Many Canadian university students didn't like being told to get vaccinated in order to attend campus, during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the end, few fought it, however.Not so in the Republic of South Africa, where resisters went to court and are winning — sort of.In late 2021, multiple universities across the RSA stated that as of 2022, students and staff would require COVID-19 vaccines to access campuses. This followed the introduction of government regulations allowing employers to require proof of vaccination from employees.However Nathan Pillay, a PhD student at Stellenbosch University, didn't agree and decided to do something about it.He began by raising awareness among students and staff at Stellenbosch. He was soon being approached by worried students from other universities around South Africa. With this growing support, he and colleague Marc Leitao established the Universities Alliance (UA), to defending the rights of university stakeholders.Currently, UA has a membership base of 600 students and academic staff across nine universities, as well as 3,000 followers on Telegram.UA has campaigned against mandates through providing advice to students and staff and by pressuring universities that enforce mandates with the threat of legal action.While North-West and Stellenbosch University dropped their policies for fear of litigation, as they could no longer uphold its legality, the University of the Free State (UFS) forced students to wear masks and present proof of vaccination or take PCR tests.In July 2022, the UFS suspended its mandate policy with the intention of using it again in the future, without addressing the harm the policy had done in the previous seven months and without removing the policy completely.UA subsequently launched a case against UFS in November 2022, which the university tried to settle out of court — evidently hoping that it could pay to make the episode disappear.The financial support of its members sustained UA throughout the court case, while UFS was able to draw on unlimited taxpayer funds to support its defence.When UA refused to accept the settlement, UFS dragged its feet and failed to file its papers according to the stipulated deadline. UA had to subsequently request assistance from the provincial Judge President in order to push the case forward.The case went ahead in late 2023. UFS attempted to prevent the recording of the court proceedings but was unsuccessful.Although the judgement recognized that the evidence given by UA against UFS was sound, the final ruling was moot — the court ruled that since UFS’s policy is not active, it does not present a problem.This, despite the fact UFS has declared its intention to reinstate the policy in future and that it has no proof of having ever sought professional medical advice before implementing its mandatory vaccination policy. The policy itself was also undermined with several legal discrepancies. The policy was also enforced three months after the national state of disaster in South Africa had ended.The university’s policy included creating separate entrances for vaccinated and unvaccinated students and staff, who also faced the loss of income, access to education and invasion of their privacy.Many students at UFS are economically disadvantaged, and the price of PCR tests, which can amount to R500 per test, were beyond their means. Such measures would effectively exclude thousands of students from earning a qualification, denying them their rights to bodily autonomy and education.The case against UFS is the only legal battle being fought against COVID mandates in South Africa. It is very likely that the ruling was made to prevent UFS from having to pay compensation to students and staff. It is also likely that vaccine mandate policies will be used in future and that the courts want to protect universities and businesses against further lawsuits.Almost all universities in Canada established mandates in late 2021 and some of these policies were only lifted last year. It seems that when it comes to the unwillingness of institutions to concede the possibility that they overreacted to COVID-19, it's the same the whole world over.Both Canadians and South Africans are now painfully aware of the potential in institutions of higher education to deny their students and staff basic rights, under the guise of promoting somebody's idea of the greater good.A university education?Certainly, an education in universities...Kate Steinke is a graduate of Stellenbosch University. She comments from South Africa on political themes that are all too familiar in Canada
Many Canadian university students didn't like being told to get vaccinated in order to attend campus, during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the end, few fought it, however.Not so in the Republic of South Africa, where resisters went to court and are winning — sort of.In late 2021, multiple universities across the RSA stated that as of 2022, students and staff would require COVID-19 vaccines to access campuses. This followed the introduction of government regulations allowing employers to require proof of vaccination from employees.However Nathan Pillay, a PhD student at Stellenbosch University, didn't agree and decided to do something about it.He began by raising awareness among students and staff at Stellenbosch. He was soon being approached by worried students from other universities around South Africa. With this growing support, he and colleague Marc Leitao established the Universities Alliance (UA), to defending the rights of university stakeholders.Currently, UA has a membership base of 600 students and academic staff across nine universities, as well as 3,000 followers on Telegram.UA has campaigned against mandates through providing advice to students and staff and by pressuring universities that enforce mandates with the threat of legal action.While North-West and Stellenbosch University dropped their policies for fear of litigation, as they could no longer uphold its legality, the University of the Free State (UFS) forced students to wear masks and present proof of vaccination or take PCR tests.In July 2022, the UFS suspended its mandate policy with the intention of using it again in the future, without addressing the harm the policy had done in the previous seven months and without removing the policy completely.UA subsequently launched a case against UFS in November 2022, which the university tried to settle out of court — evidently hoping that it could pay to make the episode disappear.The financial support of its members sustained UA throughout the court case, while UFS was able to draw on unlimited taxpayer funds to support its defence.When UA refused to accept the settlement, UFS dragged its feet and failed to file its papers according to the stipulated deadline. UA had to subsequently request assistance from the provincial Judge President in order to push the case forward.The case went ahead in late 2023. UFS attempted to prevent the recording of the court proceedings but was unsuccessful.Although the judgement recognized that the evidence given by UA against UFS was sound, the final ruling was moot — the court ruled that since UFS’s policy is not active, it does not present a problem.This, despite the fact UFS has declared its intention to reinstate the policy in future and that it has no proof of having ever sought professional medical advice before implementing its mandatory vaccination policy. The policy itself was also undermined with several legal discrepancies. The policy was also enforced three months after the national state of disaster in South Africa had ended.The university’s policy included creating separate entrances for vaccinated and unvaccinated students and staff, who also faced the loss of income, access to education and invasion of their privacy.Many students at UFS are economically disadvantaged, and the price of PCR tests, which can amount to R500 per test, were beyond their means. Such measures would effectively exclude thousands of students from earning a qualification, denying them their rights to bodily autonomy and education.The case against UFS is the only legal battle being fought against COVID mandates in South Africa. It is very likely that the ruling was made to prevent UFS from having to pay compensation to students and staff. It is also likely that vaccine mandate policies will be used in future and that the courts want to protect universities and businesses against further lawsuits.Almost all universities in Canada established mandates in late 2021 and some of these policies were only lifted last year. It seems that when it comes to the unwillingness of institutions to concede the possibility that they overreacted to COVID-19, it's the same the whole world over.Both Canadians and South Africans are now painfully aware of the potential in institutions of higher education to deny their students and staff basic rights, under the guise of promoting somebody's idea of the greater good.A university education?Certainly, an education in universities...Kate Steinke is a graduate of Stellenbosch University. She comments from South Africa on political themes that are all too familiar in Canada
