Dear Editor
I was initially relieved to learn that Stellenbosch University, and the institution’s oldest residence, Wilgenhof, (and its esteemed alumni association) had resolved the dispute involving students, parents, and alumni.
Although the resolution involved compromises and certain unsatisfactory aspects, and despite the university’s decision to retract the residence’s closure and issue an apology for its overreaction and misrepresentation of the alleged transgressions, the apology and retraction seemed a prudent path toward harmony and progress.
However, I was disturbed to read an article by [Stellenbosch University rector and vice-chancellor Wim] De Villiers, in which he aligns himself with the Trump philosophy of “We made Wilgenhof great again.”
This assertion, widely reported in the press, suggests that De Villiers, through his conduct, has demonstrated a further lack of judgement and a failure to understand that, in this context, while he aimed to appear as a champion of human rights, he has instead emerged as the villain.
Although surprising, it is perhaps not unexpected that De Villiers aligns himself with Trump’s philosophy. The parallels between their conduct are evident on multiple levels, and one could extensively analyse these similarities to comprehend De Villiers’ actions but that would be too great a task.
Three notable similarities immediately come to mind:
1. Nepotism: Both Trump and De Villiers have engaged in nepotism—favouring relatives by granting them special privileges regardless of their qualifications or merit, often at the expense of more suitable candidates. This practice raises concerns about their ability to act fairly and ethically. Neither Trump nor De Villiers appears to be troubled by such concerns.
2. Delusional Disorder: Trump has exhibited traits of delusional disorder, such as claiming electoral victory despite clear evidence to the contrary and lashing out at reasonable critics who have the right and duty to point out misconduct. In January 2016, during a campaign rally in Iowa, Donald Trump remarked, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”
Similarly, De Villiers has acted with impunity and disregard for ethics and the law, dismissed the comments of two of South Africa’s most celebrated judges, Justices Cameron and Kriegler, both of whom found him to be less than candid and interfering with a judicial process, even in the face of Cameron’s warning that his conduct was unlawful.
3. Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Trump has been universally accused of suffering from this disorder. This disorder is characterized by blaming others, lacking accountability, and justifying unethical actions.
Some of De Villiers’ conduct aligns with these traits, such as:
- a) Appointing a so-called independent tribunal to investigate the residence and then interfering with its findings, as noted by Judge Kriegler.
- b) Failing to accept that he unethically attempted to interfere with the tribunal’s findings, even when the tribunal admitted that De Villiers’s re-direction was “a mistake.”
- c) Failing to adhere to his stated apology for wrong regarding the residence, the students, their parents, and the alumni by trivialising his insulting behaviour and grandiosely claiming a false victory (like Trump, who alleged he “won” the election he lost to Biden)
The significance of De Villiers’s conduct lies in his seeming attempts to deceive the university, the students, and the public at large when he had an obligation to act ethically and honestly, as highlighted by Cameron and Kriegler.
This is undoubtedly a matter of public interest. Unfortunately, following the settlement, the truth may remain obscured, allowing parties to present their own narrative as De Villiers has done in the recent publication.
De Villiers’s alignment with Trump is an unfortunate Freudian slip (or perhaps not). If De Villiers sees Trump as being a role model, that confirms from his own mouth, the reservations the public have about his conduct.
It is undeniable that Wilgenhof has always been and remains “great” − it does not, and never did, need De Villiers to achieve that.
The residence and alumni have shown compassion and dignity toward De Villiers and [chair of the university council Dr Nicky] Newton-King, sacrificing their entitlement to call for their dismissal and potentially to take legal action against them in the interest of saving the university’s reputation.
By contrast, to borrow a Shakespearean expression, De Villiers continues to parade himself like a “dwarfish thief in borrowed robes” by failing to fully acknowledge his errors, and has sacrificed the university’s reputation to preserve his own.
Regrettably and most significantly the University Council has aided an abetted this disgraceful and publicly condemned behaviour. The Council would do well to remember Dante’s misinterpreted but nevertheless apt sentiment expressed in Inferno, that
“The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.”
The fact is, there was widespread condemnation of De Villiers’s conduct. Perhaps the sad reality is that, while he can publish what he likes, his statements are dissembling.
Martin Luitingh
Coram Chambers
St James Hall
Sydney, Australia