University of Cape Town (UCT)’s academics in the faculty of social development have allegedly been awarding higher marks to white students while penalising black students in a perpetuation of racism and a culture of inequality.
Former head of department (HoD), Prof Ndangwa Noyoo, who has been acknowledged by the Department of Higher Education and Training as the UCT whistleblower, revealed this in an affidavit he penned to the department and the presidency.
On Friday, July 18, Mishack Ramoshaba of the department, reached out to Noyoo, asking that he substantiate his claims to the Presidency.
“You once contacted the office of the president regarding corruption at UCT. This is the summary of your case received from the Presidency: The citizen is complaining about corruption and maleficence at the University of Cape Town. He states that it had been aided and abetted by senior administrators at the faculty level.”
In a detailed response to the department, Noyoo described the alleged malpractice as a “disturbing trend spearheaded by six individuals”, whose names are known to this publication.
“When I became the HoD in January 2018, I went after this scourge head-on because I had earlier been approached by black student whistleblowers who complained of being marginalised and penalised by this group of rogue academics. This disturbing trend was spearheaded by the aforementioned six individuals, and most likely this culture of impunity has not stopped. In most instances, this transgression was done to raise the marks of white students while black students were penalised,” Noyoo stated.
He further revealed that the lecturers disregarded UCT’s examination policies by opening stickers containing student names while marking scripts, a violation of standard procedures meant to ensure impartiality.
Noyoo recounted how he exposed the malpractice with the help of the senior administrator through a sting operation.
“After discovering them, they cried foul and rushed to the acting dean of humanities and deputy dean… who protected this group from any disciplinary action,” he said.
The allegations also include claims that one lecturer awarded distinctions to entire master’s classes to boost her popularity, bypassing departmental oversight.
Despite reporting these issues to the dean, Noyoo said there were “no consequences at all”.
Among the supporting evidence Noyoo shared with the department is an email thread dating back to 2019, when he noticed an extraordinary trend in the master’s programme, where all students in a recent course had achieved distinctions.
In an email to Dr Alvina Kubeka, the course instructor, Noyoo stated, “As the head of this department, I need to have proper information about this trend so that I can respond to queries from faculty, etc.”
He requested a detailed report analysing the marks distribution and the factors contributing to the high scores.
Kubeka attributed the exceptional results to the course’s emphasis on critical engagement and dynamic participation.
“Our daily seminars during the two-week block were stimulating, thought-provoking, and even triggering at times when the whole class got emotional as we reflected on the challenges faced by marginalised youth in South Africa,” Kubeka said, adding that this engagement resulted in the high marks.
Kubeka also praised the students’ performance in group presentations, where they critically analysed the national youth policy. However, she acknowledged variations in marks for written tasks, such as position papers and organisational analysis, which reflected differing writing abilities among students.
An external examiner suggested reducing the number of assessment tasks in future iterations of the course, a recommendation Kubeka was considering. “In her report, the external examiner did suggest a reduction in the assessment task, something to consider in the future,” she said.
In a separate set of emails in 2018, a procedural disagreement over exam recording and grade verification erupted following concerns raised by administrative officer Marguerite Armstrong regarding the handling of exam scripts.
In an email, Armstrong reminded staff of the department’s policy prohibiting the opening of exam scripts to identify students. “I have noted the green sticker removed, and the names have been opened. Please staff, you know you are not allowed to open the scripts to see who the paper is from,” Armstrong wrote.
The issue was further highlighted when senior lecturer Ron Addinall responded, explaining his long-standing practice of opening scripts after marking to compile a grade schedule.
“I have been doing this for years now so that I am able to compile a schedule on which to capture the grades,” Addinall stated. He emphasised that this process allowed him to verify grades against the final course grade schedule provided by the department.
Other allegations Noyoo brought before the department included the “habit of coaching students, especially master’s students, on how to answer examination questions”.
UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola said the university noted the serious claims by Noyoo. “UCT, through the office of the vice-chancellor, is at this stage not formally aware of any previous or ongoing investigation by the [department]. The university’s formal records, at this stage, do not indicate receipt of any previous correspondence or report directly from the [department] in relation to this matter.”
Moholola said the university had instituted a preliminary fact-finding process to look into the matter, noting that these allegations predate the current administration.
“Furthermore, UCT will consider putting in place its own formal internal inquiry into the matter. UCT will, as a matter of urgency, liaise with the [department]around the status of the previous report, as well as around what appears to be a new set of allegations made by the complainant.”
He said the university was committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and accountability, and “we emphasise our full cooperation with any investigation”.
