By Charmaine Ndlela

The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training, Tebogo Letsie, has called for the dismissal of the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) Head of Sociology, Professor Srila Roy, following a controversial social media post that sparked national outrage.

Roy resigned as Head of the Department of Sociology after posting on her personal X account that South Africans “have little ambition, are complacent and have a poor work ethic”.

The remarks were made during a debate about foreign academics in South African universities and drew fierce criticism from students, academic groups and political figures.

The university has since placed her on precautionary suspension pending the outcome of an investigation.

Her resignation was confirmed by the Sociology Department on 26 February, and the investigation continues in line with Wits policies.

The saga has triggered debate about academic accountability, discrimination and the role of social media conduct by academics.

The South African Sociological Association condemned her comments, describing them as classist, racist and xenophobic, and said they contradicted the principles and values of South African higher education.

Letsie described the remarks as unacceptable and said such conduct should not be tolerated in the higher education sector.

“Her remarks were offensive, derogatory and undermined the dignity of many South Africans. Such views are completely unacceptable, especially from someone entrusted with teaching and leading in our universities. This is not a minor matter,” he said.

“These statements reflect deeply troubling views that cannot simply be overlooked.”

Letsie said the matter warrants serious consequences and that a demotion would not constitute sufficient accountability.

He said dismissal would be the appropriate sanction should the allegations be substantiated.

“We cannot tolerate individuals who openly express views that are widely regarded as discriminatory and then expect to continue shaping young minds and leading academic departments,” he added.

He said Wits leadership’s swift response demonstrates the seriousness of the matter, noting it would be untenable for a head of department to remain in position if their conduct is found to be inconsistent with institutional values.

“Leadership must reflect the values of equality, fairness and respect,” he said.

Letsie further stated that the committee has received information from members of the university community and the public raising concerns about fairness and equal opportunity.

“There are allegations that South Africans may have been unfairly excluded from opportunities in her department. These allegations must be fully investigated,” he said.

“Our universities must never be used to advance exclusion or discrimination.”

He emphasised that accountability must be decisive.

“We are determined to restore integrity, fairness and accountability. No one is above scrutiny. Our higher education institutions must remain spaces of dignity, fairness and transformation for all South Africans,” he said.

Roy issued an apology on 23 February, saying her comments were a “hasty pushback against xenophobic attitudes”.

“I fully understand that the tweet caused hurt, and I sincerely regret and apologise for it. Given South Africa’s painful history of racist stereotyping, the tweet was wrong, and I take full responsibility for the pain it has caused,” she said.

She stressed that the post was not intended to express derogatory views about South Africans or South African academics.

“I want to be clear that I do not hold such views. My academic work, committee contributions, supervision and mentoring reflect this,” she said.

“Despite the context of academic xenophobia, my response was not acceptable. I exercised poor judgment and take full responsibility,” she wrote.

INSIDE EDUCATION

By Thapelo Molefe

Basic Education Minister Siviwe Gwarube has officially launched her bid for the position of Deputy Federal Chairperson of the Democratic Alliance (DA) ahead of the party’s federal elective congress in April.

Gwarube confirmed her candidacy on her social media platforms on Monday, ending weeks of speculation regarding her move into the party’s top federal structure. 

“Yes it is true, I am running! Democrats, I am happy to announce that I have accepted the nomination for Deputy Federal Chairperson,” she wrote on her X account.

Gwarube framed her candidacy as a strategic necessity for the party’s national ambitions. 

“The truth is simple: we need to be the largest party in South Africa in order to bring the change so desperately needed in our country,” she said. 

Her campaign emphasises the need for a leadership core capable of organising and expanding support across every province and community.

Gwarube’s platform is built on the premise that internal electoral growth is the primary driver of national political change, asserting that “only a growing DA can deliver a growing SA.” 

By specifically contesting the “number one” deputy spot, Gwarube is positioning herself as the most senior of the three deputy chairs typically elected, a role that serves as a critical bridge between the federal executive and grassroots structures.

The announcement comes as the DA prepares for its elective congress, taking place in April in Gauteng. The party is facing a significant leadership transition following the announcement that Federal Leader John Steenhuisen will not seek re-election earlier last month.

Gwarube has seen a rapid rise within the DA since entering Parliament in 2019.

