In August of this year, I published an essay in which I raised concerns about Roedean’s new ‘anti-discrimination’ policy. I explained that the document was based on the principles of Critical Race Theory, with the core ideological problem being the policy’s explicit recognition of ‘microaggressions' as constituting a form of racism. 

I argued that the use of concepts and frameworks imported from the world of Critical Race Theory – such as “microaggressions” – fatally undermines the civil rights of teachers and makes the school virtually unusable by anyone who values a classical, liberal education. Roedean has now removed the ‘anti-discrimination’ policy from its website.

Like countless other schools in South Africa, and across the broader English-speaking world, St Mary’s Waverley was a target of the wave of “anti-racism” activism which erupted following the death of George Floyd in the United States in May 2020. St Mary’s Waverley responded to this activism by issuing a statement in which it expressed its support for the Black Lives Matter movement.[1]  A group of current and former students made a series of allegations giving rise to a firestorm of controversy.

St Mary’s Waverley commissioned an external investigation into the allegations, which was led by Advocate Thandi Orleyn, who is a prominent lawyer and businessperson. Advocate Orleyn is most notable for being a co-founder of Peotona Group Holdings, a majority black women-owned investment firm,[2] and is a former senior partner of the commercial law firm, Routledge Modise.[3] 

She serves as the chairperson of BP Southern Africa and Impala Platinum Holdings, and is a board member of De Beers Consolidated Mines, the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and Toyota South Africa.[4] She has also served as a non-executive director of the South African Reserve Bank[5] and is a member of the ANC’s National Disciplinary Committee.[6]

Advocate Orleyn was assisted in the investigation by Ms Zanele Masoek of Tokiso Dispute Settlement (Pty) Ltd; Advocate Orleyn is the Chairperson of Tokiso.[7] To the credit of the leadership of St Mary’s Waverley, the Orelyn-Masoek Report (Report) was made freely available to parents and teachers, and I have posted a copy of the Report here. 

I have reviewed the Report and have serious concerns about its underlying ideology, its analytical framework, its methodology and its findings.

Microaggressions: Weapons of reputational destruction[8]

The Report is entitled ‘The Investigation Into Allegations of Microaggressions and Discrimination Held at St Mary’s School Waverley’. 

The term “microaggressions” was first proposed by Harvard University psychologist, Chester M. Pierce, in the 1970s and then popularised in a 2010 book written by an American psychologist named Derald Wing Sue. It refers to 'commonplace verbal, behavioural or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults towards people of color’.[9]

As I explained previously on Roedean, the fundamental problem with the concept of “microaggressions” is that it is both undefined and all-encompassing. According to the University of Minnesota, the following remarks or situations would constitute “microaggressions”:

Asking someone where they are from or where they were born;

Complimenting a “person of colour” on being articulate;

Promoting colour-blindness or identity-blindness;

Promoting meritocracy, for example, by stating that the most qualified person should be given a job;

Promoting hard work, for example, by stating that everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough;

An educational institution which has buildings named after white, heterosexual, upper class males commits what is referred to as an “environmental microaggression”;

White people who deny their racial biases also commit a “microaggression”.

The trouble here should be obvious. Not only do “microaggressions” include an array of statements and actions which is so broad as to be virtually indeterminate, but many perfectly normal, harmless, and legitimate human interactions can be interpreted as being “microaggressions” resulting in the “perpetrator” (almost always a white person) being declared a “racist”. Furthermore, the concept of “microaggressions” mandates that people and institutions adopt an explicitly Marxist worldview. It does this by prohibiting the promotion of meritocracy and identity blindness.

It is important that this ideological background be set out in detail, for the concept of “microaggressions” is fundamental to the Report. Not only does the term feature in its title, but it appears more than 50 times in the 52-page document. Orleyn and Masoek explicitly endorse the concept of “microaggresions” and make direct reference to Derald Wing Sue’s definition of the term.[10] They include a diagram from Sue’s book which indicates that colour-blindness, meritocracy and a white person who denies that he or she is a racist are all microaggressions.[11] They also refer to the related concept of “unconscious bias”[12] and state that “unconscious biases that have not been identified by the individual may often lead to microaggressions.”[13]

It is important to appreciate how tactically important this expansion of the definition of racism is. No longer does racism merely mean discrimination or bullying on the basis of race. It now encompasses the full range of “microaggressions”. Having successfully shifted the goalposts, the “anti-racism” activists of St Mary’s Waverley could now set about trying to get some white teachers fired.

The allegations

I turn to scrutinising the actual allegations which were made against specific teachers. Unfortunately, this is more easily said than done.

We are told that ‘an investigation has been called to look into allegations of microaggressions and discrimination against seven teachers based in the senior school’.[14] These allegations had effectively been crowd-sourced by a group of girls who used Google Docs and social media to create what is ominously referred to as ‘the List’. However, the section of the Report which deals with the allegations is remarkably short and lacking in detail; so short that the relevant paragraph can be inserted verbatim:

‘The types of microaggressions and discrimination noted are summarised as follows:

the use of racist statements such as the use of the “n-word” in lessons beyond educating, making inferences that seek to liken blackness to poverty, and the use of terms such as monkeys when referring to pupils.

homophobic remarks made in lessons and attitudes perpetuated in the teachers’ enforcement of discipline deriving from an assumption of a pupil’s sexual orientation based on their looks.

the over-sexualisation of platonic relationships amongst the pupils.

microaggressions seen in the use of African names and confusing black pupils for each other; and

inconsistent treatment of black pupils versus white pupils in the application of discipline.’[15]

This passage is far from satisfactory. It does not provide the reader with any useful details regarding the alleged incidents or the relevant context in which they occurred. And context is all-important. With respect to the alleged use of derogatory language: were teachers at St Mary’s Waverley alleged to have used derogatory language directly against students? This, of course, would be completely unacceptable. But there is a world of difference between this situation and situations in which a teacher pronounces a derogatory word.  

For example, at Fish Hoek High School in Cape Town a teacher pronounced the derogatory word “hottentot” when teaching Fiela se Kind by Dalene Matthee. (The word “hottentot” appears on the final page of the book.) This triggered a week of raucous anti-racism activism followed by a disastrous intervention by a “diversity-and-transformation consultant” called Asanda Ngoasheng. The teacher in question was suspended, subjected to a disciplinary hearing and eventually cleared of the charges. Nevertheless, the trauma of the entire episode was so severe that she left the school.[16]

Then there is the ludicrous instance of Anneke Smit, a teacher at a Pretoria school who was accused of racism after she pronounced the word “polisiemannetjie” in class. This word is, of course, the Afrikaans diminutive for “polisieman” (i.e. a little policeman) and is pronounced as “po-lee-see-mun-nuh-key”. A girl misconstrued this term as being “police monkey” and accused Ms Smit of racism. Following a six-month investigation and a disciplinary hearing, Ms Smit was found guilty of racism and was dismissed from her job. Her appeal to then Gauteng MEC for Education (and now Premier of Gauteng), Panyaza Lesufi, was dismissed and her trade union, the SA Teachers’ Union, was denied access to audio recordings of her disciplinary hearing. It was only after lobby group Solidarity assisted her to approach the Education Labour Relations Council that Ms Smit was cleared of wrongdoing and was reinstated to her position.[17] 

The above incidents demonstrate why allegations of racism in South African schools should not simply be taken at face value but should be subjected to proper scrutiny. At a minimum, this must include consideration of the context of the alleged incident and the intent of the accused person. This is especially necessary in light of the endorsement of the concept of “microaggressions” which opens the door to all manner of abuse. Unfortunately, the Report provides no such background for the allegations that were made at St Mary’s Waverley. 

The evidence, findings and sanctions

Normally, a legal report would evaluate the relevant evidence before reaching a conclusion on the guilt or innocence of the accused individuals. But the Report contains none of this. Instead, the investigators appear to have simply assumed the guilt of the teachers and moved straight to the sanctions which are as follows:

‘We accordingly recommend that: -

The contracts of two of the teachers should not be renewed at the end of the year.

In the case of one staff member, that there should be a mediated conversation between her and the pupil affected.

That an apology be issued to a wider group of girls than she had previously done by one of the teachers.

In the case of the remaining three teachers, that they should continue to engage meaningfully in the diversity workshops arranged by the school and participate in structured workshops around diversity and inclusion.’[18]

Allowing contracts to expire without renewing them is a convenient way to deal with the controversy. Convenient – but also cowardly. These teachers were never given an opportunity to defend themselves in a proper disciplinary hearing. Perhaps this is a tacit acknowledgement that, if the matter were dealt with in a proper tribunal, the accused teachers would not have been dismissed. After all, it is hard to believe that a professional adjudicator would keep a straight face whilst hearing that a teacher should be fired because she committed a “microaggression”.

