely candidate among South African universities for a link with UM would be the University of the Western Cape. UMSAEP was convinced that UWC was the one South African university with the potential to operate in a post-apartheid environment. This potential was evident in UWC’s history of opposition to apartheid and the strength of its leadership.

UWC’s Rector Richard van Der Ross accepted an offer in April 1986 by UM to send a delegation of four, including UMSAEP members Henry Mitchell, Otis Jackson, Peter Etzkorn and myself to South Africa to explore the possibility of a formal inter-institutional link. After two weeks at UWC, the UMSAEP delegation was called to a meeting by the Rector’s Executive Council. Professor van Der Ross said, “We have had a long train of American educators come to visit; they have tea, offer to help and we never hear from them again. I think there is something different about Missouri; first, you sent four delegates; second you stayed here for two weeks and tried to get to know us; you did not fly about the country. I think we can work with Missouri.”

On the strength of Professor van Der Ross’s decision, the ������Ƶdelegation returned to ������Ƶand prepared a formal memorandum of academic cooperation. This historic agreement was signed by UM President C. Peter Magrath and UWC Rector-Designate Jakes Gerwel in Columbia, ������Ƶin June 1986. This memorandum holds the distinction of being the first formal link between American and South African universities.

From that point the debate focused on how the UWC link with ������Ƶcould be implemented under the boycott supported by the United Democratic Front and the international community. Professor Gerwel appointed Professor Owen van Den Berg to convene the UWC Rector’s Committee on Missouri. This UWC Committee was renamed the Rector’s Committee on International Relations and ultimately became the UWC Senate International Relations Committee. The strong contribution of UWC Professor van Den Berg in the debate over the link with ������Ƶis most significant. He and the Rector’s Committee organized open meetings with the entire UWC community to consider the UM link, and he was instrumental in organizing meetings at which ������Ƶrepresentatives made presentations related to Missouri’s motivations and expectations growing from the Gerwel-Magrath agreement. In one such mass meeting at UWC, I made a presentation on Missouri’s international affiliations in other parts of the world and our interest in exploring cooperation with UWC. During the lengthy question/answer period, a faculty member stood in the back of the UWC lecture hall, pointed his finger at me and asked, “Whose side are you on, the ANC’s side or the South African government’s side?” I replied, “I am on UWC’s side.”

After consultation with the UDF and other anti-apartheid organizations in 1986 and 1987, and in large measure due to the leadership of Professor Gerwel, the UM-UWC link was deemed acceptable under the boycott because UWC established its distance from the apartheid government and identified directly and immediately with the people of South Africa.

The UM-UWC link was also vetted by the first visitors to ������Ƶfrom UWC, Professors Brian O’Connell and Wally Morrow. Their critical observations were shared with the UWC committee, and their assessment of the UM motivations was important in helping shape UWC policy at the very outset.

Looking back from the vantage point of 20 years, it is remarkable to see the results of principled leadership on both sides. The results could not have been predicted at the beginning. The linkage was awarded federal funding by the USIA’s University Affiliations Program beginning in 1987. This was the first award granted to support linkage between American and South African universities. The link was selected as a model program of international academic exchange by the Institute for International Education. It earned support from the Kellogg Foundation to prepare UWC proposals to the Foundation in the late 1980’s. It secured follow up funding from USIA to support faculty exchange. It competed and succeeded in receiving a major Tertiary Education Linkage Program grant from USAID. It was funded by ALO to create an academic leadership program and innovative curriculum in nursing. It supported joint design and development of IT based curriculum materials and case studies in health professions. It organized summer schools in law and earth science. It enabled hundreds of professors from both universities to engage in joint research and instruction programs with direct benefits to students on both sides. It opened student exchange and student leadership opportunities for both South African and ������Ƶstudents. It was selected, after rigorous international scientific competition, for a multi-year, multi-million-dollar research award from the National Institute of Health to establish an International Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine. In short, the success of the UM-UWC link can be measured in the growth of faculty, students and institutions both in South Africa and in Missouri. It is a remarkable story of international cooperation, and it is widely recognized as a model academic exchange program.

What factors contributed to the first 20 years of success in this linkage? First, the program was based on institutional policy at the Curators level in ������Ƶand at the Senate level at UWC. The program also benefited from the commitment of the executive leadership at both institutions. The institutional committees on both sides were and are absolutely key to the real work of the linkage. Faculty members at ������Ƶand UWC became engaged in the program from the outset, and they remain enthusiastically and productively engaged after 20 years. The program was founded on principles of mutual respect, and all program decisions were made jointly by the institutional committees and staff. In this regard, the effort has truly been a team effort. The program produced significant outcomes in faculty development, student development and institutional development based firmly on research, instruction, and community service.

In our first meeting with the Director of USIS in Cape Town in 1986, we were warned in no uncertain terms, “If you don’t want trouble, don’t come to South Africa!”

Years later, the USAID Mission Director in Pretoria met with another team of four from UM and Professor Jan Persens from UWC. He said, “Oh, I see it is 4 and 1.”

Without a moment’s hesitation, Professor Persens replied, “No, it is 5 and 0.”

Professor Persens’ reply captures the spirit of cooperation that marks the first 20 years of the UM/UWC link. It is a link consistent with the following quotation from the “Glion Declaration” that outlines a vision for universities in the 21st century and reflects principles to guide the UM/UWC link in the future.

In its institutional life and its professional activities, the university must reaffirm that integrity is the requirement, excellence the standard, rationality the means, community the context, civility the attitude, openness the relationship and responsibility the obligation upon which its own existence and the existence of knowledge itself depend.” The Glion Declaration, 1999, p. 10.

The UM/UWC link is grounded in these principles, and its future success will depend on honoring each of these values as we look to the future.

Finally, I want to salute the hundreds of colleagues at UWC and ������Ƶfor their contributions and dedication to the creation and advancement of this important program. Without the sacrifice and commitment of faculty and students willing to bring their unique talent and insight to such a venture, it surely would have failed. Thanks to them, it did not fail, and a model of international academic cooperation that is worthy of the best of both institutions has emerged and will endure.

The 20th Anniversary of the UM/UWC program is compelling testimony to the fact that the academy stood at the crossroads dividing oppression and freedom, fear and hope, progress and regression and did so with insight, courage and dedication. This is a celebration of collegiality across thousands of miles, across cultures, and barriers to access and advancement. It is a celebration of goodwill, mutual trust and institutional capacity to open new vistas for student and faculty growth. It is a lesson in endurance and hard work. It is, at the core, a confirmation of the power of universities to succeed against the odds for the benefit of current and future generations.