She has served as national spokesperson, deputy chief whip, and chief whip before her 2024 appointment as Minister of Basic Education within the Government of National Unity (GNU).

Her international profile was further elevated in 2025 when she was selected for the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders programme.

As a prominent figure in the party’s reformist wing, Gwarube’s entry adds further weight to a leadership race that includes Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis, who is running for Federal Leader, and Gauteng leader Solly Msimanga, who is contesting the Federal Chairperson position.

The nominations window for leadership positions remains open until March 23, 2026. The results of the April congress are expected to define the leadership team that will steer the DA into the next general election cycle.

INSIDE EDUCATION

By Nir Eisikovits and Jacob Burley

Public debate about artificial intelligence in higher education has largely orbited a familiar worry: cheating. Will students use chatbots to write essays? Can instructors tell? Should universities ban the tech? Embrace it?

These concerns are understandable. But focusing so much on cheating misses the larger transformation already underway, one that extends far beyond student misconduct and even the classroom.

Universities are adopting AI across many areas of institutional life. Some uses are largely invisible, like systems that help allocate resources, flag “at-risk” students, optimize course scheduling or automate routine administrative decisions. Other uses are more noticeable. Students use AI tools to summarize and study, instructors use them to build assignments and syllabuses and researchers use them to write code, scan literature and compress hours of tedious work into minutes.

People may use AI to cheat or skip out on work assignments. But the many uses of AI in higher education, and the changes they portend, beg a much deeper question: As machines become more capable of doing the labor of research and learning, what happens to higher education? What purpose does the university serve?

Over the past eight years, we’ve been studying the moral implications of pervasive engagement with AI as part of a joint research project between the Applied Ethics Center at UMass Boston and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. In a recent white paper, we argue that as AI systems become more autonomous, the ethical stakes of AI use in higher ed rise, as do its potential consequences.

As these technologies become better at producing knowledge work – designing classes, writing papers, suggesting experiments and summarizing difficult texts – they don’t just make universities more productive. They risk hollowing out the ecosystem of learning and mentorship upon which these institutions are built, and on which they depend.

Nonautonomous AI

Consider three kinds of AI systems and their respective impacts on university life:

AI-powered software is already being used throughout higher education in admissions review, purchasing, academic advising and institutional risk assessment. These are considered “nonautonomous” systems because they automate tasks, but a person is “in the loop” and using these systems as tools.

These technologies can pose a risk to students’ privacy and data security.

They also can be biased. And they often lack sufficient transparency to determine the sources of these problems. Who has access to student data? How are “risk scores” generated? How do we prevent systems from reproducing inequities or treating certain students as problems to be managed?

These questions are serious, but they are not conceptually new, at least within the field of computer science. Universities typically have compliance offices, institutional review boards and governance mechanisms that are designed to help address or mitigate these risks, even if they sometimes fall short of these objectives.

Hybrid AI

Hybrid systems encompass a range of tools, including AI-assisted tutoring chatbots, personalized feedback tools and automated writing support. They often rely on generative AI technologies, especially large language models. While human users set the overall goals, the intermediate steps the system takes to meet them are often not specified.

Hybrid systems are increasingly shaping day-to-day academic work. Students use them as writing companions, tutors, brainstorming partners and on-demand explainers. Faculty use them to generate rubrics, draft lectures and design syllabuses. Researchers use them to summarize papers, comment on drafts, design experiments and generate code.

This is where the “cheating” conversation belongs. With students and faculty alike increasingly leaning on technology for help, it is reasonable to wonder what kinds of learning might get lost along the way. But hybrid systems also raise more complex ethical questions.

One has to do with transparency. AI chatbots offer natural-language interfaces that make it hard to tell when you’re interacting with a human and when you’re interacting with an automated agent.

That can be alienating and distracting for those who interact with them. A student reviewing material for a test should be able to tell if they are talking with their teaching assistant or with a robot.

A student reading feedback on a term paper needs to know whether it was written by their instructor. Anything less than complete transparency in such cases will be alienating to everyone involved and will shift the focus of academic interactions from learning to the means or the technology of learning. University of Pittsburgh researchers have shown that these dynamics bring forth feelings of uncertainty, anxiety and distrust for students. These are problematic outcomes.