So, what actually happened at St Mary’s, Waverley?

Anyone looking for a clear and detailed explanation of what exactly the accusations were at St Mary’s Waverley is unlikely to be enlightened by the Report. Ms Deanne King, head of the school, kindly agreed to meet with me. Along with one of Ms. King’s colleagues, we had a pleasant and friendly meeting. Unfortunately, Ms. King was not inclined to shed more light on the specific allegations, other than to say that what the teachers had allegedly said to the complainants could potentially have been interpreted as being offensive.

I am struck by how many schools become remarkably cagey about the outcome of their racism investigations. Herschel Girls School, St Stithians Girls College and St John’s College all insist on keeping legal reports into racism locked away in a folder labelled “Top Secret”. 

St Mary’s Waverley published their Report but, as we can see, it obscures more than it illuminates. It is as if the schools’ respective leaders are keen to wrap up the episode with the official narrative undisturbed: that, yes, the school was indeed horribly racist, but they have now taken corrective action, a few bad people have “departed” and now we can all move on into a reformed, more progressive era.

Whatever the case, I am quite confident that there was, in fact, nothing which even remotely measured up to the original complaints. By this, I mean incidents in which racism is properly defined as meaning discrimination or bullying on the basis of race. It is only when the new, expanded definition of racism is used (the one which incorporates “microaggressions” and other nonsense from the world of Critical Race Theory) that any such incidents could be identified. Even then, it proved extremely difficult for the investigators to find anything of substance; certainly nothing that the school would feel comfortable exposing to public scrutiny.

Occasionally, the Report inadvertently reveals something that gives a clearer idea of what is going on:

‘It could not escape our thoughts how much trauma remains in all individuals and how it is seemingly passed on through the DNA of the Nation, from generation to generation, in light of the suffering this Nation endured during Apartheid.’[19]

This may be true, but it is interesting that this trauma seems to have been dormant until diversity and transformation consultants started running divisive workshops at the school. 

And then there is this remark:

‘Some parents still harbour the hurt and pain of their experiences and may impute these attitudes onto their girls thus propelling their own agendas rather than operating within the climate their girls exist in today.’[20]

For the first time I sensed that the investigators may have gained a glimpse of something that approximates the truth of what has actually been going on at St Mary’s Waverley. However, I suspect that the problem had less to do with the children’s parents and more to do with their older siblings and former classmates. Many of these girls had moved on to encounter Critical Race Theory at university: at UCT or Stellenbosch or Wits or – even worse – at places like Princeton or Harvard or Stanford. It is the older cohort (empowered by the extraordinary reach of social media) who brought Critical Race Theory into the schools.

A litany of procedural and methodological errors

In addition to failing at its core mandate – to report clearly on what happened at St Mary’s Waverley and to dispense justice in a fair and rational manner – the Report also contains a number of serious procedural and methodological errors.

The acceptance of anonymous allegations

The first problem relates to the fact that ‘the contributions made to the [List of accusations] are largely anonymous’.[21] Whilst it is acceptable for allegations to be made in a confidential format, anonymous allegations should generally not be accepted, especially in the absence of objective corroborating evidence. In my essay on Roedean’s anti-discrimination policy, I explained that the right of an accused person to confront his or her accuser in an open inquiry is a cornerstone of procedural justice. It is particularly unfair and cowardly that students used social media to amplify the allegations in the most public way imaginable – causing enormous stress for the accused individuals – whilst themselves sheltering under the cloak of anonymity.

This all sounds very similar to what happened at St Stithians Girls’ College, where a memorandum containing allegations of racism was submitted to the school. Of the 67 allegations, 54 were made anonymously. Despite being invited to share their experiences in a confidential setting, not even one of the anonymous complainants contacted the investigating law firm. In separate incidents, several white girls at the school were accused of racism, again mostly by anonymous complainants. One of the girls was accused of sending a WhatsApp message but was later cleared of any wrongdoing.

Lack of clear evidence

Orleyn and Masoek remark quite openly that the girls were far from convincing when providing evidence. 

‘In interviews conducted with some pupils living in boarding houses there appeared to be reluctance in answering some of the questions pertaining to the Named Teachers openly.’[22]

 …

‘The discomfort and apprehension of the girls, especially those forming complainants, was palpable. Whether this is real or merely perceived to result in adverse consequences, the need to address the root of such perceptions and fears is urgent.’[23]

…

‘One of the girls interviewed who also is a boarder at the school displayed heightened apprehension to answering the questions reiterating not desiring to jeopardise herself by expressing herself too openly. When further questioned as to how this could materialise, she displayed hesitation and discomfort leaving the investigators unwilling to pry further for fear of leaving the girl feeling too exposed and vulnerable.’[24]

Well, this is one possible interpretation of the girls’ behaviour. An alternative view is that the girls who had gleefully participated in the online outrage mob suddenly found themselves sitting in front of lawyers and realised that it was not so easy to provide substance to their allegations. Either way, the investigators seem disappointed that the girls did not have much to say.

I also think that it is telling that “There were no parents from [the Parents Association] who approached the investigators to address some of the issues noted by the girls.”[25] If the complaints were credible, then I would have expected parents of complainants to have become more involved.

Dubious fears of reprisal

Building on the point above, Orleyn and Masoek devote a section of the Report to ‘Fear of reprisal, feelings of powerlessness and culture of silence’.[26] 

According to the investigators:

‘There is a perceived or apparent abuse of power lauding itself over the girls in an insidious manner as many who express this fear are afraid of backlash, albeit in different forms, but backlash, nonetheless.’[27]

They claim that ‘It is similarly essential to understand the great courage required from a pupil to speak up about discrimination and the possible reprisal if not taken seriously’[28] and that ‘it is important to recognise the inherent power dynamic that exists between a teacher and a pupil'.[29]

This is, quite plainly, complete nonsense. Joining a Woke mob that is denouncing teachers on the Internet requires no bravery – especially when you are doing so anonymously. There will be no consequences, no accountability and no sanction for false allegations of racism. The girls at St Stithians College simply faded away after a law firm concluded that ‘further investigations of these matters were unnecessary in light of the assessment of each complaint’. Ludicrously, St John’s College still stands by its initial narrative that a boy at Michaelhouse used derogatory language on a hockey field, despite the school’s effectively chickening out of its own disciplinary hearing after I published an article highlighting some very problematic information.

Indeed, Orleyn and Masoek effectively concede this point, stating that ‘When questioned about any previous experience of backlash or viewed repercussions or retaliations against pupils who had raised grievances, the pupils could not recount any incident.’[30] 

And so the ‘fear of reprisals’ – just like the allegations of racism – is more imaginary than real.

Reliance on hearsay

For fairly obvious reasons, the following paragraph in the Report is concerning:

‘Some of the girls have recalled incidents contained in the List that they either heard through a friend, classmate or through the grapevine however may not have directly experienced the incident.’[31]

Likewise, the following remark does not inspire confidence:

‘Concerning allegations were also made of teachers in positions of authority enjoying protection in light of their longstanding relationship with the school and parents through sporting activities, and how this affords such individuals unfettered powers and resultant abilities to abuse this power.’[32]

Highly generalised allegations are often repeated by Orleyn and Masoek without substantiating details being provided and so it is impossible for anyone reading the Report to determine what the truth is. The job of an investigator is to sift substance from hearsay – not to amplify the hearsay. Sadly, the Report does little of the former and a great deal of the latter.

That the investigators prefer generalisations and platitudes over specific, credible allegations is reflected in the following passage:

‘The underlying microaggressions seen in some of these acts… lurk in the corridors of institutions standing the test of time. They ring through the halls and reverberate through the walls of celebrations of history and esteem. History and esteem embroiled in a blemished period in our South African identity.’[33]

Criticism of teachers’ defensiveness

Orleyn and Masoek express surprise and disappointment that the accused teachers ‘approached their interviews with the mindset of vindicating themselves rather than from the standpoint of having self-reflected’.[34] They state that:

'There is an immediate response of defensiveness rather than self-reflection. This evidences a continued inability to self-reflect and identify shortcomings despite initiatives introduced such as diversity evenings, lunchtime conversations and the coursework created on Racial Literacy, which many of the teachers indicated having attended.’[35]

…

‘Too many staff members have immediately defaulted to an outcry of hurt and fearing reputational damage. Few have indicated how they believe the pupils must feel having been subjected to an investigation as a minor and having lived with these experiences and how they have perceived them and the resultant effects on their psyche.’[36]

Quite why the investigators were surprised that teachers would defend themselves is mystifying, for in South Africa (and across the English-speaking world), being labelled as a racist will have absolutely shattering consequences for a professional person’s career and broader life. Importantly, the above remarks raise further questions about whether the investigators really approached this inquiry with an open mind and with a genuine commitment to let the evidence lead them to their conclusions.

