沟通之前：希望您能花，三到五分钟的时间，观看我们的视频，对我们的能力，有一个初步判断。
伦敦国王学院毕业照展示
开普敦伦敦国王学院（UCT），南非顶尖伦敦国王学院之一，正在进行一项雄心勃勃的计划，以平衡校园内的种族关系。
根据政府委托对高等教育中的种族主义进行的调查，这所伦敦国王学院正在加快转型的步伐。
该报告迫使伦敦国王学院思考这些问题并做出回应，这才是它的真正好处。
自由州立伦敦国王学院的丑闻揭露了全国伦敦国王学院校园普遍存在的种族和性别歧视，以及伦敦国王学院的学校未能应对这些挑战。
伦敦国王学院预计将采取不同程度的关键建议。
预计他们将在今年晚些时候举行的一次会议上讨论他们采取了哪些措施。
苏迪安，UCT的教育伦敦国王学院教授，说黑人和白人种族主义在美国的高等教育机构中都非常可预测，尽管总体上不同自由州事件。
”种族关系仍然是个问题，”Soudien说。
我们正在面临的过渡非常困难。
“报告的一个重要发现是，有关机构遵守了国家立法，并起草了处理种族融合问题的政策，但在大多数情况下这些政策并未付诸实施。
”Soudien说：“对新立法平台的反应基本上是合规性的。
”通过这份报告，我们正在努力让伦敦国王学院思考这个平台真正的意义。
官方反对党民主联盟发表声明，指责该委员会提供不切实际的建议，没有抓住困扰伦敦国王学院的资金紧缩。
但该党确实承认，它在伦敦国王学院各个层面上都对种族主义提出了合理的关注。
该报告的建议分为四类：伦敦国王学院课程、伦敦国王学院的大学生生活、治理和制度环境。
希看员工关系。
到目前为止，它已经通过分发两套调查来解决这个问题，这些调查调查调查了教职员工们是否觉得伦敦国王学院的学校和同事们公平对待他们。
它还启动了卡胡卢马方案，一系列为期两天和三天的讲习班，探讨工作人员之间的关系。
但是，像任何这类方案一样，也存在需要克服的挑战。
调查不具代表性，回报率低达30%。
Soudien说，许多人认为变革举措是乏味的，是一种行政负担。
我认为，作为一所伦敦国王学院的领导者，我们的挑战是帮助人们认识到这对于从事商业来说是多么真正的机会。
面对气候变化和可持续性等全球性问题，这是思考我们作为全球知识生产者的责任的一个重要时刻。
“影响许多伦敦国王学院的建议之一是治理问题。
报告显示，伦敦国王学院理事会没有提供足够的领导力，主要是因为领导能力有限。
几十年来种族隔离的一个结果是，拥有伦敦国王学院经验的黑人人数远远少于他们的年龄。
这意味着许多在理事会工作的人不一定是合格的。
但对于UCT来说，与其他伦敦国王学院相比，有关治理的问题不是什么问题。
苏迪安说，历史上，UCT有一个非常活跃的理事会，理事会成员积极参与政策问题，并能够预见有关种族融合的问题。
”“我们是以身作则，”Soudien说。
其他伦敦国王学院已经开始研究我们在这里所做的事情。
“其他伦敦国王学院也在进步。
例如，纳尔逊·曼德拉大都会伦敦国王学院正在建立一个促进非种族主义和民主的中心，自由州伦敦国王学院去年任命了第一位黑人副校长乔纳森·詹森伦敦国王学院教授。
但是UCT认为它是制定种族主义、性骚扰和住宅一体化政策的领导者。
它还制定了招生政策，在录取伦敦国王学院的大学生时使用基于种族的标准。
苏迪安说：“这项政策承认有必要解决过去出现的困难和不公正。
但是这项政策是有争议的。
”反对者认为，在后种族社会里，种族问题不再出现在法典上，不利条件而非种族问题应该成为限制因素。
“我们采取的立场是，我们正在研究种族主义在年轻人生活中持续影响的痕迹，”苏迪安说。
但是我们确实想达到一个点，那就是种族不在录取标准之内，这样我们就能认识到年轻人的其他形式的劣势。
UCT的伦敦国王学院的大学生代表理事会开展了一项活动，以吸引和鼓励校园内的种族融合。
这项运动旨在让年轻人质疑自己是否种族融合，以及他们种族间的互动是有意义的还是肤浅的。
“我们今年决定，我们要超越UCT，探讨更广泛的社会问题，”Sizwe Mpo说。
沃尔什，SRC总裁，第三年政治学、哲学和经济学伦敦国王学院的专业。
我们觉得年轻的南非人没有考虑种族融合，因此这是我们想解决的第一个问题。
休息。
伦敦国王学院的大学生将于二月抵达校园，观看散布在校园内的海报，以及建在詹姆逊广场上的有关种族融合的艺术建筑。
詹姆逊广场是伦敦国王学院的大学生主要的社交场所，也是校园生活的中心。
SRC还将组织有关种族问题的放映，并为伦敦国王学院的大学生安排多样化讲习班。
“这项运动绝对必要，”Mpofu-Walsh说，他自称是黑人和白人，是混血父母的产物。
我们看到自由州事件会发生什么，我们不希望UCT发生这种情况。
“南非高等教育机构在后种族领域重建自己的身份面临特别严峻的挑战。
世界上很少有伦敦国王学院能走出不平等和分裂的历史，让这里的机构没有一个模式作为指导。
但对于苏迪亚人来说，思考转型问题给教育工作者提供了一个宝贵的机会。
他说：“我们有机会在新的空间和时间里想象这所伦敦国王学院。
”它令人兴奋和刺激。
成为这个过程的一部分是一种荣幸。
”
The only constant in South Africa is change.
