Dear Editor
Stellenbosch University (SU) notes with concern the article “Parliament probes Stellenbosch University as cracks in system show” published in the Mail & Guardian on 11 May 2026.
While robust scrutiny of public institutions is both necessary and welcome, the article presents several sector-wide challenges in a manner that risks creating a misleading impression of the University and its current circumstances.
The central concern is not that challenges were highlighted. Indeed, the University itself spoke candidly during its presentation to Parliament about issues relating to student funding, accommodation, safety, transformation and student wellbeing. Rather, it is the way broader national higher education challenges are repeatedly presented as evidence of institutional decline or failure specific to SU.
For example, the article cites the increase in outstanding student fees and NSFAS debt owed to the University without adequately contextualising the national funding crisis currently facing the South African higher education sector. As was explained during the parliamentary portfolio committee engagement on 29 April 2026, these challenges must be understood within the context of a national student funding crisis affecting universities across South Africa. They are not unique to SU, nor do they indicate institutional instability.
I refer you, for example, to the article in the Business Day, “SA’s R24bn student debt crisis strains universities” (28 May 2026) in which the Department gives contextualising national figures.
At the same presentation, the University made it clear that no indicators of systemic institutional risk had been identified and that existing risks are actively managed through established governance, oversight and risk-management structures. SU has, for example, implemented measures to support financially vulnerable students, including increasing the allocation for the registration of students with historical debt from R2 million per annum to R20 million per annum. SU’s Student Debt Working Group has also been able to assist 200 students while the University continues to fundraise to assist students with their historical debt. To present student debt and NSFAS funding delays without this context risks conflating national policy and funding challenges with institutional performance.
This is also the case with references to “unsafe living conditions” and “worrying crime trends”. The author states that “beneath the surface of excellence lies a campus wrestling with deep inequalities, rising student debt, unsafe living conditions and a national funding system in disarray” without contextualising this within the broader higher education and national landscape. These challenges are not unique to SU, and to imply otherwise, while suggesting the institution is in crisis, is disingenuous.
References to student accommodation and safety require greater nuance. The article correctly notes that student safety remains a concern. However, it omits significant context regarding the extensive interventions undertaken by the University, often in partnership with the Municipality, law enforcement agencies and community stakeholders. These interventions include expanded security measures, shuttle services, escort programmes and ongoing investments aimed at improving safety for students both on and off campus. As SU is an open campus, these partnerships are essential in dealing with safety risks. Meanwhile, crime statistics on campus have shown encouraging downward trends in several categories because of these interventions.
The statement that students are being “pushed into high-crime areas” because of NSFAS accommodation caps is similarly a reflection of broader student funding realities rather than a consequence of University policy. While accommodation affordability remains a challenge across the sector, it is important to distinguish between the limitations of the national funding framework and decisions taken by individual institutions.
The article mentions gender-based violence and discrimination concerns without reflecting the extensive institutional measures in place to address them. SU maintains a zero-tolerance approach to gender-based violence and unfair discrimination through the work of its Equality Unit, which provides formal reporting mechanisms and support services for students and staff. The Unit is staffed by case officers and trained social workers. Through partnerships with organisations such as the Stellenbosch GBV Centre/Thuthuzela Care Centre through the Ring for Peace Cape Trust, the University has also supported hundreds of victims of gender-based violence in the broader Stellenbosch community.
The University team spoke candidly during the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee presentations about its challenges with no intent to hide pertinent issues; referring to transformation as an ongoing process, highlighting collaborative efforts to enhance residence culture and expounding on its partnership with the Municipality and other role-players to improve student safety.
It is equally important to note what was absent from the article. The parliamentary presentation covered not only challenges, but also the SU’s progress in areas such as student success, teaching and learning innovation, research excellence, infrastructure development, and societal impact.
These achievements do not negate ongoing challenges, but they are part of the overall picture and deserve consideration when assessing the state of the institution.The article itself notes, correctly, that “Stellenbosch is not failing” but rather operating within a higher education sector facing profound national pressures. This is precisely the point the University sought to make in its presentation to Parliament: that addressing these challenges will require meaningful engagement, sustainable funding solutions, collaborative partnerships and political will across the sector.
We remain committed to transparency, accountability and continuous improvement. Criticism and public scrutiny are important in strengthening higher education institutions. However, balanced reporting requires a clear distinction between verified facts, interpretation and commentary, as well as fair reflection of both institutional achievements and ongoing challenges.
SU remains one of Africa’s leading research-intensive universities, recognised for academic excellence, innovation, research output and social impact.
None of this exempts the institution from criticism, but it does require reporting that reflects the complexity of the institution and the broader realities facing South African higher education.
Stellenbosch University
Stellenbosch University (SU) notes with concern the article “Parliament probes Stellenbosch University as cracks in system show” published in the Mail & Guardian on 11 May 2026.