Conclusion

The Report is a long, disorganised and rambling document, full of poor legal reasoning and inverted logic.

You do not need to be legally trained to identify and to understand its many flaws: its ideological foundations are based on “microaggressions”, “unconscious bias” and other highly dubious concepts from the field of Critical Race Theory; the allegations and evidence are not clearly explained whilst the findings are not properly justified; anonymous allegations are entertained; the testimony of many complainants and witnesses was far from convincing, whilst some allegations appear to have been based entirely on hearsay and generalisations.

The overwhelming impression which I am left with is that the Report follows a format that is common to Woke inquiries: it starts with the desired conclusion (that the school is racist), and then works backwards to try to find evidence and reasoning that fits the prescribed narrative. If this requires adopting an entire framework of thinking based on the principles of Critical Race Theory then so be it – anything to get the narrative to work. Anyone who tries to resist this exercise is viewed as an annoyance.

After all, having legitimised and validated the students’ social media protest, it was necessary for the school to show that action has been taken against the perpetrators of “racism”. In other words, someone needed to be sacrificed on the altar of Wokeness, otherwise it wouldn’t appear that the school was taking the problem seriously. The obvious answer – concluding that there was never a racism problem to begin with – simply does not appear to have been part of the realm of acceptable possibilities. There is no shortage of irony here, for it is, in fact, the accusers and the investigators who are the wellspring of “unconscious bias” and who, by the way in which they mistreat the accused, are the ones to commit “microaggressions”.

This story will be familiar to many parents and teachers who have been through Woke hell over the past few years. People who have been implicated in a racism scandal often think that the arrival of lawyers will bring a degree of objectivity and rigour to the situation; that “the adults” have finally entered the room. But it often turns out that the lawyers are just as Woke as the diversity-and-transformation consultants. Their judgment is just as dubious as that of the adolescent accusers who have been indoctrinated into the principles of Critical Race Theory. Instead of using evidence and reason in the pursuit of rationality and justice, lawyers often end up legitimising and validating the looniest concepts from the world of Critical Race Theory. And once you, as a teacher, have been unfairly condemned by the lawyers who act with the due authority and clout that is attributed to their profession, where then do you turn to clear your name and save your career?

Ultimately, whilst Roedean’s ‘anti-discrimination’ document provides a chilling insight into how the principles of Critical Race Theory can deform and corrupt a school’s policy framework, at St Mary’s Waverley we can see the destructive results of what happens when Woke theory is put into practice. 

I can only reiterate the offer contained in my essay on Roedean: that if anyone at St Mary’s Waverley (or any other school) is subjected to something like this in the future I will gladly turn up to assist you, free of charge.

Notes can be found at Richard's substack at https://www.school-capture.com/waverley-witch-hunt.

The article was published by the Daily Friend on 25 November 2023

The link to the full article on Sp¡ked can be accessed here. It is very well worth reading especially for parents with children at schools that have created or intend to create "safe spaces" for "minority" students. 

Please go to the UnHerd site to read the article here

ARTICLE

St John’s College in Johannesburg marked Heritage Day on Friday 22 September 2023. As is customary, the boys and staff were encouraged to celebrate the day by wearing clothing and accessories of cultural significance.

Last week, the school sent an email to parents which included the following message from the Deputy Headmaster, Mr Allan Magubane:

"While we encourage everyone to wear their cultural dress and share their heritage, it's equally vital to do so with respect and sensitivity. Cultural appropriation occurs when elements of one culture are used or borrowed by individuals from another culture, often without proper understanding or reverence for their own benefit. It's essential for our students and staff to be mindful of this, especially during our Heritage Day festivities.”[1]

The trouble with “Cultural Appropriation”

“Cultural Appropriation” is a concept that originates in the world of Critical Race Theory. Essentially, it uses Marxist analysis to tie cultural symbols to identity politics[2] and, in so doing, seeks to dictate that people from an oppressive group (this almost always means white people) are not permitted to make use of clothing, food, music, hairstyles etc which originate in other cultures.[3] Typically, the perpetrator of "Cultural Appropriation" is accused of being "racist".

“Cultural Appropriation” has been used by Woke activists as a means of setting up a target for public destruction, or what is commonly referred to as being “cancelled”.

One of the most sensational examples of a “Cultural Appropriation” scandal occurred in Utah in the United States in 2018. Keziah Daum, a white, 18-year-old high school student was the subject of an avalanche of vicious online attacks after she posted photos of her attending her “prom” (what is referred to as a “Matric Dance” in South Africa) dressed in a traditional Chinese dress known as a qipao.

Keziah Daum wearing a qipao dress at her prom in Utah, United States

The controversy kicked off when one Twitter user posted the following inflammatory comment which received a truly staggering 39,000 retweets and 168,000 likes.

Daum’s critic expanded on his point, stating that “for [the dress] to simply be subject to American consumerism and cater to a white audience, is parallel to colonial ideology.”[4]

To her enormous credit, Daum refused to genuflect before the Woke mob. She stated that she did not regret her decision and would happily wear the dress again. She noted the rich cultural significance of the qipao which is a symbol of female empowerment in Chinese culture. Daum said that this made her “love it even more.”[5]

Early last week I emailed the Headmaster of St John’s College, Mr Stuart West, and expressed my view that it was disturbing and disheartening that the school had warned parents that their children should not wear items which originate in other cultures. I asked him to confirm that St John's College unreservedly rejects the concept of "Cultural Appropriation" and that boys and staff would be free to wear cultural attire of any description on Friday.

Mr West did not respond to my email.

Fortunately, other South African schools have been able to see through the nonsense that is “Cultural Appropriation”. Leading the way is Curro in Edenvale:

Woke rules for thee, but not for me

The “Iron Law of Woke Projection”[6] states that Woke activists always accuse their targets of transgressions or wrongdoing of which they are themselves guilty. For example, those who demand censorship of “misinformation” are often guilty of spreading misinformation. Those who condemn “extremism” and “racism” are often guilty of promoting extremism and racism. Those who denounce “hate” are often filled with loathing towards their political enemies.[7]

The Iron Law of Woke Projection never misses – and, at St John’s College, we don’t have to look far to find evidence of hypocrisy and double-standards.

Mr Magubane wearing a suit and tie. According to Wikipedia, “the modern lounge suit appeared in the late 19th century, but traces its origins to the simplified, sartorial standard of dress established by the English king Charles II in the 17th century.”[8]

Mr Magubane wearing a dashiki suit and Yoruba Aso oke hat. Both of these garments originate in West Africa.

As far as I am concerned, Mr Magubane is perfectly free to dress as he wishes. I would never accuse him of committing “Cultural Appropriation” for wearing clothing of British or Nigerian origin. But it is hard not to chuckle at the irony of the situation, for it demonstrates clearly why the whole concept of “Cultural Appropriation” is complete nonsense. If Mr Magubane is allowed to "appropriate" clothing from other cultures, well, then so should everyone else. 

In short, Woke activists never intend for their own rules to be applied equally to everyone, and they certainly do not envisage that they will ever be subjected to the same standards and accountability that they apply to everyone else.

In fact, the double-standards and hypocrisy are so blatant that they may well be committed intentionally. Perhaps the whole point of this exercise is to rub it in the face of white staff and children: to demonstrate that they are second-class citizens, subjected to peculiar rules which are invented and enforced by a self-appointed Woke ruling class?

Perhaps hypocrisy is not the right word? Perhaps what is happening here is social hierarchy – with Wokes at the top and everyone else very much at the bottom?

The sinister creep of Woke Justice in South African schools

Of course, it is fun to laugh at the petty self-importance and ludicrous hypocrisy of the Wokes. Not only is it fun, but it is also important, for there are only two things that Woke activists cannot cope with. The first is blatant defiance of their authority. And the second is laughter. We need to normalise both.