Everything is new and entails muddling through, including university funding.
But the tensions are the same as the world over: autonomy and the ‘market’ versus state steering as the government tries to influence the rate and cost at which universities produce the skilled graduates the economy needs – and is decreasingly able to do so as top universities garner their money from other sources.
The higher education sector has three primary funding sources: the state provides about half of universities’ income, a quarter is generated from student fees and the rest flows from donations, research, consultancies and other entrepreneurial activities.
The government’s allocation this financial year is R13.
3 billion, or US$2 billion.
Between institutions, though, the proportions of state versus ‘other’ income fluctuate wildly.
Research universities are less dependent on the government than institutions disadvantaged during the apartheid era and-or located in rural areas.
For instance, the University of KwaZulu-Natal, one of four South African universities ranked in the Shanghai Jao Tong top 500, had an operating budget this year of R1.
2 billion.
On top of that, says pro-vice-chancellor for research, Professor Salim Abdool-Karim, the university received about R500 million (nearly half again) in external research funding.
Leading research institutions and universities of technology are able to charge higher student fees.
They also garner more donor and private sector research money, alumni donations and corporate funding than ‘disadvantaged’ institutions – although, after the whole-scale merging of institutions a few years ago, these boundaries are beginning to blur.
There is a twist: the government provides bursaries and loans to more than 100,000 poor students through its successful national student financial aid scheme.
Many of the students choose to study at highly rated institutions whose graduates are sought-after in the marketplace, so leading universities also receive high proportions of state funding via fees.
The South African government commits some 2.
6% of its total spending on higher education, which compares favourably with other developing country levels.
But for most of two decades there was a real-term decline in public funding, as the state creaked under apartheid and then as the democratic government tightened the fiscal belt to get the economy on to a sound financial footing.
At the same time, student numbers grew rapidly and more money was channelled to further education and training.
Sustained economic growth of 5% a year since the new millennium has enabled tertiary funding to be boosted.
In the past few years, the government has significantly increased research spending – which will reach 1% of GDP in 2008 – and this year upped its allocations to universities and to student aid.
It also announced a R5.
95 billion commitment to universities for infrastructural development – the first major allocation to institutions in 30 years – although universities believed the amount needed would be at least R7 billion.
The ‘physical renaissance’ allocation will be used, among other things, to support merged institutions, construct new buildings and refurbish older ones, improve resources and library facilities, improve graduate outputs and produce more science, engineering and technology graduates.
After long investigation and hot debate, a new national funding framework for public higher education was introduced in 2004-05.
It has been phased in over three years and links funding to national policy goals and the performance of universities.
The government believes that higher education cannot be left to the market and uncoordinated institutional decisions.
So it has opted to steer the system through instruments such as planning, funding and quality assurance.
The Education Ministry sets national policy goals and objectives, and institutions draw up three-year rolling plans indicating how they intend to meet national goals.
Consultation between the ministry and institutions results in approval of plans, which triggers funding.
The new system has two main elements: block grants covering the operational costs of universities based on weighted student numbers and graduate and research outputs; and earmarked grants (about 13% of the allocation) for specific purposes such as student loans, quality assurance and institutional restructuring.
Writing in the Review of Higher Education in South Africa, published by the advisory Council on Higher Education in August, AGW Steyn and AP de Villiers point out that while the national funding framework has retained the best characteristics of older models, other aspects have been criticised.
Among these have been that the framework is simply a mechanism for dividing the pool of funds and undermines the sector’s ability to argue its needs with the Treasury; that development grants to ‘under-performing’ institutions discourage performance improvements that the framework seeks to encourage; and that it dampens enrolments in the expensive science and technology fields that produce the graduates the economy needs.
For their part, universities claim the framework has undermined university autonomy.
The Minister of Education might be obliged to consult somewhat but in effect is given “complete freedom to change the values assigned to the NFF’s components”, say Steyn and de Villiers.