Apparently the LOC is a private body - FIFA a swiss club?

This is an argument, among several, made by an advocated I hold in very high regard - the man taught me many years ago and always mesmerised me. I now get the urge to go back to my notes, just to check. I never thought about the status of the LOC as an entity until this morning when I stumbled on the story about it being in court defending an application by the Mail & Guardian, which wants copies of tender documents. Apparently the M&G wants to show the SA public who and what benefitted from the world cup infrastructure spend.

Back to what is the LOC. Once the question popped into my head I approached the source of all my seeming wisdom - google. If the imminent advocate is correct that the LOC is a private body and should not bow to the government procurement policies and legislation, then how come this site has such a distinct government feel? The content of the page, as you will see (bottom left) is copyright of the GCIS (Government Communications and Information Services). This is apart from the prominent SA Coat of Arms (top left) and this page which sets out how, contrary to the advocate's argument the government of SA provided guarantees to, entered into agreements with and passed an Act of Parliament as requiered by FIFA. The advocate contrarianly and with a straight face I presume, argued that the agreements are between FIFA and SAFA - not the government.

I seem to think I remember (if not hallucinating) various officers of the LOC proclaiming that they are doing this whole world cup thing for the people of SA not for themselves or for SAFA - but I may be wrong. What then is the difficulty with a request to show us how they made it happen for us? These are the kind of actions that lead us ordinary folk to think that there may be something to hide.

There may be a whole lot of reasons why the LOC would not want us to know who the beneficiaries of the world cup largese are but that they are a private body who owe us South Africans no such information, cannot be one such reason. For the LOC, through their legal representatives to argue such is simply disrespectful if not contemptuous.

Now, let us see what the judge is going to rule.

End of transformation? I think not!

A professional engineer whose name now escapes me, in a letter to the BusinessDay declares the untimely death of the word "transformation", at least as "we" know it. He mockingly thanks the BMF (Black Management Forum - not to be confused with the Black Mafia Family of Detroit origin) for offing transformation.

It is widely reported that Jimmy Manyi (a black male South African), a leader of the BMF, expressed disappointment at the appointment of one Futhi Mtoba (a black female South African) as the President of BUSA (Business Unity South Africa). It is said that Jimmy decried the election of Futhi as "a blow against transformation and the unity process in the South African business community and instead a victory for the interests of established business". It is because of this expression that the engineer believes "transformation" to have met its end. The reasoning behind this conclusion is quite interesting. According the engineer (and a few who commented on the letter) a black female cannot be a blow against transformation. One comment goes as far as to ask with a measure of exasperation: "how transformed must she be, must she be a homosexual as well" (or words to that effect). Well, we take that comment whence it comes.

It is the blackness that matters, or so it seems from the contributions that I have read on this matter. For Jimmy to have said what he is reported to have said, was to make nought of the meaning of the word "transformation". It is inconceivable to the good engineer that the appointment/election of a black woman can be a blow against transformation. Would it follow then, I wonder, that an appointment of a white male can never promote transformation?

It is these narrow almost knee-jerk responses to what are very important debates that continue to impoverish and debase what ought to make up a national conversation. It is convenient and easy to gloss over statements, to ignore facts and in this case jettison logic in favour of condescending if not insulting punchlines. If by this, dear reader, you believe me to agree with or to support Jimmy, then you should probably not be reading this.

I am in no position to agree with Jimmy. I am not sure what moved Jimmy to say what he said. Most importantly, I do not know Futhi and I don't know what she has done to deserve the label of a "blow against transformation". I do not believe that it would be anything to do with her blackness (whatever it means to be black).

I am fondly reminded of my previous place of employment where in the name of transformation, I was asked to serve on the management committee. It was impressed upon me that issues of transformation will receive better attention at that level of the organisation's management, thanks to my presence - or was that blackness - I could not tell. "If the issue is transformation", I protested, "then I propose that we appoint that caucasian fella to the management committee". The caucacian person I refer to has recently become very important so I may not use his name. This came as a mild shock to the listeners at the time and I must admit that I was not awake to their shock. You see, they were not prepared to accept that the caucasian person could add anything to, let alone lead issues of transformation. This was a job for a black guy and that was it. I duly served on the management committee with some disastrous consequences.

The fact is, when it comes to the discourse of transformation, that caucasian fella was or rather would have been a blow for (as opposed to against) transformation, his whiteness notwithstanding.

Transformation is alive and well as a word, just like racism in all of its glorious colours.

Sipho Seepe & Annette Lansink: What on earth are you two saying?!

Please read this article by Sipho Seepe and Annette Lansink. Now, if you were a teacher/lecturer what grade would you give the authors? If you have the time, do scroll down after reading that article and you will see a crisp comment on the content of the article. You will also see the kind of negative comment that the manner in which the article is written invites.

The debate is important, more important than I have the words or the time to properly express its importance. The contribution of the authors (both of whom are not strangers to academia) would in my view have been much more useful if it was not set in such hard to get through language. What on earth does "Diversity can be systemic and programmatic with differentiation conceptualised along vertical or horizontal axis." mean?

A student organisation I belonged to many years ago, recognised the inequalities not only in the education that prepared students for university but also in how universities treated students unfairly in their attempt to treat students equally. We have an opportunity to formulate strategies for higher education that seeks to promote excellence without being elitist. It is possible to motivate students of all sorts of backgrounds to strive to be the best they can be. To introduce, as some institutions have done, programmes to help students to get better. All well and good but until and unless the students themselves accept that theirs is an intellectual project, I doubt if it would be of any use.

What the article succeded in doing was to leave me rather cloudy. Unhelpful really.