But there is a very serious side to all of this. Last month, I published an essay entitled “The Trouble with Roedean’s Woke Anti-Discrimination Policy”. I explained how St John’s College’s sister school now explicitly recognises “microaggressions” as being a form of racist conduct. According to the University of Minnesota, the following remarks or situations would constitute “microaggressions”:

Asking someone where they are from or where they were born.

Complimenting a “person of colour” on being articulate.

Promoting colour-blindness or identity-blindness.

Promoting meritocracy, for example, by stating that the most qualified person should be given a job.

Promoting hard work, for example, by stating that everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.

An educational institution which has buildings named after white, heterosexual, upper class males commits what is referred to as an “environmental microaggression.”

White people who deny their racial biases also commit a "microaggression".

The concept of “microaggressions” mandates that people and institutions adopt an explicitly Marxist worldview. It does this most notably by prohibiting the promotion of meritocracy and identity blindness. In my opinion, “Cultural Appropriation” needs to be filed alongside “microaggressions” (and a host of other concepts such as “unconscious bias”, “white privilege” and “white fragility”) as being nothing more than fragments of the folklore of Wokeness, concepts that are as dangerous as they are academically dubious.

Indeed, until about 20 minutes ago, nobody in South Africa even knew that “Cultural Appropriation” or “Microaggressions” even existed, much less that we should all be extremely concerned about them. After all, this is a country that decades ago smiled with pride as Johnny Clegg sang in Zulu and danced wearing African clothing. In an earlier essay, I explained how these concepts were invented by crackpot Marxist academics like Robin DiAngelo and then imported from North America into our universities and schools via a network of self-described “diversity-and-transformation consultants” – most notably Lovelyn Nwadeyi, Teresa Oakley-Smith and Asanda Ngoasheng. They are now being embedded into school policies and school culture by Woke Commissars such as Mr Magubane.

The key thing to understand is that none of this is done with any real sincerity. Absolutely nobody is genuinely offended by a white child who wears Ndebele-print clothing or a white teacher who wears a Zulu umqhele (a traditional headdress) or umgeko (a beaded necklace). In fact, many people often feel great pride when they see their culture reflected by others.

Ultimately, this is nothing more than performative activism. It is about power and control. The purpose of “Cultural Appropriation” is the same as every other Woke tactic: to frighten, intimidate and demoralise white people; to make them fear cancellation and thus encourage self-censorship; and to remind them that their faceless Woke overlords regulate what they may and may not say and what they may and may not wear. The message is as clear as it is sinister:

"We have captured this institution. We are in control now. Remember what we did to that Geography teacher when Panyaza Lesufi came round and demanded that he fired by 1pm? Remember what happened to that former headmaster on 702 radio? Remember what we tried to do to that boy at Michaelhouse? Every move you make is being monitored. You could be next. You will obey our commands and submit to our authority – or else you will be singled out and destroyed.”

From “Cultural Appropriation” to Cultural Appreciation

For many people, it is tempting to simply comply with the latest Woke diktat. Blue jeans and a Springbok rugby jersey should be a safe option that will allow you to participate in the day’s festivities without risking your job or career.

This may be tempting – but it is wrong. For when you comply with Woke demands to refrain from committing “Cultural Appropriation” you yield far more than just your choice of clothing for the day. British author Douglas Murray says it best:

'The bare minimum that people should do in this era is not to go along with mobs, not to go along with crowds, because you never know what you will be asked to do next. Today you will be asked to take a knee or raise a fist. Tomorrow you will be told to dance, the next day to jump.

'Somewhere down the line you have no control over your own life. You don’t have your own words because someone else gave you the words to say. And you don’t have your own actions because someone else told you how to act. Before you know it, you have disappeared as an individual and have given yourself over to the crowd.

'Get some self-respect. Say no.[9]

Say you won’t do it, in matters large or small. You won’t have mobs come to you and tell you how to behave. You won’t have your bosses tell you what you should read and how you should think and try to tinker in your mind. That is not how we operate in a free society. That is how people behave in totalitarian societies.

There is no reason for people in a free society to behave in a way that people have to in totalitarian societies. No reason at all.'[10]

All I can say is that I hope teachers at St John’s College (and every other school) wore whatever they liked on Friday – and I hope parents let their boys do the same.

If Mr Magubane or Mr West told you to remove certain clothing or accessories because they do not form part of “your culture”, I hope you politely declined to do so. If they persisted, then I hope you invited the school to take disciplinary action against you for committing the offence of “Cultural Appropriation”. I repeat the offer that I made to the teachers of Roedean: that I will gladly take a day’s leave and turn up to assist you at a disciplinary hearing. I won’t send you an invoice – but I do need to caution that I might struggle to keep a straight face throughout proceedings.

I doubt that any of this will be necessary, though. Last year, at the height of the public scandal that occurred when a boy at Michaelhouse was accused of using a racial slur against a St John’s College boy, I received information from a source inside of St John’s College that, on the afternoon before the trip to Michaelhouse a senior black pupil met with the St. John’s College headmaster, Mr West. The pupil related that he had been contacted by a Michaelhouse boy who suggested that something untoward could occur on the upcoming trip and that he (the black pupil) could be the target of personal abuse. Apparently, by the time of their arrival at Michaelhouse there was already chatter among the St. John’s College boys that some kind of racial incident could be expected to occur.

This information was corroborated by three other sources.

I emailed Mr West, asking him whether this version of events was true. Mr West declined to respond to my emails. I subsequently published an article in which I publicly revealed this rather crucial information.[11] Less than 48 hours later, St John’s College effectively chickened out of the disciplinary hearing which it had previously demanded and instead opted for a “mediated settlement”. (Disgracefully, despite lacking the courage to have their allegations subjected to proper scrutiny and cross-examination, St John’s College has repeatedly asserted, in subsequent communications, that the racial slur was, in fact, uttered by the Michaelhouse boy).  

The lesson from the Michaelhouse debacle is that Woke bullies – and their weak enablers – will always back down when confronted. They crumble at the first sign of steadfast resistance.

So have some self-respect. Get off your knees. Stand up tall. Be proud of your culture – and be proud our collective national heritage.

Above all, be worthy of the freedoms that are our birthright as South Africans. Take advantage of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights which explicitly protects freedom of belief, freedom of expression and the freedom to “participate in the cultural life of [your] choice”. Be the living embodiment of our founding creed: that out of many, we are one, that the many peoples who form the diverse South African nation are united in our diversity.

Do not allow our freedoms to be sacrificed so cheaply on the altar of Wokeness.

In short: wear whatever you like today – and have a fabulous Heritage Day.

The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or Educate don't Indoctrinate.

If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend.

Notes

[1] Friday Letter, sent via email on 15 September 2023.

[2] https://x.com/wokal_distance/status/1305791253896818689?s=20

[3] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-cultural-appropriation/

[4] https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/style/story/teen-defends-chinese-prom-dress-sparked-cultural-appropriation-54866211

[5] https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/style/story/teen-defends-chinese-prom-dress-sparked-cultural-appropriation-54866211

[6] https://newdiscourses.com/2022/02/onlysubs-what-iron-law-woke-projection-tells-about-marxists/

[7] https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1643626703502073856

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_suits

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DEa7bgFpds

[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_oheEDhIUI

[11] https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/sjc-vs-mhs-two-schools-two-stories

Roedean’s new “anti-discrimination” policy is freely available on the school’s website[1]. It provides a fascinating insight into how Marxist Critical Race Theory, imported mainly from North America, can poison an educational institution, rendering it virtually unusable by anyone who desires to teach or to receive a classical, liberal education. 

“Microaggressions”

The fundamental problem with Roedean’s policy is its explicit recognition of “microaggressions” as constituting racist conduct.[2] The term “microaggressions” was first proposed in a 2010 book written by an American psychologist named Derald Wing Sue. It refers to “commonplace verbal, behavioural or environmental slights, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative attitudes towards stigmatised or culturally marginalised groups.”[3]

So, what exactly is a “microaggression”? Roedean’s policy does not say. The University of Minnesota has published a table, based on Derald Wing Sue’s book, which provides a useful guide.[4] It indicates that the following remarks or situations would constitute “microaggressions”:

Asking someone where they are from or where they were born.

Complimenting a “person of colour” on being articulate.

Promoting colour-blindness or identity-blindness.

Promoting meritocracy, for example, by stating that the most qualified person should be given a job.

Promoting hard work, for example, by stating that everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.

An educational institution which has buildings named after white, heterosexual, upper class males is charged with what is referred to as an “environmental microaggression.”

