Protest action: Universities cannot outsource staff safety to chance

Recent events across South Africa’s higher education sector have raised serious concerns about the safety of university staff during protest action. These concerns are not abstract. They are real living experiences of staff, especially those at the forefront. They are current. They are affecting staff now.

I am a university employee.

In the course of performing my duties, I experienced a situation in which my freedom of movement was restricted during student protest action. I was unable to leave. I was alone. I communicated with the university. I informed the university of my current situation. I communicated my concern for my safety.

This experience has caused me to reflect deeply on the protection of staff in these situations, especially in residences that are removed from the main administration building or campus.

It has caused me to consider whether existing measures are sufficient. It has caused me to question whether universities are fully meeting their obligations. This is not about assigning blame. This is about examining responsibility. This is about examining risk. This is about examining duty.

A serious issue

Across the sector, there have been incidents that demonstrate the seriousness of this issue. At Walter Sisulu University, protest-related unrest resulted in a confrontation at a staff residence. A firearm was discharged. A student died. A staff member was arrested and charged. That matter is before the courts. It would be inappropriate to speculate on its outcome.

However, the incident illustrates how rapidly situations can escalate. It illustrates the risks that can arise. It illustrates the consequences that can follow for everyone involved – staff, students and the institutions.

University employees are not appointed as security personnel. They are not trained to manage violent confrontation. They are not equipped to ensure their own physical protection in volatile environments. Yet, in practice, staff may find themselves present in such environments.

This creates legal, physical, psychological and institutional risk. The Occupational Health and Safety Act requires employers to provide, as far as reasonably practicable, a working environment that is safe and without risk to employees. This is not a discretionary standard. This is a legal standard.

The question is not whether universities care about staff safety.

The question is whether existing systems are sufficient to ensure it. Whether clear protocols exist. Whether those protocols are consistently applied. Whether staff are adequately protected. Whether staff are adequately supported. Whether staff are adequately removed from danger when risk becomes apparent.

These are operational questions. They are also legal questions. They are also ethical questions.

Risk of lifelong consequences

It must be recognised that when staff safety is compromised, the consequences extend beyond the immediate moment. They may extend to legal processes and to lifelong consequences for staff, students and their families.

I am currently engaged in internal institutional processes relating to my own experience. It would not be appropriate to comment on those processes. I respect those processes. I am participating in them in good faith.

This article is not about that process. This article is about the broader principle, the principle of care, safety and responsibility.

Universities occupy a unique position in society; they are places of learning, knowledge production, debating and places of protest. But they are also workplaces where staff safety and care should be paramount.

Staff are employees. They have rights, a right to safety and protection. Staff have the right to perform their duties without being exposed to avoidable risk. Universities must ensure that their systems reflect this reality. Not only in policy, but also in practice.

When safety systems fail, the consequences may be irreversible for everyone. DM

Advocate Mark Seale SC has practised at the Cape Bar since 1995.