Yellow peril
Sir: I break a long-standing resolution — never again to write a 'letter to the editor' — to comment upon the not-so-recent contributions by John Vaizey and others on Liberalism, Liberals, and South Africa: this because I have waited, so far in vain, for what I consider to be the most called-for comment. The defenders of liberalism have, of course, rushed to the defence — not unnaturally, in my mousy opinion. That was only to be expected when what Mr Vaizey seemed to expect of them, in America, South Africa and elsewhere, was so obviously contrary to the principles for which they stand. I was, however, a bit surprised and disappointed at the contributions of my colleagues, Ruan Maud and Markus Arkin, who have failed to point out that, in so far as there are any facts, either explicitly stated or implied, in Vaizey's article, they are quite wildly wrong, and imply quite massive reserves of ignorance on, for instance, the financial condition of this university, and the facts concerning a recent series of incidents involving the students of this university and the university of Port Elizabeth: events which no qne here deemed to be of more than very fleeting and very local significance: Yet Mr Vaizey says he came here to satisfy his curiosity. Well I never !
I used to admire the confidence and the virtuosity of palaeontologists who, given a fossil tooth, will reconstruct for you a detailed picture of the whole animal. Well, good old John displays equal virtuosity when, after a visit to be measured in hours rather than in days, and a very limited number of contacts, he summarily dismisses the university as ' the worst in the English-speaking world.' Such perception, such confidence and accuracy of judgement! But the tooth from which he confidently assembles the moral stature and status of the university could hardly be more bogus: and as the series of incidents upon which he bases his condemnation concerns the students, I feel that the facts of the case should be stated, so that proper judgements can be made by those who are sufficiently unprejudiced to make them. There are fair numbers of Chinese students at this university, where they live in residences, participate in academic, cultural,
social and sporting activities exactly like all the others, expecting and getting no more and no less special treatment than students from this university expect, or get, at Oxford. (It would be interesting to discover where Vaizey got the material for this particular smear — unless, perhaps, he is mixing up student3 from Rhodes University with Rhodes Scholars: a possibility, in view of his gift for getting it wrong: as the actress said to the bishop, nothing surprises me nowadays.) The relevant facts are that early this year the annual inter-varsity with the University of Port Elizabeth was being arranged, in which many teams from several different sports are involved, and the Rhodes Athletic Union was informed that, though Port Elizabeth wa3 willing to play against a Rhodes team that had Chinese
players (the Chinese here are nrominent in basketball as well as ping-pong), they would not accept them at the social events of the evening. (There was some reason to think that this decision had less than majority support from the PE students, but had been 'wished upon them' from higher up the university hierarchy.) This development initiated a series of general meetings at Rhodes, not to discuss the propriety or impropriety of social contacts with the Chinese, but to achieve a decision as to what would be the most fitting reaction from Rhodes University. Some were in favour of cutting out the fixtures in which Chinese students were involved: some favoured retaining the sporting fixtures but cutting out the social finale entirely for everyone, to save the Chinese students from the embarrassing social discrimination: but what was carried in the end was a motion to cancel the whole arrangement: and that is what happened. I submit that this is not even remotely implied in what John Vaizey has written and I hope that, while he is permitted to think that this justifies his condemnation of the university as the worst in the English-speaking world, the majority of your readers will deem his judgment to have been somewhat hasty and ill-founded.
(And, not that it matters, but why did he think the so-called sandwich worth a mention? To discredit the vaunted hospitality of Afrikaaners? Or was he just a bit peeved at finding himself apparently classified as suitable for the marmite treatment, rather than the caviare or pâté de foie gras? Or is it perhaps nothing more than a matter of differences in definition: it may well be that, for him, anything involving marmite is necessarily to be referred to as a sandwich, just as, if a woman has something on her head on a social occasion, it must necessarily be referred to as a hat, even if it is in fact a typewriter.) And, just to finish: one commentator — name of Clarke, if I
referredremember t wc oh rer what c Mr yr V—a z feuyl wrote ey
as "perceptive." In my home district, in Argyll, when the crude yokels were overcome with indignation, amazement — and contempt — they had an expression that I reserve for Mr Clarke, though it is not irrelevant to Mr Vaizey also. It is Christ Albloody Mighty.'
Dan M. Morton Department of Education, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Republic of South Africa
Previous page
