Constitutional Rights
Question
We have discussed balancing conflicting rights in a particular situation, and how to identify limitations of rightsthat are intended to bring greater balance, protect rights, or prevent violation of rights.
In this ongoing scenario on the Potchefstroom campus, can you
1) Identify the conflicting rights?
2) Motivate lawful limitation?
Scenario
The purpose of this communique is to respond to various media reports as well as stakeholder enquiries.
From the outset, it is important for you to be aware of the obligation of the NWU as a public institution that needs to diligently comply with all measures of confidentiality regarding disciplinary processes and the information that may be divulged with regard thereto. To this end, the university`s disciplinary measures against Mr Shaun Christie ("the student") are ongoing and confidential in nature, and my office will strictly abide to these confidential measures.
However, our institution is entitled and duty-bound to respond to factual inaccuracies, inconsistent reporting, and in some cases plain rumours spread via various media platforms. We hereby take this opportunity to state the facts regarding the ongoing disciplinary process as follows:
1. During my tenure as the Chief Disciplinary Officer of students, no student at our institution has, or will be, suspended from university activities based on their religious beliefs.
2. The student was not suspended for standing up to or pronouncing his Christian beliefs.
3. The NWU is the programme owner of, among others, a registration and orientation programme that involves sessions where inter alia, students are informed about the constitutional protection afforded to minority groups at our institution, including but not limited to, international students, students living with disabilities, and those students associated with the LGBTQIAP+ community. Attendance at the specific session referred to in the disciplinary process is not compulsory, and the invitees were limited to first-year students, student leaders, employees from Student Life portfolio, and guest speakers.
4. The student you have raised concerns about is a final-year law student and was not an invitee to the specific session. Nevertheless, the student attended the session without requesting permission to do so or to be allowed to act as speaker. He was still allowed to attend the session to which he gained access on his own accord.
5. During the information session presented by a legitimately invited guest speaker, the student rudely interrupted the programme; thus, he is facing the following disciplinary charges which were made public in the media and are therefore already in the public domain:
6. Our institution recognises, respects, and embraces all religions on our campuses, as well as the rights of any person(s) from minority groups including the LGBTQIAP+ community, along with all other constitutional rights afforded to us by our Constitution.
7. Any suggestion that the student was suspended based on his religious belief is devoid of any truth. The university further respects our proud religious heritage as long as this respect does not create an image that we are a Christian only public higher education institution. As a unitary institution, we embrace persons from all walks of life, religions, race, gender, language, and the constitutional right to freely associate and express oneself on our campuses as long as this association and/or expression is executed without infringing unreasonably on the rights of others.
8. We trust that the information above will assist in the dissemination of correct information in the public domain regarding the current disciplinary process relating to the student. The university will unfortunately not engage in discussions regarding specific details of the disciplinary process. At this stage, it is worth to note that the student`s suspension has been relaxed to the extent that he may continue his academic duties pending the outcome. The hearing was scheduled for 29 February, postponed until 12 March and then again to 27 March.
Leereenheid 2 - Grondwetlike Regte
Question
Ons het die balansering van teenstrydige regte in `n spesifieke situasie bespreek, en hoe regte beperk kan word om groter balans te bring, regte te beskerm, of skending van regte te voorkom. In hierdie voortdurende scenario op die Potchefstroom kampus, probeer om
1) Die teenstrydige regte te identifiseer, en
2) Regmatige (wettige) beperking te motiveer.
Scenario
Die doel met hierdie kommunikasie is om te reageer op verskeie mediaberigte sowel as navrae van belanghebbers.
Dit is van meet af aan belangrik dat u bewus moet wees van die verpligting van die NoordwesUniversiteit (NWU) as ʼn openbare instelling wat moet voldoen aan alle vertroulikheidsmaatreëls ten opsigte van dissiplinêre prosesse en die inligting wat ingevolge daarvan bekend gemaak mag word. Die universiteit se dissiplinêre maatreëls teen mnr Shaun Christie (die student) is dus vertroulik van aard, en my kantoor sal streng by hierdie maatreëls hou.
Ons instelling is egter geregtig en verplig om te reageer op feitelike onakkuraathede, teenstrydige beriggewing, en gerugte wat via verskeie mediaplatforms versprei word. Ons maak hiermee van hierdie geleentheid gebruik om die feite rakende die voortgesette dissiplinêre proses soos volg te stel:
1. Ek kan u verseker dat geen student gedurende my ampstermyn as Hooftugbeampte van studente ooit geskors sal word van universiteitsaktiwiteite op grond van sy of haar geloofsoortuigings nie.
2. Die student is nie geskors omdat hy sy Christelike oortuigings uitgespreek het nie.
3. Die NWU is die programeienaar van ʼn Registrasie- en Oriënteringsprogram wat sessies behels waar studente onder meer ingelig word oor die grondwetlike beskerming wat aan minderheidsgroepe by ons instelling verleen word, met inbegrip van internasionale studente, studente met gestremdhede, en studente wat met die LGBTQIAP+-gemeenskapidentifiseer. Bywoning van die spesifieke sessie waarna in die dissiplinêre proses verwys word, was nie verpligtend nie, en die genooides was beperk tot eerstejaarstudente, studenteleiers, werknemers van Studentelewe-portefeulje, en gassprekers.
4. Die betrokke student is ʼn finalejaarstudent in Regte en was nie ʼn genooide na die spesifieke sessie nie. Nietemin het die student die sessie bygewoon sonder om toestemming te vra om dit te doen of om as spreker op te tree. Hy is toegelaat om die sessie uit eie beweging by te woon.
5. Tydens die inligtingsessie wat deur ʼn genooide gasspreker aangebied is, het die student die program onbeskof onderbreek; hy staan dus tereg op die volgende dissiplinêre aanklagte wat in die media bekendgemaak is en dus reeds in die publieke domein is:
6. Ons instelling erken, respekteer en aanvaar alle gelowe op ons kampusse, sowel as die regte van enige lid/lede van minderheidsgroepe insluitend die LGBTQIAP+ gemeenskap, tesame met alle ander grondwetlike regte wat ons Grondwet aan ons verleen.
7. Enige suggestie dat die student weens sy geloofsoortuiging geskors is, is van alle waarheid ontbloot. Die universiteit respekteer verder ons trotse godsdienstige erfenis solank hierdie respek nie die idee skep dat ons ʼn openbare hoëronderwysinstelling slegs vir Christene is nie. As ʼn unitêre instansie omhels ons persone uit alle strata van die samelewing, gelowe, rasse, geslagte, tale, en die grondwetlike reg om vrylik te assosieer en jouself op ons kampusse uit te druk solank hierdie assosiasie en/of uitdrukking geskied sonder om onredelik inbreuk te maak op die regte van ander.
8. Ons vertrou dat die inligting hierbo sal help met die verspreiding van korrekte inligting in die publieke domein rakende die huidige dissiplinêre proses met betrekking tot die student. Die universiteit sal nie betrokke raak by diskussies oor spesifieke besonderhede van die dissiplinêre proses nie. Op hierdie stadium is dit gerade om daarop te let dat die student se skorsing dermate verslap is dat hy sy akademiese pligte kan voortsit hangende die uitslag. Die verhoor was vir 29 Februarie geskeduleer, is tot 12 Maart uitgestel en toe weer tot 27 Maart.