Manny Ita –
A new continent-wide academic study has raised fresh concerns about how South Africa’s public universities treat scholars from elsewhere in Africa, warning that institutional practices inside higher education mirror the same xenophobic pressures long associated with the country’s broader social climate.
The research, conducted across all 26 public universities and led by Stellenbosch University lecturer Dr Precious Simba, examines the everyday working lives of African academics employed outside their countries of origin. Rather than overt hostility, the study identifies a pattern of administrative exclusion, unequal expectations and psychological strain that collectively amount to what Simba terms “academic xenophobia”.
According to the findings, international African scholars often feel compelled to consistently exceed formal performance requirements in order to secure legitimacy within their institutions. Participants described working extended hours, accepting heavier teaching loads and taking on additional supervision duties as a defensive strategy against being viewed as expendable or undeserving of their positions. This culture of over-performance, the study argues, is not driven by ambition alone but by fear of exclusion.
The research situates these experiences within South Africa’s current policy and social environment, where immigration backlogs, work visa delays and periodic public debates over the employment of foreign nationals continue to shape workplace dynamics. In recent years, universities have faced repeated disruptions linked to visa processing delays for academic staff, even as the sector promotes itself as globally competitive and internationally networked.
One example cited in the study is the continued vulnerability of high-profile scholars to immigration bureaucracy. Philosopher Achille Mbembe, whose work has shaped global debates in political theory and postcolonial studies for more than two decades from a South African base, was referenced as emblematic of the contradiction between intellectual recognition and administrative insecurity. Simba noted that unresolved visa concerns, even at the highest levels of academic prestige, reinforce a sense of conditional belonging for foreign scholars.
The emotional toll of documenting these experiences proved significant. The research team reported that interviews frequently surfaced accounts of anxiety, burnout and long-term psychological distress, prompting the decision to engage a professional psychologist to support both participants and researchers throughout the project. This, the study suggests, reflects the depth of trauma associated with prolonged professional precarity.
Rather than framing xenophobia solely as a societal or street-level phenomenon, the study shifts attention to institutional culture, arguing that subtle discrimination embedded in policies, performance expectations and managerial practices can be just as damaging. Scholars interviewed likened their situation to being permanently on probation, regardless of seniority or output, with acceptance perceived as something to be continually earned.
The report concludes by warning that South Africa’s ambition to serve as a leading intellectual hub for the Global South is at risk if these internal contradictions persist. Without reforms to immigration processes, clearer protections for academic staff and more robust mental health support systems, the study argues that universities may continue to benefit from the labour of continental scholars while failing to offer them genuine inclusion or security.
Dr Simba’s findings add to a growing body of research questioning whether South African higher education institutions are fully aligned with their stated commitments to transformation, equity and pan-African collaboration, particularly at a time when global competition for academic talent is intensifying.
