By Edwin Naidu/South Africa,Johannesburg,
The debate over foreign academics should focus on excellence, transformation and nation-building, not revive the racial and divisive rhetoric of South Africa’s past.
More than three decades after the end of apartheid, it is alarming that South Africa’s lawmakers continue to frame national debates through the racial lenses inherited from that era.
The latest controversy surrounding the employment of foreign academics at universities amid countrywide protests against illegal immigrants reveals just how deeply those divisions remain embedded in our political discourse.
Speaking about staffing patterns at the University of Cape Town, Tebogo Letsie, chairperson of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training, expressed concern that 39.7% of professors are white, 39.3% are foreign nationals, while African, Indian and coloured professors account for only 22.6% combined.
“These statistics should shock us all,” he said.
The figures may well warrant scrutiny, particularly regarding transformation and the development of local academic talent. But the way the debate is being framed should concern us even more.
South Africa’s leaders frequently speak about putting South Africans first. Yet in the same breath they continue to divide South Africans according to apartheid-era racial categories while treating foreign nationals as a single group. It is a contradiction that undermines the nation-building project our democracy was meant to advance.
South Africa proudly describes itself as “one country, many people”. We see that unity when the nation rallies behind Bafana Bafana, the Springboks or Proteas teams. In those moments, race, language and ethnicity take a back seat to a shared national identity. Yet many politicians still revert to the vocabulary of division when discussing employment, transformation and migration.
This is happening against a backdrop of growing frustration among citizens. Rising unemployment, sluggish economic growth, poor service delivery and widespread corruption have left many South Africans feeling abandoned. As public confidence in institutions declines, it becomes tempting for political leaders to seek easy targets and simple explanations for complex problems.
The xenophobia debate has increasingly become one such outlet.
South Africans are entitled to ask legitimate questions about employment opportunities, particularly when millions remain jobless and many graduates struggle to find work. But blaming foreigners for systemic failures risks diverting attention from the real causes of the crisis: weak economic growth, poor governance, failing infrastructure and inadequate education outcomes.
More troubling is the apparent amnesia about South Africa’s own history.
During apartheid, countless African countries welcomed South African exiles, activists, students and freedom fighters. They provided sanctuary, resources and solidarity when many South Africans faced persecution at home. That support helped sustain the liberation struggle and contributed to the democratic South Africa we enjoy today.
For that reason, it is deeply disturbing that many Africans who come to South Africa seeking opportunities are now treated with suspicion, hostility and, at times, violence.
This does not mean South Africa should abandon efforts to prioritise its citizens. Every government has a responsibility to ensure that its people benefit from economic opportunities and public investment. However, prioritisation should not be confused with exclusion, nor should it become a justification for xenophobia.
The debate over universities demonstrates why such distinctions matter.
A university is not simply another workplace. It is a knowledge institution whose purpose is to generate ideas, produce research and educate future generations. Academic excellence has always depended on the movement of people and ideas across borders.
The world’s most respected universities are global institutions. Scholars routinely work in countries other than those in which they were born. Scientific breakthroughs and academic innovation often emerge from international collaboration. Knowledge does not recognise national boundaries.
South Africa has benefited enormously from this exchange of ideas. Academics from across Africa and beyond have strengthened local universities through research, postgraduate supervision and mentorship. In many cases, they occupy senior positions because they possess scarce skills developed over decades of scholarship and experience.
This is particularly important in a country facing shortages of doctoral supervisors and research leaders.
Producing a professor is not like filling a vacancy in an ordinary organisation. Academic expertise takes years—often decades—to develop. In highly specialised fields such as engineering, health sciences, artificial intelligence, mathematics and biotechnology, competition for skilled academics is fierce. Closing the door to international talent would weaken universities, reduce research output and ultimately disadvantage students.
At the same time, supporters of internationalisation must acknowledge legitimate concerns about transformation.
Letsie is correct to ask why, after years of investment in programmes designed to develop black South African academics, some institutions still struggle to transform their senior academic ranks. Public funding aimed at building local capacity should yield measurable results. Universities have a responsibility to explain how they are developing the next generation of South African scholars while recruiting internationally.
The key question is not whether an academic is foreign or South African.
The real question is whether universities are successfully balancing excellence, transformation and national development.
These objectives are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the best higher education systems in the world pursue them simultaneously. Countries such as Canada, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States attract global talent while investing heavily in the development of domestic researchers and academics.
South Africa should do the same
Universities must remain globally connected while demonstrating a clear commitment to nurturing local talent. Every appointment should be transparent, lawful and linked to either genuine skills requirements or academic excellence. Foreign academics should contribute not only through teaching and research but also by mentoring South African colleagues and helping develop future scholars.
Government, for its part, must accelerate efforts to produce more doctoral graduates, researchers and professors from historically disadvantaged communities. Complaints about foreign academics ring hollow if the state fails to expand the pipeline of local talent.
Ultimately, this debate should never be reduced to a choice between South Africans and foreigners.
It should be about building universities capable of competing globally while serving national development goals. It should be about ensuring that transformation advances without sacrificing excellence. And it should be about fostering a society confident enough to draw from global expertise while investing in its own people.
South Africa’s universities should be nationally committed and internationally engaged.
Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela insists that South Africans must be prioritized for employment but warns against reducing a complex issue to slogans, xenophobia or misinformation. Internationalisation, he argues, is not a loophole to bypass local employment or dilute transformation.
Put South Africans first, certainly. But do not put South Africa alone.
The most successful nations are not those that isolate themselves from the world. They are the ones that attract the best minds, develop their own talent and ensure both grow together. That is the balance South Africa’s universities, and its politicians, must strive to achieve.
Edwin Naidu is Head of Higher Education Media and publisher of www.ednews.africa.