White people who deny their racial biases also commit a “microaggression”.

The trouble here should be obvious. Not only do “microaggressions” encompass an array of statements and actions which is so broad as to be virtually undefined, but many perfectly normal, harmless and legitimate human interactions are likely to fall foul of the code. For example, by asking someone where he or she is from or was born, the inquirer usually expresses curiosity about the other person’s background. After all, we all come from somewhere and, in a multicultural society, such as South Africa, our differences should be appreciated and celebrated.

However, in a world that has been infected by the Woke mind virus, asking such questions might not be acceptable. This was recently discovered in rather brutal fashion by a royal aide at Buckingham Palace. Lady Susan Hussey politely asked a black visitor at a charity reception where she was from. The anecdote became public knowledge and hysterical press coverage caused Lady Hussey to resign from her unpaid role within 24 hours.[5]

Of course, there is value in making people aware that certain speech or conduct might inadvertently hurt other people and asking them to reflect on this reality. Furthermore, the ascription of certain stereotypes to people on the basis of their identity is rightly condemned as being unacceptable.

However, the concept of “microaggressions” goes much further than this concern and instead mandates that people and institutions adopt an explicitly Marxist worldview. It does this most notably by prohibiting the promotion of meritocracy and identity blindness. Classical liberals assert that prosperity is primarily generated through free trade and capitalism and that meritocracy and identity blindness are non-negotiable ingredients required for economic progress and individual freedom. Marxists dispute this view, arguing that virtually all Western wealth is derived from the exploitation of oppressed workers. Recent variants of Marxism hold further that meritocracy and identity blindness are myths that, if accepted, would simply preserve the unequal and unjust status quo.

This debate is worth having – but it is not a debate that is likely to happen at Roedean or at any other institution which has already ruled that the classical liberal side of the argument is “racist” and, therefore, a non-starter. What is clear is that any institution (such as Roedean) which takes this approach has accepted the foundational principles of Critical Race Theory, a pseudo-academic sub-field of Marxism that has engulfed universities (and now schools) across the English-speaking world.

“Microaggressions” are especially concerning in the context of a school. Criticising children, complimenting children, and encouraging hard work to achieve success are fundamental components of being a teacher – yet each of these actions can easily be maliciously and capriciously construed as a “microaggression”, especially if the child in question is black and the teacher white. Caiden Lang, a researcher at the South African Institute of Race Relations, has written an insightful article about a school that considers encouraging hard work to be a punishable offence.[6]

And a school is not a sanitised environment. Teachers must handle classes of up to 30 children in a school of hundreds. Sometimes they will get children’s names wrong. Sometimes they need to be strict. And sometimes they make mistakes. Yet “microaggressions” provide no margin for error. How is a teacher supposed to operate in an environment where she cannot compliment Busisiwe on a well-delivered speech or correct Ayanda when she makes a grammatical error? According to the table from the University of Minnesota, a white person who so much as denies that he or she is racist is guilty of a “microaggression”.

Furthermore, Roedean was founded in 1903 by two white British women named Theresa Lawrence and Katherine Margaret Earle. This simple historical fact cannot be changed but, in the world of the Woke, recognition of these white women is likely to constitute an “environmental microaggression”. I have heard that, at the height of the Woke Uprising in June 2020, one student turned anti-racism activist launched into a diatribe during which she pointed at the portraits of the school’s Founders and declared:

“You see these white faces on the wall? We want them gone – and we want them gone now!”

Now hold still and keep quiet whilst we punch you

Whilst the recognition and formalised inclusion in school policies of “microaggressions” is itself troubling, it is far from being the only source of concern in Roedean’s anti-discrimination policy. Carefully incorporated into the document are at least five clauses which render the document grossly unfair to anyone who has the misfortune of being subjected to an inquisition on its terms.    

The policy establishes an Unfair Discrimination Complaints Committee which consists of unspecified “volunteers from the Senior School and the Junior School.” The role of this committee is to undertake a “confidential investigation” of any complaint. The Committee tables its report after which a process of mediation is supposed to occur. If mediation fails, the accused person can be referred to the usual disciplinary structures.

The trouble with the Unfair Discrimination Complaints Committee is that the special rules under which it operates violate some basic constitutional and civil rights.

For example, clause 8.3.5 of the policy provides that:

“During the process, the identity of the Complainant may have to be revealed to certain parties, including the Respondent, only where such identity is imperative to the successful conclusion of the matter.”

(Emphasis added)

This is reiterated in the annexure to the policy, which provides that:

“The complainant is entitled to request that her/his name is not disclosed to the respondent.”

So, the accused teacher is not entitled to know who her accuser is. The right to know and to challenge your accuser in an open inquiry is a cornerstone of civil rights. Indeed, St Stithians Girls’ College has discovered that entertaining anonymous allegations is generally not a good idea: in June 2020, a child at the school was formally accused, charged and initially found guilty of sending a WhatsApp message to an unknown friend containing an allegedly and mutually derogatory term; on appeal it was determined that the child’s guilt could not be assumed in circumstances where all the school had was a screenshot of the conversation (the authenticity of which could not be proved), produced by the head of school presumably after being submitted by an unknown complainant, and no witnesses. The former student recently instituted a multimillion Rand lawsuit against the school and some of its senior leaders.

And there are other problems with Roedean’s policy. For example, a secrecy clause, which states:

“In any matters where the School is involved, the Roedean Community understands that Roedean as an institution is also entitled to the rights to privacy afforded to it by law, including the POPI Act. As such, any disclosure of information on an ongoing investigation or incident could be in violation of the School’s rights in that regard. This includes disclosures to the media.”

The accused person is also not permitted legal representation. According to the policy:

“This complaints procedure is not a legal one and none of the parties will be assisted by lawyers.”

And then, buried in Clause 8.2.6.1 is this remarkable line:

“Cognisance of the existing prejudice in the country will be taken into account, in the light of prevailing laws.”

What does this mean? I do not know, but I very much doubt that it has been included for the benefit of white teachers.

In rhetoric horribly reminiscent of Mao’s Cultural Revolution or of Pol Pot’s Year Zero or, indeed, of the French Revolution’s Terror, the policy also “encourages Individuals to report unfair discrimination behaviour.” This is especially troubling considering the influence of diversity-and-transformation consultants at the school. In an earlier essay, I discussed how Lovelyn Nwadeyi had been hired to conduct “no-adult” workshops with girls in each of the five senior-school grades. So, children who have likely been exposed to the principles of Critical Race Theory are now encouraged to denounce their teachers as being racist. What could possibly go wrong?

To summarise: at Roedean a teacher can be accused of an open-ended list of racist conduct. Virtually anything can be declared a “microaggression” and, therefore, racist. Whether or not conduct is racist depends largely on the subjective feelings of the complainant. The accused person is not entitled to know who the accuser is, is not permitted legal representation, and is not even allowed to talk about the matter. He or she will be investigated by an unspecified committee of “volunteers”, who could very easily be hand-picked to ensure that this forum is effectively a Woke kangaroo court.

The accused teacher is effectively left gagged, blindfolded, and with her hands tied behind her back. One Roedean teacher told me how she and her colleagues now work in fear:

“There is very little actual teaching going on at the school. We don’t encourage debate or discussion. We simply teach to the book. Anything else is too risky or stressful. In any event, the white and Indian children are too scared to say anything in class.”

The inversion of truth, justice and fairness

Importantly, the recognition of “microaggressions” means that the policy effectively disregards context, intent and objectivity. Everything turns on the subjective feelings of the victim or – more sinisterly – on what the purported victim claims her feelings are. I believe that the fact that the term “microaggressions” is not clearly defined in the policy is not an accident but is, in fact, by design. As Christopher Hitchens memorably wrote:

“The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law… The true essence of dictatorship is in fact not its regularity, but its unpredictability… Those who live under it must never be able to relax, must never be quite sure if they have followed the rules correctly or not.”

Such quotations would resonate with many Roedean teachers, one of whom told me that she and her colleagues feel as though they have a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Various teachers recited John Proctor’s celebrated outburst in Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible”:

“Is the accuser always holy now?”

The Rule of Law is a founding principle of the South African Constitution. In essence, it requires that laws must be public, general, clear, prospective in their application and relatively stable.][7] Roedean’s policy flies in the face of this. It is little more than a Woke Charter: an instrument of malice designed to be wielded by cruel cowards in order to bully and control perfectly decent and innocent people.