A second ethical question relates to accountability and intellectual credit. If an instructor uses AI to draft an assignment and a student uses AI to draft a response, who is doing the evaluating, and what exactly is being evaluated?

If feedback is partly machine-generated, who is responsible when it misleads, discourages or embeds hidden assumptions? And when AI contributes substantially to research synthesis or writing, universities will need clearer norms around authorship and responsibility – not only for students, but also for faculty.

Finally, there is the critical question of cognitive offloading. AI can reduce drudgery, and that’s not inherently bad. But it can also shift users away from the parts of learning that build competence, such as generating ideas, struggling through confusion, revising a clumsy draft and learning to spot one’s own mistakes.

Autonomous agents

The most consequential changes may come with systems that look less like assistants and more like agents.

While truly autonomous technologies remain aspirational, the dream of a researcher “in a box” – an agentic AI system that can perform studies on its own – is becoming increasingly realistic.

Agentic tools are anticipated to “free up time” for work that focuses on more human capacities like empathy and problem-solving. In teaching, this may mean that faculty may still teach in the headline sense, but more of the day-to-day labor of instruction can be handed off to systems optimized for efficiency and scale.

Similarly, in research, the trajectory points toward systems that can increasingly automate the research cycle. In some domains, that already looks like robotic laboratories that run continuously, automate large portions of experimentation and even select new tests based on prior results.

At first glance, this may sound like a welcome boost to productivity. But universities are not information factories; they are systems of practice.

They rely on a pipeline of graduate students and early-career academics who learn to teach and research by participating in that same work. If autonomous agents absorb more of the “routine” responsibilities that historically served as on-ramps into academic life, the university may keep producing courses and publications while quietly thinning the opportunity structures that sustain expertise over time.

The same dynamic applies to undergraduates, albeit in a different register. When AI systems can supply explanations, drafts, solutions and study plans on demand, the temptation is to offload the most challenging parts of learning. To the industry that is pushing AI into universities, it may seem as if this type of work is “inefficient” and that students will be better off letting a machine handle it.

But it is the very nature of that struggle that builds durable understanding. 

Cognitive psychology has shown that students grow intellectually through doing the work of drafting, revising, failing, trying again, grappling with confusion and revising weak arguments. This is the work of learning how to learn.

Taken together, these developments suggest that the greatest risk posed by automation in higher education is not simply the replacement of particular tasks by machines, but the erosion of the broader ecosystem of practice that has long sustained teaching, research and learning.

An uncomfortable inflection point

So, what purpose do universities serve in a world in which knowledge work is increasingly automated? One possible answer treats the university primarily as an engine for producing credentials and knowledge. There, the core question is output: Are students graduating with degrees? Are papers and discoveries being generated? If autonomous systems can deliver those outputs more efficiently, then the institution has every reason to adopt them.

But another answer treats the university as something more than an output machine, acknowledging that the value of higher education lies partly in the ecosystem itself.

This model assigns intrinsic value to the pipeline of opportunities through which novices become experts, the mentorship structures through which judgment and responsibility are cultivated, and the educational design that encourages productive struggle rather than optimizing it away.

Here, what matters is not only whether knowledge and degrees are produced, but how they are produced and what kinds of people, capacities and communities are formed in the process. In this version, the university is meant to serve as no less than an ecosystem that reliably forms human expertise and judgment.

In a world where knowledge work itself is increasingly automated, we think universities must ask what higher education owes its students, its early-career scholars and the society it serves. The answers will determine not only how AI is adopted, but also what the modern university becomes.

THE CONVERSATION

By Johnathan Paoli

Bishops Diocesan College has successfully defended their King Edward VII School (KES) Water Polo Tournament title on Sunday, overcoming a spirited challenge from St David’s Marist Inanda to secure a 12-8 victory in a pulsating final in Johannesburg.

Bishops captain James Malan lifted the trophy for a second consecutive year on Sunday, confident in his team’s abilities.

“We are just a team that’s hungry for success. We have worked so hard for this moment. We’ve been training since 4 January, and that’s the earliest we’ve ever had pre-season,” Malan said.

The Cape Town outfit capped an unbeaten run through the tournament with a composed performance in the title decider, having edged St David’s 9-8 in a tightly contested group-stage encounter earlier in the competition.

