The debate on decolonising scholarship is ¡°overly romanticised¡± and has too many political actors and too few academics grappling with?it, according to a vice-chancellor.

Adam Habib, vice-chancellor of the University of the Witwatersrand and incoming director of SOAS University of London, said he worried that ¡°too much of the public discourse on decolonisation is ideologically and politically sanitised¡±, as activists sought to replace colonial knowledge with ¡°knowledge they are comfortable with, knowledge that dovetails with their ideological dispositions¡±.

¡°Yes, we must bring to the fore multiple forms of knowledge, but we mustn¡¯t forget the importance of criticism¡­the very purpose of the university is to engage with that knowledge in a critical way,¡± he said. ¡°We do?not simply take that knowledge and regurgitate?it; we have to interrogate?it.¡±

Decolonisation could get caught up in local politics, Professor Habib explained. For example, if debate was framed by the politics of the UK, ¡°you are not being imaginative enough. If you want to disrupt, it has to go beyond national politics.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°We need to start thinking about how the university and decolonisation can address the challenges of the 21st century: how do we do bring the global and the local together?¡± he said.

Professor Habib added that one big question for the UK, the US and Australian university systems was how their business model counteracted global efforts towards decolonisation.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°How decolonised are we really as a university system, if you factor into account that our entire business model has been structured through cross-subsidising domestic students by charging international students three times the fees¡­When we engage in a debate on decolonisation, we have to start reimagining the business model of the university system,¡± he said.

Professor Habib added that the ¡°narrative of colonialism cannot be simply responded to by the narrative of decolonisation; de-colonialism cannot use colonialism as the framework for reimagining the alternative¡±.

This was echoed by Shaun Ewen, pro vice-chancellor (Indigenous) at the University of Melbourne, who questioned the language of decolonisation. ¡°Feminists don¡¯t place patriarchy at the centre of the argument; it¡¯s ¡®feminism¡¯ not ¡®de-patriarchy¡¯,¡± he explained. A?more useful way to look at it would be the ¡°indigenisation¡± of Australian universities, as it was not about just getting Indigenous students into university and then getting them to assimilate but allowing them to flourish and personally add to academia¡¯s body of knowledge.

Wangui wa Goro, professor of practice in translation at SOAS, added that ¡°the personal desires of colonised people are very important. We need to understand how they perceive their freedom, their learning and their relationship with others.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Those who want decolonisation are?not ¡°asking us to throw away all old-fashioned ways of knowledge, but to look at the value of knowledge to society¡±, she said. ¡°We cannot be the barriers for [the young people who want change], we must listen to them and adapt to what they are saying with what we already know¡­We can¡¯t continue to say that the white, upper-class, male institution is what we aspire for. We have to look for a new model.¡±

anna.mckie@timeshighereducation.com