South Africa’s Murky Academic Waters Deepen: The Ongoing Struggle for Black Academics

There is a brewing issue concerning the alleged discrimination against Black South African academics, as well as the suppression of decolonisation and indigenous knowledge development. While this is not an entirely new issue, the Minister of Higher Education and Training announced in the 2016/17 budget speech that a ministerial task team would be established to “look into and propose solutions to the obstacles to the production of South African Black academics.” This appears to be the most noticeable attempt to address the challenges facing black South African professionals in academia.

Indeed, the Ministerial Task Team on the Recruitment, Retention and Progression of Black South African Academics delivered its report in 2019 and made recommendations. However, it is unclear whether any of them were implemented in light of the growing furore about the marginalisation and systematic discrimination against Black South African academics. A Parliamentary Committee recently exposed that the Central University of Technology (CUT) seemingly favours foreigners over South African scholars. Last month, the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education also expressed concern about the University of the Free State hiring 141 foreign academics and 26 foreign support personnel.

This continuing debacle has led to accusations of intentional disadvantage and non-compliance with legal procedures, as the CUT purportedly failed to inform the Department of Higher Education about the foreign national’s appointment. The university’s actions have been criticised for disregarding the professional capabilities of a qualified South African. Early in 2024, the African Transformation Movement raised questions about the practice of “the exclusion of black local academics.” In their book, Academic Xenophobia: African Scholars in South African Universities, Precious Simba, Cyrill Walters and Jonathan Jansen interpret the concerns about marginalisation of Black South African scholars as “anti-African sentiment”.

Nevertheless, the CUT Vice Chancellor, Prof. Pamela Dube, defended the foreign national’s appointment, citing “internationalisation efforts” and a 10% cap on foreign hires, but was challenged on whether the Employment Equity Plan unfairly favours foreign nationals. At the University of Cape Town, it is claimed that a dedicated fund exists to support the studies of international students. This raises concerns: Is this initiative effectively creating a pathway for the employment and advancement of foreign nationals, potentially positioning them to lead South African university departments, at the expense of local talent?

• Neoliberal Violence In South Africa’s Higher Education Sector

Neoliberal violence in South Africa’s higher education sector is evident in the imposition of market-driven policies that emphasise institutional ‘independence’ while undermining efforts to address colonial and apartheid legacies. These neoliberal policies prioritise global competitiveness and financial sustainability, sidelining transformative measures meant to uplift historically marginalised Black South Africans. The focus on self-sufficiency and external funding disconnects universities from the country’s socio-political realities, hindering the redress of inequalities that are deeply rooted in the country’s history of racial exclusion and oppression.

Adopting Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ concept of the ‘abyssal line,’ this neoliberal framework further entrenches the marginalisation of black South Africans by rendering their knowledge systems, cultures, and professional realities invisible or subhuman. The education sector, like other post-apartheid social institutions, continues to deepen this divide by excluding Black professionals from academic and professional spaces, despite their qualifications. This exclusion, driven by globalised norms and standards, perpetuates a cycle of marginalisation that denies black South Africans the opportunity to define and control their own educational and professional futures.

Neoliberal violence also stifles critical debates on issues affecting black people, their plight and their value systems by framing these discussions within a narrow, market-driven and fundamentalist perspective. When concerns are raised about the alleged preferential treatment of foreign academics over qualified Black South Africans, such debates are quickly dismissed as ‘xenophobia’ or hatred towards foreign nationals. Keyan G Tomaselli argues, “Academic xenophobia has no place in a globalised world.” Unfortunately, this framing distracts from the central issue: the persistent systemic inequality disadvantaging Black South Africans.

In South Africa, calls for state intervention to address these disparities are also labelled “barbaric” or backwards, dismissing legitimate efforts to correct historical wrongs. This response undermines critical conversations and silences the need for transformative action to redress inequality. Under neoliberal frameworks, global norms and market-driven priorities are given precedence over the urgent need to address the structural inequities that persist in the country, further entrenching the marginalisation of Black South Africans.

There is a view among those who reject the idea that South African professionals are marginalised; they argue that “blaming foreign academics, especially African ones, for the absence of local ones is wrong.” This perspective suggests that South Africa’s post-apartheid nation-building has prioritised a singular national identity, often by “othering” non-South African Africans to assert exclusive belonging. As a result, foreign African scholars are increasingly excluded from academic spaces, despite universities’ rhetorical commitments to “African identity.”