Fortunately, there is a straightforward way to solve this problem: the policy should simply be withdrawn. Otherwise it should be challenged legally to have it declared unconstitutional. (Anyone unfairly targeted under this policy may contact Richard for assistance at no charge. If not available, a colleague will assist.)

Nevertheless, Roedean’s anti-discrimination policy does serve one very useful purpose: it sets out in writing what many teachers and parents have long suspected: that South Africa’s schools have fallen under the sinister spell of Wokeness. I am highly confident that what has happened at Roedean has in fact happened at dozens of schools across the country. Whereas Roedean’s policy is explicit and publicly available, at many other schools the mischief is implicit and concealed, thus making it far more difficult to identify and eradicate.

An “anti-discrimination” policy that promotes discrimination

Aside from the trouble presented from a disciplinary perspective, the document lays the foundations for enormous damage to be done with respect to hiring, promotions, performance evaluation, admissions and scholarship policies.

Clause 5.2.1 states that:

“No person shall be unfairly discriminated against, within the School Environment, including but not limited to:

a) acceptance procedures, advertising and selection criteria;

b) enrolments, and the enrolment process;

c) teaching and development; and

d) performance evaluation systems.”

(Emphasis added)

The term “discrimination” is defined in the policy as meaning:

“any unfair, unjust or prejudicial treatment, directly or indirectly, against a person.”

(Emphasis added)

The trick here is in the word “unfair”. Discrimination which is not unfair is, presumably, perfectly acceptable. What constitutes fair discrimination as opposed to unfair discrimination? This is not spelled out clearly, but the policy commits the school to adopting “positive measures”[8] that “redress the injustices of the past”[9].

And so, in an important respect, Roedean’s “anti-discrimination” policy is not actually an anti-discrimination policy at all – at least, not in that it explicitly endorses and legitimises racial discrimination against white teachers and teachers from other racial minority groups.

It was British author George Orwell who coined the expression “doublethink”. This term describes the phenomenon by which one simultaneously accepts two opposing beliefs as being true, even when doing so conflicts with reality. An “anti-discrimination” policy that endorses racial discrimination sounds ludicrous, but it is the sort of doublethink that is pervasive in ANC-EFF South Africa. After all, South Africa’s Constitution famously proclaims the virtue of “non-racialism” and yet, according to Michael Morris of the South African Institute of Race Relations, over 100 laws have been passed by the post-Apartheid Parliament which entrench racial discrimination in virtually every aspect of life.[10]

Of course, it is perfectly possible to support a model of transformation that is identity-blind and pro-poor rather than one that is racial. In fact, such a policy would make far more sense in a context such as Roedean where many girls – both black and white – are driven to school in expensive luxury vehicles. Sadly, no one at Roedean seems to have had the courage to make this argument, and so it was perhaps inevitable that the school would succumb to the warped logic of Race Marxism that has left South Africa so deeply dysfunctional, plagued by record levels of unemployment and inequality.

It is also clear that a form of pincer movement is being implemented. As is explained above, Roedean’s anti-discrimination policy makes it easy to hound white teachers out of the school. That very same policy also gives the green light to appointments being made on the basis of racial identity rather than merit. There is only one outcome that can arise from all of this: teaching standards must fall and, with it, so too will academic performance. According to one former teacher, the fall in academic standards in lower grades is already plain to see, although it will take a few years for this to reflect in Matric results.

In short, the trouble with adopting ANC-EFF policies is that, sooner or later, you will be left with ANC-EFF outcomes. Whether these outcomes are worth paying R 191,181 per year in school fees is a question that parents will have to answer. I suspect that many will answer with a resounding “no”.  

Follow the money

This leaves us with one final and very interesting question: who was responsible for drafting Roedean’s “anti-discrimination” policy?

A source from within the school informed me that it was prepared, at least in part, by none other than Lovelyn Nwadeyi, the diversity consultant mentioned above and who features prominently in my first two essays on School Capture. Neither Roedean nor Lovelyn responded to my emails seeking confirmation of this.

It stands to reason that if you define “racism” so broadly that virtually anything can be racist then it is likely that a great deal of “racism” will be identified. And if Roedean keeps having “racism” scandals then, inevitably, the school is going to need more “anti-racism” workshops. Lo and behold, clause 4.5 of the policy requires precisely this:

“Continued education, workshops and training must take place within the Roedean Community to ensure a common understanding of the scope, objectives and basis of this policy and what it aims to achieve.”

Various other clauses in the policy also start to make sense. For example, Clause 5.2.3 sounds like it was taken straight out of one from a workshop run by Lovelyn or her mentor Robin DiAngelo:

“Racism is learned and can therefore be unlearned. Teachers can play a significant role in mediating the negative effect of Racism in classrooms and on school grounds. They are well placed to start conversations in pupils’ early lives and to use creative teaching strategies to disrupt rigid narratives of race.”

At least somebody stands to benefit from Roedean’s wretched “anti-discrimination” policy: sadly, not the teachers, not the parents and not the children – but, rather, the South African diversity-and-transformation consulting industry.

The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.

If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend.

Notes

[1] https://www.roedeanschool.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/ANTI-DISCRIMINATION-POLICY-February-2022-FINAL.pdf

[2] Clause 5.4.1 of Roedean’s Anti-Discrimination Policy.

[3] Derald Wing Sue, 2010, Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation (2010).

[4] https://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf

[5] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63810468

[6] https://dailyfriend.co.za/2022/03/05/black-lives-matter-or-do-they/

[7] Rósaan Krüger http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/PER/2010/27.html

[8] Clause 5.2.2.

[9] Clause 2.3.3.

[10] https://irr.org.za/media/opinion-columnists-michael-morris-anc-scandalously-sustains-apartheid-legacy-of-racial-laws-businesslive

Richard Wilkinson writes about the one-sidedness of alleged racism in schools presented by well-known podcaster and Radio 702 host. He also discusses the extraordinary rise as the critical race theorist to find a lucrative career in persuading schools to hire her to instruct pupils and teachers to adopt the creed of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion a racist and socialist-based concept that amounts to the indoctrination into socialist ideology.

Click here for the full article.

Many elite South African schools have followed the American trend of proselytising the the theories related to Race and Gender Theory. Parents are increasingly worried about what amounts to indoctrination for a political agenda.

It is indoctrination because it is not intended to inform about the theories; it is intended to ensure children believe them even though they are highly contested. 

Much experience has shown that its teachings on racism actually produce schism and prejudice, instead of diminishing racism. The gender ideology may be worse because it emphatically promotes ideas that many will see not only as counter-intutive but scientifically wrong.

St. Stithians has received considerable criticism for perpetuating these theories. These are theories supporting ideologies that are questionable and should be open to vigorous debate. Why is St. Stithians co-hosting a seminar promoting them? And does it intend to offer an equal opportunity to those who hold contrary views?

Click here for video: shorturl.at/DU137

‘The point of language, to the best of my understanding, is to create shared intentions between the communicators involved. When I speak or write, what I genuinely want is for you to understand the idea I have in my head the same way I understand it. I want to get my idea into your head, and I want the shape and texture of that idea—its meaning—to be the same as what I have.’ – Dr. James Lindsay, author, cultural critic and mathematician.

Lindsay goes on to say that words that are frequently used in respect of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) arguably are for the greater good and to be striven for such as : diversity, inclusion, equity, antiracism, and justice. Others we would oppose like racism, sexism, misogyny, hate and white supremacy. According to Lindsay, however,  none of these ten terms mean what we know them to mean when they’re used in the context of CSJ – even critical and social justice aren’t used to mean what most of us think they mean. 

One of these words or terms is ‘colour blindness’ or ‘I don’t see colour’. The term traditionally means that race is not a factor in the way in which we respond to people or regard people. It’s not intended as insulting or racist. It means to show tolerance and a regard of people as equals. Colour blindness has not been seen as indicative of being racist or unduly hurting people. Until recently, that is.

Heather McGhee inWhy saying “I don’t see race at all” just makes racism worse reflected the CSJ movement’s view that ‘color blindness is a form of racial denial that took one of the aspirations of the civil rights movement — that individuals would one day “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” — and stripped it from any consideration of power, hierarchy or structure’. 

According to the movement, “I don’t see colour” is to say one is blind to the racism people face. This definition by the movement has amended the common understanding of the words.

Typically, a 2015 article in The Atlantic said: ‘Many sociologists, though, are extremely critical of color blindness as an ideology. They argue that as the mechanisms that reproduce racial inequality have become more covert and obscure than they were during the era of open, legal segregation, the language of explicit racism has given way to a discourse of color blindness. But they fear that the refusal to take public note of race actually allows people to ignore manifestations of persistent discrimination’.

