|
Krog should have been allowed to respond before Watson's essay went to printSam Raditlhalo‘Well, children, whar dar is so much racket must be something out o’ kilter ... [W]hat’s all dis here talking ‘bout? Colin Bower’s article in the Mail & Guardian (February 24 – March 2, 2006) alleges that “... staff at UCT’s English Department were largely reluctant to talk to the Mail & Guardian …” I do not recall being asked anything by Bower (or anyone) concerning this story. It makes little sense to ascribe my views on the matter to a “largely” amorphous academic staff as though we are all “reluctant” to air our views. For the record, Antjie Krog was a guest at the informal discussion on plagiarism hosted by the Vice-Chancellor, NS Ndebele, last year at his official residence. I do recall that on the evening she was constrained to make a point about the manner in which finding material in one language (say Dutch) might be misread as her having plagiarised (or “stolen”) it if it were to appear in print in Afrikaans or English. With hindsight, she was being prescient about her now public situation. In the same discussion, a leading light of the university’s Humanities Faculty, however, was emphatic of his willingness to reward plagiarism if a student so much as uncovered a gold nugget in their writing that is left unacknowledged, quoting all the while from the “Great Ones” who glorified the practice. I cannot in all sincerity decide whether this was done tongue in cheek in order to spice up the discussion. Perhaps the academic was merely playing the devil’s advocate. At no stage did Antjie Krog support this position. This observation should not be read as an attempt to exonerate Antjie Krog of these allegations. She plans to defend herself anyway. It is what I observed and heard on the night. What does annoy me is that, having been this selective of those he interviewed, Bower allows for the erroneous view that I stand for this apparent Afrikaans-English divide, this perceived split between UCT and Stellenbosch. Not me. The idea or view that members of the English department are monolithic in their views is “largely” erroneous. It leaves the impression that members here, by their “silence”, acquiesce to a debate not of their making.
I for one am disinterested in the debate except to support Ntate Bankole Omotoso’s position: Antjie Krog should have been allowed to preview Professor Stephen Watson’s review essay and respond to it before it went to print and thus circulation; both should have formed a critical debate section for the subscribers to read at leisure other than see sensationalised in the Sunday papers. Such a practice is not unheard of: when Rob Turrell edited The Southern African Review of Books he allowed for simultaneous publication of a book review and a response by the author concerned. As it is, Antjie Krog’s response has to wait till Mandla Sibeko knows when before it is made public.
Send your comments to webvoet@litnet.co.za to continue the discussion on SêNet, our interactive opinion page.
|
|||
© Kopiereg in die ontwerp en inhoud van hierdie webruimte behoort aan LitNet, uitgesluit die kopiereg in bydraes wat berus by die outeurs wat sodanige bydraes verskaf. LitNet streef na die plasing van oorspronklike materiaal en na die oop en onbeperkte uitruil van idees en menings. Die menings van bydraers tot hierdie werftuiste is dus hul eie en weerspieël nie noodwendig die mening van die redaksie en bestuur van LitNet nie. LitNet kan ongelukkig ook nie waarborg dat hierdie diens ononderbroke of foutloos sal wees nie en gebruikers wat steun op inligting wat hier verskaf word, doen dit op hul eie risiko. Media24, M-Web, Ligitprops 3042 BK en die bestuur en redaksie van LitNet aanvaar derhalwe geen aanspreeklikheid vir enige regstreekse of onregstreekse verlies of skade wat uit sodanige bydraes of die verskaffing van hierdie diens spruit nie. LitNet is ’n onafhanklike joernaal op die Internet, en word as gesamentlike onderneming deur Ligitprops 3042 BK en Media24 bedryf. |