Why a Stellenbosch Professor Says Xenophobia and Internationalisation Cannot Coexist
South African higher education is facing a warning that hostile treatment of foreign academics has moved beyond townships and farms into university corridors. In a commentary published by University World News during the IEASA conference period, Stellenbosch University professor Jonathan Jansen argued that academic xenophobia is now being driven from inside state structures, including the Department of Home Affairs and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education.
Jansen, co-author of a recent book on academic xenophobia, set out seven theses. The central claim is blunt: xenophobia and internationalisation are incompatible. A university cannot simultaneously exclude academics and students from other African countries while marketing itself as a global institution or pursuing international rankings and partnerships.
He also rejected a purely tactical response. While he acknowledged practical arguments — that losing foreign nationals would weaken the doctoral pipeline and that the departure of prominent scholars such as Kelly Chibale, Achille Mbembe or Tebello Nyokong would damage institutional prestige — he said those concerns are secondary. The stronger objection, he argued, is that excluding people on national or ethnic grounds contradicts what a university is.
His conclusion is that university international offices either need to defend an inclusive academic mission publicly or shut down. Otherwise, he warned, they are walking contradictions: welcoming fee-paying Western students while treating black African students and staff from the SADC region as problems unless they hold scarce skills.
Seven Theses on Academic Xenophobia: The Institutional Logic and Costs
The Shift From Street-Level Hostility to State and Institutional Pressure
Jansen's argument links two developments that are usually treated separately: public xenophobic violence and formal policy or administrative pressure from government bodies. By naming Home Affairs and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, he is describing a structured environment in which universities face pressure from political and administrative offices. University leaders, in his account, become the critical link — either they resist the pressure or they become complicit by developing discriminatory policies and pressing downwards.
Why Principled Arguments Carry More Weight Than Tactical Ones
The commentary consciously sets aside the easiest institutional arguments, such as lost doctoral capacity or falling global prestige. Jansen instead grounds the case in university autonomy and the idea that a university is not a department of state, a political party or a religious body. His historical reference to the University of Cape Town's refusal of Archie Mafeje is used to show that universities have bowed to state pressure before, and that the cost was reputational and moral, not simply operational. The implication is that a university that enforces xenophobia abandons the very reason for its existence.
Where the Risk Is Highest for South African Universities
The article names three high-profile figures — Kelly Chibale at UCT, Achille Mbembe at Wits and Tebello Nyokong at Rhodes — as examples of scholars whose departure under pressure would visibly lower the country's standing in the international knowledge system. Jansen also warns that the logic of xenophobia is not isolated; it is the same exclusionary logic rooted in apartheid and colonialism, and it enables other forms of discrimination. Without coordinated resistance, he argues, the pressure on universities will intensify as the state struggles with poverty, hunger and unemployment and looks for scapegoats.
What IEASA and University International Offices Should Do Next
- For IEASA: Publish regular, evidence-based position papers that document specific cases of academic xenophobia and their impact on universities, rather than relying on abstract policy statements.
- For international offices: Establish a policy desk that publicly challenges xenophobic statements and decisions from university management and government bodies such as Home Affairs and the parliamentary committee, since individual units are vulnerable to retaliation.
- For university leadership: Decide whether they will defend academic autonomy and inclusive hiring and enrolment, because Jansen's core test is binary: either open the institution to foreign African and international staff and students or close it down. Half-measures, in his analysis, will continue to alienate staff and damage prestige.
Risk & Opportunity Assessment
| Commercial Risk | Medium | The contradiction Jansen describes could affect international student fee income: universities are said to welcome Western fee-paying students while restricting black African staff and students from SADC unless they hold scarce skills. No revenue figures are provided, so the scale is unquantified. |
| Competitive Risk | Medium | If 20-30 top scholars such as Chibale, Mbembe and Nyokong left, South African universities would lose prestige in the international knowledge system and their doctoral and postdoctoral pipeline could weaken. |
| Regulatory Risk | High | Jansen identifies direct pressure from Home Affairs and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, and says university leaders may develop discriminatory policies. This creates a policy environment hostile to internationalisation. |
| Reputation Risk | High | Institutional prestige would fall if discriminatory appointments, enrolments or public conflicts with foreign scholars become visible; the University of Cape Town's Mafeje episode is cited as a lasting reputational scar. |
| Technology Disruption | Low | The commentary contains no technology dimension; the exposure is political, regulatory and reputational. |
| Commercial Opportunity | Low | No concrete commercial opportunity is identified; the piece frames principled resistance as a defence of the university's mission rather than a revenue strategy. |
Comments 0