As a public figure, you are not entitled to an opinion. At least, not one that doesn’t conform to the established thinking (such that it is) – rational thought or reason be damned. And if you should dare to disagree with said mob mentality, prepare to be branded a racist – at best – or demonised for taking a stance that’s supposedly on par with wife beaters, terrorists, poachers and mass murderers, at worst.
It’s a lesson that Unathi Msengana learnt through something akin to an old-school public lynching this week, due to her stance on Stellenbosch University’s language policy.
The musician, Metro FM radio presenter and Idols judge has been declared persona non grata, following an on-air debate on Monday, which saw her tackle listeners who felt Stellie’s position as a mainly Afrikaans medium university is discriminatory to black students. (Said debate was spurred on the back of a documentary, Luister, featuring 32 Stellies’ undergraduates, regarding issues of alleged racism.)
The main spark of ignition that inflamed this conflagration of disapproval?
Unathi’s response to one caller in particular – who, incidentally, isn’t even registered at the ’varsity in question – that, surely, black learners must have known Afrikaans was the primary language of education, prior to enrolling at the institution…
A fair assertion, one would think. After all, if any learner felt strongly that the language of instruction would be a barrier to their education, why enlist at that particular university in the first place? Especially when one considers there are two other credible, predominantly English-medium (the universal lingua franca) tertiary institutions a stone’s throw away from Stellenbosch.
And that’s not to speak of the fact that, if one is to adopt this approach, then what of white students who aren’t fluent in Afrikaans either? Or, conversely, students of colour who actually are – well-liked local celebrity, Elana Afrika, who is an alumna of Stellenbosch, being a case in point?
However, the debate (probably more aptly described as an all-out verbal brawl by this stage), spilt over into the Twittersphere, with the mudslinging even generating its own trending hashtag, #UnathiBeLike and comments along the lines of @artofkawaii’s:
“Unathi and co were basically saying what white people say to black kids all the time, ‘you don’t like it, go back to the township’”.
(Yes, because that very sweeping statement about white folk isn’t racist at all, nor insulting to black people in and of itself, in so far as it suggests they’re all struggling, inerudite township-dwellers, right?)
At the risk of being branded a devil’s advocate, perhaps her approach to the matter could have been more diplomatically handled, precisely because of her position as a well-known personality. After all, it’s certainly not the first time Unathi has been in the line of fire for what has previously been deemed her “unsavoury”, “rude” and “sarcastic” comments.
But that should in no way detract from the key question at the core of the issue, which is, simply put: where do we draw the line? When do we stop using racism interchangeably with reasonable argument, simply to suit intolerant agendas?
For therein lies the crux of any credible discussion around issues of democracy and discrimination:If you expect your language/ preferences/way of life to be respected and upheld, then you in turn must be willing to respect and uphold these same rights of others, without imposing your own.
After all, as a popularised variation of the now famous phrase from American judicial philosopher and civil libertarian, Zechariah Chafee, denotes: “One person’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins…”
LARA DE MATOS
TONIGHT EDITOR
@Lara_de_Matos