Short Abstract:

Keywords: sustainability, university, social justice, human development, capabilities, dignity

Long Abstract:

In his speech at the opening ceremony of the HDCA conference 2023, special guest and author Georgi Gospodinov used the metaphor of the mythical Minotaur to describe ‘the vulnerable other’ – a misunderstood ‘monster’ to whom no voice has been given. Gospodinov’s argument was that the only way to restore justice is to hear the Minotaur’s story, to reclaim the human from behind the head of a bull, as an equal part of the ‘invisible web of fleeting and fragile beings in which we are a link’. Gospodinov reminds us, however, that as a link, humans are capable of causing suffering to self and others. Climate change has become a global crisis arising from Man’s insensitivity to the fragile and invisible web of life. The crisis demands attention from higher education, in the interests of sustaining the planet, the environment, people, society and individuals. Amidst the dominance of the global crisis, institutional and individual crises are also present when it comes to sustainability in/of the university.

This paper emerges from a research project on Sustainability Universities in South Africa (SUSA) using two university cases. The project sought to critically investigate what was happening in the university community when it comes to understanding and addressing the multiple challenges of sustainability and the future of the university. Using a tripartite conceptual framing of planetary consciousness, repair, and transformative/transgressive learning, the key purpose was to understand the opportunities and obstacles diverse stakeholders in the university face in advancing ecological and social justice. The focus was particularly on understanding the tensions between environmental, social and economic sustainability, and how these are taken up across the spaces of classroom, campus, community, (including the higher education system) in (re)imagining the future university community.

Empirical data was collected through interviews conducted with university management and focus group discussions held with academic staff, students and workers respectively. Analysis of the data shows that while all stakeholders acknowledge that sustainability essentially comprises ecological, social and economic dimensions, the different groups prioritise different dimensions when it comes to sustainability and their practices within the university. At management level, the key focus is on efficiency, and the ‘crisis’ lies in the economic sustainability of the institution and the unsustainability of government funding. Operationally, sustainability involves a technical approach to making environmental improvements while educational practice entails doing more of what is already being done well – all along cutting costs where possible. For academic staff, their concern lies primarily with social and environmental justice, repair of the past through transformative teaching and learning, and the importance of relationships in society, with the environment and with each other. Their ‘crisis’ lies in the realities of lack of resources, large classes and a very full curriculum. The priority for students is shaped by social dimensions to which environmental issues are secondary. The ‘crisis’ for the majority of students lies in meeting their basic needs and getting a degree as the means to a job to sustain themselves and their families into the future. The fourth group of stakeholders was the workers for whom the ‘crisis’ is personal and lies in a background of poverty and poor-quality education that sustains them in low-status work which they perceive as their only future.

This paper draws on data from the worker focus group at both universities. Workers are non-academic, non-administrative staff of the university, the often unseen/unheard individuals responsible for sustaining the university environment and enabling the well-being of other stakeholders to do their work. The paper presents the workers’ perceptions of the unfreedoms that come with the status of their job and the hierarchical structures of their employment. They spoke of lack of agency or freedom, and voiced their aspirations for trust, respect and dignity, ‘to be treated like a normal person would be treated’. They imagine a future university in which they can continue to take pride in their work but are no longer ashamed of themselves or embarrassed about their occupation. This paper speaks to the conference theme of ‘Education, rights, equalities and capabilities’. It reflects on the presence of vulnerable others in universities, individuals enshrouded in shame and hidden from view. It contributes to thinking about the importance of human development within sustainable development in higher education, and the need to recognise individual crises, often overshadowed by the demands of larger-scale crises, to expand capabilities and strengthen collective action in sustaining the vulnerable world around us.