As Precious Simba and others note, this nativist shift contradicts institutional missions and undermines the global ideal of a shared knowledge community. The preference for a nationally bounded, racially acceptable “better Black” has fostered black-on-black xenophobia and restricted academic mobility. In contrast, models like Singapore’s inclusive recruitment demonstrate that global excellence depends on openness. For South African universities to thrive, it is suggested that they reject nativism, embrace diverse African academic voices, and confront the “exclusionary anger” weakening academia.

With all this said, the question remains: How can South African universities contribute to the country’s transformative agenda? UCT’s Evance Kalula acknowledges that a university in which its nationals are in the minority “has a problem.” Therefore, simply arguing that Black South Africans “are still ill-prepared for globalisation, competitive job markets and professional mobility required by transnational academia” is not enough. Sakhela Buhlungu advocates diversifying international academic hires to include scholars from across Africa, India and white communities to combat “black to black xenophobia” and enhance South Africans’ global professional awareness.

• The South African Academic Sector: a Drug Gang that Keeps Blacks as Underpaid, Exploited Outsiders

In addition to many of these challenges, Black academics must navigate an inherently hostile, dog-eat-dog academic environment that abhors genuine ‘good citizenship,’ even as it claims to shape society with ideas, knowledge and research. In How Academia Resembles a Drug Gang, Alexandre Afonso from King’s College London in the UK once argued that the academic job market shares similarities with a drug gang in that it features a growing number of outsiders willing to work under precarious conditions, hoping for a future with higher prestige and security. These outsiders, typically PhD graduates, are driven by the prospect of securing a tenured position but are forced to accept low-paying, unstable roles.

For many Black South African academics, this precariousness is exacerbated by structural barriers tied to race and historical inequalities. This structure creates a dual labour market, with a small group of insiders holding permanent, well-paying positions, while most academics exist on temporary, low-income contracts. The growing number of PhDs entering the system each year exacerbates this divide, as the availability of permanent positions has not kept pace with the increasing supply of qualified candidates, resulting in a shrinking core and an expanding periphery of precarious workers.

This ‘winner-takes-all’ structure is not unique to South Africa. In countries like the US, UK and Germany, the number of part-time and adjunct faculty has surged, while tenured positions have become increasingly rare. The expanding gap between insiders and outsiders places many academics in a prolonged state of professional insecurity. In the UK, for instance, zero-hour contracts and the precarious conditions faced by PhD students and adjunct lecturers mirror broader global trends. Similarly, South African universities have become increasingly reliant on a flexible, low-paid academic workforce. This reliance underscores the system's exploitative features, which depend on a surplus of hopeful, qualified individuals, many of whom are South African and Black, willing to endure poor working conditions for a shrinking chance at permanence and prestige.

Under neoliberal pressures, this dynamic has further produced a commodified and replaceable academic subject. Despite being central to the country’s transformative mandate, Black South African scholars are frequently displaced in favour of foreign academics perceived to carry greater symbolic capital or institutional prestige, described by the Central University of Technology as internationalisation efforts. Furthermore, South African institutions would rather prioritise international rankings than advance the country’s transformative agenda. In doing so, the system reproduces precarity and a subtle hierarchy undermining substantive equity within academia.

• The Unsettling Faculty: A Turbulent Environment for Black South Africans

In 2017, 42.1% of doctoral graduates from South African universities were international citizens, underscoring a notable trend of internationalisation in the country’s doctoral education system. In twenty-one of the 23 doctorate-producing universities, at least 31% of graduates were from outside South Africa. The University of KwaZulu-Natal, the country’s top producer of doctoral degrees, awarded nearly half (48%) of its doctorates to international candidates. Several universities like Walter Sisulu University, Unisa, CPUT, VUT and the University of Fort Hare produced more global than local doctoral graduates, with the latter recording the highest share at 65%. In contrast, the University of Limpopo had the lowest proportion of international graduates at just 10.3%.

This growing reliance on international doctoral candidates raises critical questions about the sustainability of local academic capacity and the transformation of South Africa’s higher education sector. As such, the 2019 Ministerial Task Team Report observed that South African universities faced persistent challenges in achieving academic staff equity. As of 2017, 11.2% of permanent academic staff were international, predominantly from Zimbabwe (25%) and Nigeria (9%). While international recruitment adds global perspectives, this reliance, particularly at top-tier institutions like Wits (25.1%) and UCT (24.3%), risks stalling local talent development.

