This article was updated since it was initially published, by adding further comment from the SA Dental Technicians Council.
Unusual meetings between Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) and the SA Dental Technicians Council (SADTC) as well as a strange payment to council president have added a layer of controversy in the saga of unregistered black dental technicians and technologists.
Sunday World reported two weeks ago that the current and former Tshwane, Durban and Cape Peninsula universities of technology’s black students’ employability has been frustrated by the council’s failure to register them. As a consequence, more than 500 of these students are unable to find a job or open their own dental laboratories.
Now a Sunday World informant has since alleged that in February 2020, the council demanded that the TUT appoint its then education committee chair, Peter Owen, and pay him a fee to help the students register. Registration is a requirement before graduates can land employment.
The informant said that the council invited TUT bosses to meet its accreditation panel to discuss the approvals for its diploma curriculum. At this meeting, the appointment of Owen was discussed, while the students were encouraged to buy their study guides from the council. This was a few months before Owen was appointed council president in 2020.
On March 10, 2020, Owen wrote to TUT to enquire if the workshop was still on, and he was assured it would take place at the Royal Elephant Hotel on March 12 and 13, 2020. In the confirmation, Owen was asked to send an invoice for R10 000 for the two days and was assured that TUT would require more services from him in the future.
In the invoice that Sunday World has seen, Owen provided a Standard Bank account for receipt of payment. He further indicated that his travel costs would be invoiced separately.
After the workshop, “TUT submitted its reviewed curriculum for year 1 of the Diploma to the SADTC…” which was approved in September 2020.
A July 19, 2022 document, which Sunday World has seen, indicates: “In February 2022, TUT was requested by the SADTC that the study guides for years 1–3 should be redesigned on the new templates provided. Included were the exit-level outcomes, which were shared with TUT in January 2022. These exit-level outcomes were expected to be used exactly as is in the revised study guides,” said TUT.
Former council member Mzimkhulu Mcuba told Sunday World that nobody took his concerns about the plight of the black students seriously.
Instead of responding to the allegations, Owen lambasted this reporter about a previous story. At the time of publication, he hadn’t accepted the invitation to comment.
SADTC RESPONSE
The SADTC denies that it has unfairly discriminated against any graduates based on race or gender. The SADTC confirms factually that 139 graduates and not 500 graduates, as published by the Sunday World, were unable to find employment because they had not met the standards for Registration with the SADTC.
It is simply false for the Sunday World to state as fact that ‘since 2010, the SADTC has not registered black dental technicians from these universities even though they passed’.
We reiterate that of the 329 technicians registered between 2010 and 2020, 119 technicians that were registered with the SADTC were black African.
The mandate of the SADTC is to register Dental Technicians and Technologists and not persons generally associated with the dental profession. Further, Professor Owen (who was at the time the President of the SADTC), did not have the power to refuse registration for graduates not yet registered with the SADTC. This allegation has no factual basis and is devoid of truth.
The SADTC wrote a detailed response to Parliament in respect of the aggrievances.
Parliament did not follow up with the SADTC on these grievances.
In addition, Professor Owen, in his capacity as president, cannot unilaterally make decisions on behalf of the SADTC in assessing students for professional registration with it.
It is important to note the mere fact that a person is a member of the council, such person is not precluded from other means of employment, provided such employment is not in conflict with their statutory obligations of the SADTC
In response to paragraphs 1 to 4, Professor Owen’s involvement with TUT was always in his personal capacity and at TUT’s request. He was invited at the request of TUT to facilitate a workshop to assist it with the compilation of TUT’s study guide as TUT at the time recognised issues with its accreditation. Professor Owen was at the time not a member of the SADTC.
When he was reappointed to the SADTC in March 2020, he declared his involvement with TUT. He has since conducted workshops to TUT at no cost.
It is therefore not true to state that an ‘unusual meeting‘ took place between TUT and the SADTC involving a ‘strange payment to council president‘, considering that Professor Owen was not a member of SADTC at the time.
The SADTC further denies that it demanded that TUT appoint Professor Owen in February 2020 to assist it. We reiterate that TUT had requested Professor Owen’s assistance because it was experiencing difficulties with the requisite documentation required for accreditation. We reiterate that Professor Owen’s involvement with TUT was in his private and personal capacity.
