At the same time as a senior South African government official channels the views of Apartheid ideologues about race (Jimmy Manyi, a top government spokesperson said there is an “over-supply of coloureds” in the Western Cape province), the South African online publication The Daily Maverick Online features a profile of Jonathan Jansen, the current vice chancellor of the University of the Free State.

Jansen is a prominent educator and public figure (and prolific writer) in South Africa, known for his reconciliatory approach to social divisions.

The profile by the site’s Mandy de Waal–titled “The Beautiful Mind of Jonathan Jansen“–is an interesting portrait of a man who seems to bridge the worlds of ‘white’, ‘black’ and ‘coloured,” still largely separate, 17 years after the end of Apartheid.

Jansen is credited with bringing about a transformation in race relationships at the University of the Free State. Shortly before his arrival as vice chancellor, the university made world headlines thanks to a video made by four white students, the “Reitz Four,” who filmed themselves humiliating black staff members.

In the article, Jansen narrates how he began addressing the tension and hostility on the campus after he arrived, and how, through a “recipe of listening, unwavering moral fortitude, servant leadership and love,” he has succeeded in turning things around; to the extent that the biggest problem now, we are told, is interracial love affairs. Not that the university minds, but students are apparently afraid of going home and dealing with their racist parents.

Jonathan Jansen is an interesting and even admirable figure, and the approach he describes is remarkable. If his account of the turn-around is to be believed, it is an approach that perhaps should be adopted more widely.

Yet de Waal’s article is worrying in some respects and may say less about Jansen and more about liberal politics in South Africa.

It presents Jansen as a hero, an almost larger than life, saintly figure –as if the aim is to create another Tutu or Mandela. And so, as happened with Madiba and the Arch, it begins to build a myth around Jansen. Here we are again, in the Rainbow Nation, or perhaps on the set of Invictus.

The article makes no mention of the fact that many South Africans find Jansen’s approach problematic. For example, he has been accused of going too far in his quest to reconcile, letting racist whites off too easily. For example, one of his first acts as vice chancellor was to drop charges against the Reitz Four, who now demand money to grant interviews about their dastardly act).

No matter how wonderful this man might be, and notwithstanding his apparent success in bringing about a degree of transformation, are we well served by myth building of this nature? Does painting over the blemishes in order to serve us up another hero, really do South Africa a favour?

The problem with such an approach is that when the cracks and faults do start to show, either there is pressure to distort and ignore reality and hide things, or else there’s a tendency to flip from idealism and euphoria to despair and cynicism. Can we not learn to walk the middle road and accept that our villains may have some redeeming qualities and our heroes may have a clay toe or two?

Jansen himself seems to have no problem calling a spade a spade. His comments about historically English-speaking universities are spot on. They have not had to grapple with real transformation, as white kids simply fled from the residences to their parents’ homes in the suburbs when the blacks moved in. “These are the so called liberal universities” he says, “but don’t believe that crap.”