Demographically, white academics remain overrepresented at 47.1%, while Black African staff make up only 36%, despite comprising 80% of the population. Gender disparities are also significant, with women, especially Black African women, underrepresented (16.1% vs. 40.4%) and facing lower qualification rates. Only 42.5% of academics held doctoral degrees, with Black African academics trailing at 30%, compared to 52.6% of white staff. Furthermore, Black and female staff are predominantly in junior roles, while white males dominate senior positions, and international staff are overrepresented in higher ranks.

Institutional cultures and practices at South African universities create a ‘covert struggle’ for Black academics, particularly women, mirroring the experiences detailed in Wiseman Magasela’s article titled The Invisible Professionals, where highly educated Black individuals in South Africa face a system designed to exclude and sideline them. Studies, including those for the Ministerial Task Team, reveal that new Black recruits lack crucial academic support and mentorship while facing racism, sexism, and biased perceptions of their capabilities, especially in male-dominated fields.

This hostile environment, where they are often rendered “invisible” and their contributions are undermined within exclusionary institutional norms and informal networks, coupled with barriers to research and inequitable performance appraisals, impedes their career progression and can drive them away, perpetuating the status quo where their expertise is undervalued and their ambitions are stifled.

In light of the above, the Ministerial Task Team Report recommended various actions to improve Black South African academics’ recruitment, retention and progression. These included setting targets for postgraduate enrolment and funding, improving student success, and increasing African and female doctoral graduates. It stresses implementing staff transformation plans with clear targets, supporting marginalised academics and offering mentoring programs. The report also advocates for better workload models, performance appraisals and addressing institutional racism, improving lecturer conditions and aligning policies with transformation goals.

Most importantly, the Report suggests collaboration between the Department of Higher Education and Employment and Labour for employment equity, expanding the oversight committee’s mandate, reviewing NRF funding and strengthening staff capacity development. This proposal is the crux of the unsettling academic sector, operating under the sway of neoliberal violence, which allows it to function outside genuine state direction and national priorities for transformation.

• The Unfulfilled Transformation Promise and Giving Voice to the Marginalised Black Academic

The situation surrounding employment in South Africa, both in the private and public sectors, is deeply troubling, particularly in universities where discrimination against Black South African academics is widespread. This is evident in cases where qualified South African candidates, especially Black women, are overlooked for positions in favour of foreign nationals. A prevalent belief is that foreign academics bring more expertise or open-mindedness, while South African scholars are considered deficient regardless of their qualifications.

This issue is compounded by a lack of support for Black South African scholars, who face systemic barriers in their institutions. The hiring of foreigners, often with ties to Indian and white administrators, perpetuates a cycle where the universities become dominated by foreign-trained academics, undermining local talent. The view that foreign academics are superior fosters a toxic environment where local scholars are sidelined, undermining South Africa’s unique history and economic context.

This dysfunctionality is reinforced by the complicity of some local scholars who, though appointed to transformation committees, do little to challenge the status quo. At universities such as Fort Hare, UP, and UCT, as well as science councils like the National Research Foundation, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and Agricultural Research Council, foreign nationals reportedly control significant research funds and reproduce patronage networks. Meanwhile, experienced local researchers with PhDs are paid scandalously low salaries, often under R550,000 annually.

What adds insult to injury is the condescension expressed by some of these foreign colleagues toward their South African hosts. Fort Hare, once a beacon of African intellectualism, has become a symbol of institutional rot, allegedly hijacked by corruption facilitated through foreign-led networks. The liberal curriculum imported from European welfare states has failed to equip students with critical, lateral thinking or contextual knowledge. When locals raise these injustices, they are silenced with accusations of “academic xenophobia”, but these warnings are now echoing back from within the very academic centres once insulated from ground-level frustrations.

It is time to reject the culture of silence and complicity that has allowed systemic marginalisation to persist within South African academia and professional spaces. Black South African academics and professionals must be given a genuine voice, not merely token positions or performative roles on committees, but absolute power to shape curricula, set research agendas, and influence institutional cultures. Their expertise, grounded in lived experience and an intimate understanding of the country’s socio-cultural and economic realities, is indispensable for building a just and contextually relevant academic environment.

The persistent myth that foreigners are inherently more capable or “worldly” is a colonial hangover that continues to undermine local agency and entrench inequality. Until these homegrown voices are empowered and heard, South African institutions will remain trapped in a cycle of abyssality, where transformation is sabotaged, knowledge production is disconnected from the people, and the country’s brightest minds are sidelined in favour of a globalised elite. True transformation demands developing locally rooted systems that affirm Black South African scholars’ dignity, capacity and leadership.

Siya yi banga le economy!