From the outset, the final lived up to expectations.

Spectators packed into the centre at the King Edward VII school, were treated to an intense, high-quality contest between two well-drilled sides who had navigated difficult semifinal clashes to reach the showpiece match.

Bishops shaded the opening exchanges and went into halftime with a 7-5 lead.

Tim Young, Ryan Dales and Jack Grout each found the back of the net, while Harry Ford and Matt Fenn struck braces to give the defending champions a narrow cushion.

St David’s, however, refused to yield.

PHOTO: Bishops Diocesan College Facebook page/Supplied

Matthew Peacock, Connor McJannet, David Latilla-Campbell, Cooper Haworth and Giorgio Ferreira kept the Johannesburg side firmly in the contest, matching Bishops stroke for stroke in a gripping first half.

In the third chukka, Bishops began to assert greater control, outscoring their opponents three goals to two to extend their advantage.

The Capetonians then turned the screw in the final quarter, managing the tempo effectively before sealing the result late on when Ford completed his hat-trick.

Danilo Giuricich added a consolation goal for St David’s, but the outcome was beyond doubt.

The triumph adds to an already impressive start to the season for Bishops, who have also claimed the South African College High School (SACS) Shield and the Nite Series titles, underlining their status as one of the country’s premier schoolboy water polo sides.

“Just to get the result means the world to us. All the matrics, it’s our last one, and we have a goal to win everything this year, and so far, we are on track,” Malan said.

Bishops topped Pool A without suffering a defeat, before dispatching Hilton College 9-3 in the quarterfinals.

A high-scoring semifinal against SACS followed, with Bishops prevailing 13-11 in a thrilling encounter to book their place in the decider.

St David’s route to the final was equally dramatic.

They defeated Rondebosch Boys’ High School 11-5 in the quarterfinals, before edging Kearsney College in a tense semifinal that ended 8-8 in regulation time.

The Johannesburg side advanced after winning the penalty shootout 3-1, setting up a much-anticipated rematch with Bishops.

Reflecting on his team’s sustained success, Malan credited the culture within the squad as a defining factor.

“We have a really good team culture. We’re just mates with each other. It doesn’t matter if a guy is in grade 10 or 12. Those friendships bind us together in and out of the pool, and I think that’s what makes this team so good,” he explained.

In the third-place playoff, SACS drew 7-7 with Kearsney before clinching victory in a 3-2 shootout.

Other notable Day 3 results included St John’s College defeating St Andrew’s College 4-1 and Rondebosch Boys’ High School overcoming Hilton College 7-4.

Bishops finished top of the final standings, followed by St David’s, SACS and Kearsney College.

The KES Water Polo Tournament is a prestigious event that showcases the best water polo-playing boys’ schools in the country.

In 2025, Bishops emerged as the champions after defeating Hilton College in a penalty shootout.

With their second consecutive title win, Bishops will look to extend their winning run when they return to action at the upcoming Mazinter Cup later in the year.

PHOTO: Bishops Diocesan College Facebook page/Supplied

INSIDE EDUCATION

By Charmaine Ndlela

In a country where youth unemployment and socio-economic challenges dominate headlines, Senty Maphosa is quietly rewriting the narrative by building community and restoring a sense of dignity and belonging.

Born and raised in Kamagugu, Mbombela, Mpumalanga, twenty-eight-year-old Maphosa’s journey into community development was shaped not in boardrooms but on dusty soccer fields, in early childhood development (ECD) centres, and through conversations with young people searching for direction.

“I’ve always believed that when you help one person, you create a ripple effect,” she says. “You might not see it immediately, but positive contribution always comes back in some form.”

Her early work at Royal Chili’s Soccer Academy became a turning point. Initially assisting with administrative tasks, Maphosa realised the academy was more than sport – it was keeping boys off the streets, away from drugs, crime, and teenage pregnancy.

She pushed for recognition events to celebrate the boys’ achievements, understanding that acknowledgment fuels motivation.

Driven by a desire to expand her impact, Maphosa moved to Johannesburg, where she describes her time in the city as a strategic mission: “I am here to learn, grow, and network, and find myself in a position where I can implement and develop projects with support from various stakeholders.”

