Justificación de los resultados

Firstly, I invited my doctoral student from Malawi to teach our postgraduate students who were to become teachers in public schools the following year. He taught them ‘Diversity and Inclusivity in Education’, one of twelve modules for a Postgraduate Certificate in Education programme. At first, I started off as a co-teacher with him, but after that he taught the class entirely on his own. Because almost 50% of the class of about ninety students were Afrikaans-speaking, it was extremely difficult for him to connect with all students in their mother tongue. So, I decided to join him occasionally only to clarify concepts in Afrikaans. However, he did most of the teaching and also marked the English-speaking students’ assignments, tests and examinations. Some of the students actually started to complain to me about him, in particular (according to them) about his seemingly inadequate teaching style, lack of communicative skills (in Afrikaans) and inability to clarify difficult concepts. Although some of these concerns were legitimate, especially the language issue, I found it hard to believe that he was a bad teacher, especially given the time he took to prepare his lectures and the discussions we had before lectures on the concepts related to multiculturalism, deliberative democracy and diversity. Consequently, he requested students to communicate with him (in English) via email correspondence. Quite surprisingly, many students did, but there were also some students who preferred to communicate directly with me. In the end, these students completed assignments, wrote tests and examinations and performed considerably well. I think what was at play here was that, initially, most students did not accept my student as someone who had the right to be a participant in the same university classroom, on the grounds that he came from a neighbouring country

86

EDUCATION, DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP REVISITED

and that he did not share a common language of communication with some students. Also, it seems as if some students were unwilling to be taught by one whom they considered to be a ‘stranger’. It could also be that some (a very small minority of students) might even have projected xenophobic attitudes.8 _{I specifically remember his encounter with one}

particular student, who unjustifiably accused him of never being available after lectures, yet he was the one person in our department who was always at hand to talk to students. However, as the situation turned out, especially after many students had recorded good marks in their assignments, the students realised that he was not going to ‘disappear’ and that he had a legitimate right to teach them. In my view, educating for cosmopolitanism involves making students recognise and accept that those whom they consider as ‘outside strangers’ have the right to participate in a university classroom and that we (South African students and teachers) do not have sole proprietorship of pedagogical spaces.

Secondly, for this particular course our mode of teaching involved deliberation. We gave an account of why we included topics such as democratic citizenship, diversity and multiculturalism,9 _{and, in turn,}

students could give an account of why they thought it necessary or not to discuss these topics in relation to their own understanding and experiences. In the first instance, students had to read texts and make analytical summaries and presentations to the class. The idea was that students would feel free to articulate their views in an atmosphere of mutual trust. They could relax their boundaries without being concerned that others would 8 Recently in South Africa, there have been several xenophobic assaults on refugees: Firstly, fourteen

Rwandese school children from the Bon Esperance refugee shelter in Philippi were tied up and assaulted on their return from school; and secondly, a Burundian refugee, who works in the country as a security guard, was stabbed in the head. He later dropped charges against his attacker. Currently 35,000 asylum seekers live in the Cape metropole alone.

9 The rationale for this course is to introduce students to pertinent theoretical concepts on deliberative democracy, citizenship, cosmopolitanism and universal justice, with the aim, firstly, to make sense of what it means to integrate discussions on democracy, social justice, equality, non-racism and non-sexism, ubuntu (human dignity), an open society, accountability (responsibility), the rule of law, respect, and reconciliation into the public school curriculum – all values related to the Department of Education’s Manifesto on Values, Education and Democracy (2001); and secondly, to introduce students to discussions about genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, in particular by examining how educating for democratic citizenship and cosmopolitanism can minimise and eradicate such crimes.

CHAPTER 5 • Cosmopolitanism through democratic citizenship education

dismiss their interpretations. Although some students felt insecure about their presentations and did not want to be criticised by their peers, the majority of them accepted that, if their interpretations were indefensible, they would concede or even attempt to produce more persuasive arguments in defence of their views. I want to relate a specific incident that sparked much heated debate and controversy. During a discussion about the political uncertainty in Zimbabwe, most students agreed that the crisis in Zimbabwe can be attributed to the dictatorial regime of its president and felt that the opposition is being instigated by outside forces who want to see the demise of Robert Mugabe. However, one coloured student argued that the only way one could achieve political justice in Zimbabwe is for Mugabe to continue to confiscate white farmers’ land and that the same should happen in South Africa. This statement immediately led to a lot of disagreement and even resentment of the student’s claim about what ought to happen in South Africa. In line with the process of deliberative engagement, it was not my task to limit debate, but rather to facilitate argumentation, which I did. But then a white student remarked: ‘Africa is ruled by blacks and look at the political turmoil on the continent.’ This statement brought about a turning point in deliberations. Although students felt free to express themselves, some felt that controversy should be avoided. I thought that controversy should be encouraged and asked students to produce counter-arguments to this statement. For a while belligerence and distress dominated our deliberations, until one white student convinced others that the statement was an expression of injustice towards others, because blacks were being falsely accused of bringing about political instability on the African continent, whereas colonisation by white settlers brought much harm to Africa. The point about deliberation is that it can be distressful. Students should recognise that belligerent argumentation should not lead to dismissing others unjustly and that free expression can never be unconstrained, especially if wrong is done to others.

Thirdly, for a compulsory assignment, students had to identify a controversial issue that related to democratic citizenship and cosmopolitanism, and then had to make presentations in groups to the class. I have selected only the following three issues that three groups presented, as these issues will clarify some of my claims about educating for democratic citizenship and

88

EDUCATION, DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP REVISITED

cosmopolitanism: The first group chose to write and speak about the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South Africa; the second group introduced the inhumane treatment of people in the Darfur region in Sudan (Africa); and the third group raised the issue of America’s ‘war on terror’. I shall now explore some of the unintended pedagogical outcomes of this project.