In the course of some research, colleague Caiden Lang came across a few school disciplinary codes and procedures which refer to the term “I don’t see colour” as being listed as a specific example of unfair discrimination on the grounds of race. 

The Free Speech Union of South Africa wrote letters to a few schools in mid-October 2022 pointing out that proscribing the use of the term did not comply with the limitations placed on free speech by the Constitution or by the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000.

Further, the prohibition on the term denies the opportunity for robust debate at school. We requested each school to consider removing the exemplar for the above reasons. 

One response was that the pupils wanted the inclusion of the term because it was hurtful to them. The cynic in me suggests that most pupils will never have heard the term used or if they had, their instinct wouldn’t have been to be hurt by it. They would probably consider the utterer an idiot. I would suggest that any sense of hurt from the term can only have come from being taught by the CSJ movement that the term is  offensive and hurtful.

Most if not all of CSJ language is imported wholesale from American academia and progressives.

Another school agreed with our points and said the example would be removed, but to date has not removed it. A third school did not reply.

In an article written in anticipation of two American Supreme Court decisions about striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions, Coleman Hughes notes that these cases have ‘reignited the long-running national debate over color-blindness‘. 

Twenty-seven-year-old Hughes is a black writer, podcaster and opinion columnist who specialises in issues related to race, public policy and applied ethics. Hughes has written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Quillette, The City Journal and The Spectator. He was a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. He has appeared on TV shows, and with amongst others Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Glenn Loury and Jordan Peterson. He has a BA in philosophy from Columbia University and is a professional jazz musician. The Washington Post in 2018 called Hughes ‘an undergraduate at Columbia University but already a thinker to be reckoned with’. In September 2020, Stéphanie Chayet, writing in the French newspaper Le Monde, identified Hughes as one of four “anti-conformists of anti-racism” along with Glenn Loury, Thomas Chatterton Williams and John McWhorter.

Hughes says that “color-blindness” is neither racist nor backward. ‘Properly understood, it is the belief that we should strive to treat people without regard to race in our personal lives and in our public policy’. 

Only after the Civil Rights Movement achieved its greatest victories was colour-blindness abandoned by progressives.

Hughes says these activist-scholars have written a false history of colour-blindness in order to delegitimise it. 

‘To paint color-blindness as a reactionary or racist idea—rather than a key goal of the Civil Rights Movement—requires ignoring the historical record’.  

Ibram X. Kendi, author of How to be an Anti-Racist, argues that ‘the most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethno-state but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one’.

Robin DiAngelo, in White Fragility, describes the color-blind strategy as: ‘pretend that we don’t see race, and racism will end’. 

Hughes correctly calls this argument ‘no more than a cheap language trick’. He says we do see race; we can’t not. He acknowledges that race can influence how we’re treated and how we treat others. ‘But to interpret “color-blind” so literally is to misunderstand it—perhaps intentionally’.

Hughes compares the expression “colour-blind” to “warm-hearted”: it uses a physical metaphor to encapsulate an abstract idea. It endorses striving to treat people without regard to race, publicly or privately. 

Hughes argues that ‘not only is class a better proxy for true disadvantage, but class-based policies also avoid the core problem with race-based ones: to discriminate in favor of some races, you must discriminate against others’. 

For Hughes, ‘color-blindness is the best principle with which to govern a multiracial democracy. It is the best way to lower the temperature of racial conflict in the long run. It is the best way to fight the kind of racism that really matters. And it is the best way to orient your own attitude toward this nefarious concept we call race’. Hughes’ full article can be read here.

Lindsay suggests that one reason for the woke use of words we know, understand and use is deliberately deceptive: initiated audiences will be left to understand that the concepts that the CSJ movement are ‘as we have always known them’.

‘Language is, in some sense, then, a set of conventions for what various words (and sounds and inflections and so on) mean, and the people who speak the same language can generally assume that from one person to the next, there is some agreement upon those meanings. 

‘This ambiguity creates space for people who would manipulate us with language through deliberate or deceptive misuses of words that generate the wrong intention in the hearer that creates an advantage for the speaker.’

[Photo: John Giustina/GETTY IMAGES]

The DBE is seeking to implement the praxis of Critical Gender Theory which evolved in American academia. This approach is highly contentious, subject to dispute and criticism.

‘Consultations are currently under way after which ‘a formal public engagement process is scheduled to take place’ on the ‘Guidelines for the socio-educational Inclusion of diverse Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Expression and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC) in schools’. (Our underlining). The Guidelines will be published for public comment during 2023.

The note about this issue on the DBE’s website seeks that utopian ideal (unattainable goal) of eliminating gender discrimination in the same way that the woke seek to ‘eliminate’ racism or gender-based violence. They pretend that unacceptable attitudes and human behaviour can be entirely eradicated from society.

‘The focus of the discussions is the elimination of gender discrimination in all spheres of society and creating a socially conducive and welcoming environment in schools.’ No small ambition that.

Apparently, the document ‘includes pertinent questions about inclusion of sexually and gender diverse children pertaining to school admission; curriculum; co-curricular programmes; uniforms; and ablution facilities’.

All of these issues, particularly those pertaining to exclusion in admissions and the changing of curricula, suggest that these are not “guidelines”. As described, these issues suggest a rather more obligatory requirement to be met by school administration.

The Department says that it is probing relevant response mechanisms to ensure the constitutional obligation for socio-educational inclusion of sexual minorities in respect of school governance and School Governing Bodies (SGBs) across Provincial Education Departments.

What constitutional obligation is the minister talking about? There is nothing in Section 29: Education that provides for such an obligation. The only pertinent section can be:

9(3). Equality

The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

There is no requirement for the DBE to create ‘response mechanisms’ to make sure that no discrimination takes place.

One does not argue against children being educated about issues of gender and race, and  promoting tolerance. But a whole programme to remedy the problems that children with gender dysphoria or identity have, is bizarre.

Religion, belief and culture

It may also conflict with the right to religion, belief, and culture.

To address gender discrimination, the DBE should instruct school management and teachers about the constitutional provision. Schools should acknowledge that the Constitution applies even if they hold a personal objection, religious or otherwise. Staff are expected to treat children without discrimination irrespective of their personal views.

The DBE can create a module in Life Orientation to explain the phenomena, and also explain that whatever attitudes or beliefs children may have, they are expected to behave tolerantly towards other children. Any bad behaviour will result in disciplinary action being taken. The DBE should warn of the same vis-a-vis the teachers. Schools should be expected to use psychologists to assist in supporting a child.

No one, however virtuous, can hope to eliminate gender, racial, or religious discrimination. You can try, and in some cases succeed, but there are too many factors that shape attitudes in the wider society, not just the school.

Attitudes are very difficult to change. What society has to strive for is teaching tolerance and decent behaviour despite any thoughts a child may have about another child. It is only through changing behaviour that attitudes will change. Unless the DBE’s intention is to indoctrinate children.

But is it the DBE’s intention to apply critical gender theory to advance the National Democratic Revolution? ‘The document provides International and Regional Frameworks that create an enabling environment for the United Nations (UN); the African Union (AU); and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Member States to include diversity and inclusion in education and training. Constitutional and Education Policy mandates that protect children of diverse sexual and gender identities are also stipulated. The focus of the document is on how the education system supports schools to create safe and caring environments for all children to receive teaching and learning without discrimination or prejudice’.

In other words, Diversity, Equity and Inclusiveness (underpinned by Critical Race Theory and Critical Gender Theory) are going to be forced on our schools. I say this is indoctrination, because these are political theories, and there is no intention to teach alternative political theories. The idea is to teach children what to think, irrespective of what anyone else, including parents, may say.

The DBE’s extensive proposal is bizarre because in the grand scheme of schooling in South Africa, prejudice is a problem that affects a relatively small number of children. Teachers and administrators can be trained to manage a problem if it arises. If the school doesn’t resolve it, then the parents can approach the relevant provincial education departments.

Ablution facilities are the obvious area where the most resistance will be met.

Children, particularly teenage girls going through puberty, are likely to be very uncomfortable with unisex toilets. They need privacy, and they need to be away from the sort of inappropriate behaviour teenage boys often indulge in.

Dire straits

Educational infrastructure is in dire straits. Many schools don’t even have proper toilets, which has been a huge bone of contention, educational and legal, for many years.