Her work with Jozi My Jozi’s Education workstream has positioned her as a central connector, aligning people, stakeholders, and purpose.

She coordinated a career expo at Phefeni Secondary and held a successful ECD mass registration drive, assisting nearly 100 practitioners to navigate the government’s transition from the Department of Social Development to the Department of Basic Education.

“It’s not just about telling them to register,” she says.

“It’s about helping them understand what compliance means and connecting them to people who can help.”

Maphosa’s motivation is rooted in impact, not financial gain.

Her volunteer work with river cleanups and youth programmes reflects her commitment to sustainability and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

She emphasises empathy and community love, seeing herself as a safety net for those in need and a catalyst for small, meaningful acts that ripple into larger change.

Though her work is grounded in grassroots engagement, Maphosa’s ambitions extend to academic and national leadership.

She envisions pursuing a Master’s degree and eventually a PhD on community deterioration and social cohesion, with long-term aspirations to serve as a presidential advisor.

From organising soccer medal ceremonies to connecting ECD practitioners with government compliance systems, Maphosa’s work is a testament to the power of purposeful action.

Her journey shows that impact does not always begin with funding or titles – sometimes it starts with seeing a gap and stepping into it.

“You never know where life will take you, just keep doing your best and the rest will align,” she says.

INSIDE EDUCATION

A primary school in southern Iran was struck during Saturday’s joint US-Israeli military operation, killing at least 148 people who were mostly schoolgirls, according to Iranian authorities.

The attack came as the US and Israel launched joint military action against Iran on Saturday, beginning in Tehran and expanding across the country.

Mohammad Ashouri, governor of Hormozgan province, said Shajareh Tayebeh primary school in the coastal city of Minab was struck at 10.45am.

Some 170 schoolgirls were present, Ashouri said, adding that he hoped rescue operations would find survivors trapped under rubble. The Minab judiciary said 148 people had been killed and 95 injured. The semi-official ISNA news agency said on Sunday that the death toll had risen to 153.

State television showed the destroyed school with benches under debris, while mothers screamed in the school’s courtyard.

The Islamic republic described the attack as an example of what it called US and Israeli atrocities. President Masoud Pezeshkian said it was “savage” and “inhumane”.

The foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, called it a “war crime”.

Neither the US nor Israel has commented on the reason for the strike, but the US military said it was aware of reports of civilian casualties in Iran from its joint operation with Israel.

“We are aware of reports concerning civilian harm resulting from ongoing military operations. We take these reports seriously and are looking into them,” said Captain Tim Hawkins, a spokesperson for US Central Command, which oversees American operations in the region.

“The protection of civilians is of utmost importance, and we will continue to take all precautions available to minimise the risk of unintended harm.”

Nadav Shoshani, a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, said on Sunday that the force was “not aware of any IDF operations in that area” of the school.

The strike raised anger among some US politicians. Marjorie Taylor Greene — the former Republican congresswoman who resigned her seat at the start of the year after falling out with President Donald Trump — wrote on X on Saturday: “I did not campaign for this. I did not donate money for this. I did not vote for this, in elections or Congress. This is heartbreaking and tragic.”

“And how many more innocent will die? What about our own military? This is not what we thought MAGA was supposed to be. Shame!”

Iranian state television reported that “many” civilians had been killed across the country, describing the strike on the school in Minab as the most tragic incident so far. It did not provide further details on overall civilian casualties.

Ali Alizadeh, governor of Lamerd in southern Iran, said the joint operation targeted four residential neighbourhoods in that area, including a sports hall, killing at least 15 civilians and injuring many more.

Several rounds of attacks targeted various neighbourhoods in Tehran.

A text message sent to residents urged people to evacuate the capital if possible and move to safer areas “due to the continuation of the joint US and Zionist regime operation against Tehran and other major cities”.

Roads leading from Tehran to coastal cities along the Caspian Sea in the north have been converted to one-way routes and are crowded with residents fleeing over fears that residential buildings could be targeted.

During the June 2025 war with Israel, which centred on Tehran, officials said more than 8,500 buildings were damaged, 650 were completely destroyed and more than 1,000 civilians were killed nationwide.

Additional reporting by Steff Chávez in Washington

Financial Times