top of page

Student Press

Their fruit and power

"The great censorship debate"

Their fruit and power

Voice 

From pilot in 1995 to now

What did you choose?

The fruits of a radicalised political consciousness was evident in the student press. Fears arose from Vice-Chancellor Henderson that student press would possibly provoke the government after an offensive passage which defamed a warden slipped through the printers of a Rhodeo edition. In 1982 - 1983 Rhodes was embroiled in a domestic debate over censorship of Rhodeo that mimicked the government's restriction of freedom. The move attracted the attention of the campus because of the political role student press was playing in South Africa. 

HEADLINES

Controversies hadnerupted over threats to the freedom of student press at Rhodes.

 

Co-editor of Rhodeo and journalism student, Alan Williams, excused the offensive mistake as technical error and an accident of bad management, but in December 1982 Senate decided to tighten censorship and reinstate the compulsory submission of all Rhodeo copy to an advisory board before publication.  The Senate's motion was passed by 43 votes to 8 [i]. 

​

This advisory board consisted of Prof. Staude for Business Administration, Prof. Fivaz from African Languages and Mr Haydock from the Law Department. All three members admitted to having no experience in the media and no specialist experience in the media and no specialist experience in press law or the law of defamation. 

Although there had been a voluntary advisory board for student press in the past, which consisted of Prof. Gavin Stewart and Mr John Grogan from the Journalism department, previous editors weren't forced to submit to it and it appears to have been there simply for advice if the students needed it. Stewart and Grogan both resigned from the position on the board when it became compulsory. Stewart publicly stated that he considered the compulsory submission of copy to be "censorship" [ii]. 

​

As a response to the imposition of censorship, the first quarter of 1983 was full of swift and opposing reaction from students; holding mass meetings, a vigil and a vigorous campaign against Senate's imposition of censorship and calling for the dissolution of the advisory board. 

At a Senate meeting on 8 April 1983 no less than 38 members stated their wish to review their decision for compulsory submission. At the request and motivation of the student body, Senate, in an unprecedented move, allowed Alan Williams to address them. Williams presented Senate with a petition signed by about 820 students and stated the unfortunate consequences of censorship. 

​

A debate followed that split Senate - with particular opposition coming from Dr Henderson's pro-censorship position [iii]. 

​

But, the anti-censorship vote won on the footing that it was reflecting the actions of the government's restriction of freedom and Senate resolved that if Rhodes was to be a truly liberal university, as it presented itself, it was imperative to allow freedom of the student press. 

After three months of intense campaigning by Rhodeo staff, the SRC and concerned staff against censorship, the Senate decision to abolish the compulsory advisory board was seen as an outright victory for freedom of the student press; emphasizing the power of student protest and the need for greater representation in the university's decision-making processes.  

Share your stories of student press

Student Press

SOURCES 

 

i / RU-S, Cory Library, Senate XXXVII, MS 19 316/5, p. 7, 13 December 1982, min. 82.104. 

​

ii / "Rhodeo", Rhodeo, 13 April 1983 p. 2

​

iii / Greyling, S. A. 2007. Rhodes University During the Segregation and Apartheid Eras, 1933 - 1990. Master of Arts of Rhodes University thesis. p. 134. 

​

​

bottom of page