The author, award laureate and journalist Rabbi Serumula, notes that Jacinta Ngobese's apology regarding the statement that South Africa could have universities for language groups such as Zulu, Pedi, Xhosa, and others, should not simply be dismissed as a poorly phrased comment.
Although she apologized for how her message was perceived, explaining her intentions, she returned to the original thesis: since AfriForum created institutions around the Afrikaans language, African communities should also be able to create their own institutions around their respective languages.
However, this raises a broader conversation that cannot be ignored: a university is not a tribe. There is nothing wrong with the desire for African languages to hold a more significant place in higher education, nor is there anything wrong with striving for isiZulu, Sepedi, Sesotho, isiXhosa, and other African languages to become languages of serious research and intellectual production.
But the situation becomes dangerous when language is used as a substitute for defining belonging and non-belonging. South Africa knows where this path leads. For decades, the country struggled with a system that classified people, divided them, and organized life based on race and ethnicity. Its democratic project was meant to create a country where differences can exist without turning into a barrier, rather than replacing one form of division with another.
For this reason, the comparison with AfriForum should cause us concern, not inspiration. If AfriForum is built around the identity of Afrikaners, the answer cannot be merely that we need versions for Zulu, Xhosa, Pedi, and Sotho. At some point, we must ask: what kind of country are we trying to build?
Are we striving for institutions that deepen our identity while allowing us to meet each other across these differences? Or do we want institutions that increasingly tell us: this is yours, and that is theirs, and they will never meet? There is a fundamental difference between these concepts.
An African university can teach in isiZulu without being exclusively a Zulu university. A university can focus on Sepedi without requiring students to prove their ethnic affiliation upon entry. We can create institutions that celebrate African culture without turning culture into a membership pass.
Language can serve as a bridge, not a border. Perhaps this is what is lost when we are obsessed with personalities and provocative statements. The question is not whether Africans should build; of course, they should. We must build African institutions, develop African intellectual potential, and create universities where African languages are respected, developed, and used to create knowledge. However, we must beware of building walls and calling them universities.
South Africa's diversity should be our strength, not another reason to retreat into separate corners. We have already experienced a South Africa where identity determined where one could live, study, and belong. We must not romanticize the architecture of division just because the walls now bear different names. A university is a place where minds meet, and a tribe is a place where belonging is inherited. South Africa cannot afford to confuse these two concepts.