The DBE is likely to face resistance for both reasons. Is it going to require better resourced schools to use after-tax school fees to create such facilities? These are intended to be only guidelines after all. 

‘Many stereotypes exist about how boys and girls should look, speak and behave,’ explained Mr Likho Bottoman, Director for Social Cohesion and Equity in Education.

‘Early learning environments are important places to help children feel safe and accepted, whilst being encouraged to reach their full potential as every child has a gender identity, along with their personal understanding of how they perceive themselves. In addition, there is increased inequality in schools perpetuated by racism; xenophobia; gender stereotypes; harmful gender norms; and discrimination and related intolerances, including against vulnerable populations such as the LGBTQI+ communities. The Directorate has been conducting its first leg of stakeholder consultations on the Draft Protocol for the Elimination of Unfair Discrimination in Schools and Guidelines for the socio-educational inclusion of diverse SOGIESC. Diversity, in all its forms, should be embraced and entrenched by all actors of society in the ethos of every school community.’

Mr Bottoman’s assertions require supporting evidence, and they deserve to be challenged, but they give the flavour of what the DBE has in mind.

An article by the Freedom Front Plus’s Dr. Wynand Boshoff in Politicsweb provides more detail which exacerbates our concerns. Dr. Boshoff asked questions in Parliament over a two-month period to get information about the guidelines. He has seen a hard copy of the document.

Dr. Boshoff addresses the following matters:

1.         Children who want to undergo medical procedures to prevent puberty or change their gender should, according to the document, have the right to decide to do so from twelve years of age – without consent from their parents. And schools are meant to help make this possible.

2.         These guidelines are not applicable to Early Childhood Development (ECD) because ECD centres are already participating in a purpose-  made intervention programme called “Gender Responsive Pedagogy for Early Childhood Education” (GRP4ECE), which follows a play-based learning approach. Learning materials amounting to R20 million were funded by the ETDP SETA in 2022.

3.         Groups created to help formulate policy comprise the “Social Inclusion in Education Working Group”. They are a group of like-minded organisations to which the DBE reached out, because the Department’s own ability is limited.

4.         ‘The DBE has previously attempted to incorporate civil society organisations representing family values in the working group. However, this approach to group composition proved to be a challenge due to extreme differences in opinion. As such, the DBE has opted to openly engage with civil society organisations representing family values separately, as their voice is valuable and essential in addressing discrimination and oppression of children from a family values perspective. These engagements have already begun.’ There were 27 groups involved: 3 were from government; 1 was “conservative” and the remaining 23 were either left-leaning legal centres or gay, lesbian or transgender groups of one kind or another.

The Minister is obliged to consider extreme differences of opinion. If the best that the department could do was consult with organisations that supported its views, it must expect pushback when the full document is published, and public participation begins.

[Image: Gerd Altmann from Pixabay]

If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend

Part 5 can be found in full on Martin's substack, Martin's Newsletter here.

This article was originally published by sp¡ked on 8 November 2022 - read here.

The article appears on Martin's Newsletter his substack here.

Media contact
Sara Gon
FSU SA Director
083 555 7952

Email: info@freespeech.org.za

Fish Hoek High ‘social justice’ saga: we told you so – IRR  

On 4 July 2022 the Free Speech Union of South Africa (FSU SA) addressed a letter to the MEC for Education in the Western Cape, Mr David Maynier, copied to the Shadow Minister of Education for the DA, Mr Baxolile Nodada.

The FSU SA warned about the potentially detrimental effects on social cohesion and free speech of social justice initiatives at schools. The program used to achieve this purpose is referred to as Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

We expressed concern that strictures on free speech were increasingly being experienced in schools where Critical Race Theory and Critical Gender Theory were being inserted into curricula. 

CRT’s premise is that white-on-black racism is the normal state of affairs. As such, anything to do with ‘whiteness’ should be identified and ‘dismantled’. Therefore, schools seeking social justice must teach students to focus on the immutable characteristic of a person’s skin colour only. 

The FSU SA supports schools being proactive in tackling discrimination. Creating school environments free of discrimination and where all members of a school feel a sense of belonging should be a priority.

We stated that ‘the FSU has come to understand that this hyper-racialism is routinely taught to schoolchildren of all ages by external consultants and teachers, and is reflected in recommended readings’.  As a consequence, race relations are bound to suffer and often found do. 

We appealed to the ‘Western Cape Education Department specifically and the Democratic Alliance generally to reconsider any use of DEI to sensitise students. There are more appropriate ways to deal with incidents of racism et al when they occur. Children are remarkably able in managing their socialisation to good effect without the intrusion of well-meaning adults’.

On 12 July we addressed another letter to the WCED, noting, with reference to our original letter, that Fish Hoek High School was being subjected to the same DEI processes due to allegations of racism.

Ms Kelly Mauchline, Mr Maynier’s spokesperson, said she would bring our letter to his attention. We heard nothing further.

Then four months later, on 3 November 2022, the Freedom Front Plus (FF+) issued a press release alleging that pupils at Fish Hoek High were so traumatised by a ‘diversity course’ on racism and faith, that they had to receive counselling. The press release is summarised below. The nature of the alleged circumstances are not unusual.

About 800 pupils had to attend the session where they were told that ‘only white people can be racist’.

Three officials and six psychologists from the WCED presented this ‘course’. Teachers were not allowed into the session. 

The presenter was Asanda Ngoasheng, a well-known DEI consultant, but she is controversial. Her biography makes no mention of her being a psychologist. The approach used by many DEI consultants is to berate children on the grounds of their “whiteness”, this being assumed to amount to eternal culpability for the sins of previous generations and for which there is no forgiveness.

A pupil who managed to leave the session told a teacher what was happening. The teacher returned with her, but was ordered to leave the hall.

The WCED ordered this intervention because earlier this year, in teaching the setwork, Fiela se Kind, a teacher used a word – we have not managed to clarify with certainty what it was – that resulted in some pupils complaining. As a consequence, the WCED charged her with misconduct. She was found not guilty.

Regarding the subsequent intervention, the principal was unhappy about holding the session so close to exam time, but was given no choice.

It appears that the WCED has adopted a very illiberal approach to dealing with allegations of racism at schools, despite the FSU SA communicating its misgivings.

The FSU SA believes that the processes that the WCED is applying are completely antithetical to the DA’s classically liberal policies.

There are other ways of tackling these issues without ruining the confidence of pupils and dividing them on the grounds of race.

The FSU SA welcomes Mr Maynier’s commitment to a “review” of the WCED’s approach – which is precisely what was recommended in its letters to the department in recent months. Such a review is now a matter of urgency.

Media enquiries:

Sara Gon, Director Tel: 083 555 7952 Email: info@freespeech.org.za;

Caiden Lang, Researcher Tel: 072 239 6145 Email: caiden@irr.org.za

Michael Morris Tel: 066 302 1968 Email: michael@irr.org.za;

In an article ‘Why I am suing St Stithians over false allegations of racism’, I provided an overview of the legal action that I have instituted against St. Stithians College and three of its officials.

I explained that I am suing for the costs of defending my daughter against false, unfounded, and defamatory allegations of racism when, after a protracted four-phase battle during 2020, the independent chair of the appeal ruled in her favour and dismissed the findings of guilt and sanctions imposed.

This begs the question that if I win, who will pay me? My claim is against St. Stithians and the officials in their personal capacities. All four parties acted with intent and negligence, in my opinion.

In the unlikely event that I lose, St. Stithians’ costs will consist of mostly legal fees and management time. But if I win, it will likely cost St. Stithians over R500 000 with the caveat that if the Court rules against the officials, then they will have to pay personally.

You may ask if R500 000 would be the total cost to St. Stithians, or should I say, the fee-paying parents, of the identity politics at St. Stithians? Well, no, so let me do a small case study.

Costs to St Stithians 2020

In the period 31 May 2020 to mid-July 2020, St. Stithians must have spent a small fortune directly on legal fees and indirectly on management time and costs.

Stakeholders in the greater school community will remember the many announcements between 31 May 2020 on Twitter (@ststithians) and 18 July 2020 in an open letter from the Rector, Mrs Celeste Gilardi, who wrote as follows:

“Student Disciplinaries.On the 31st of May, the school was made aware of disturbing video footage being widely shared on a number of social media platforms. The videos featured College students whose behaviour brought the name of the school into disrepute. Our immediate response, on the 1st of June, was to send a letter to our community and then to initiate a formal investigation based on our Code of Conduct. The investigations indicated that a disciplinary process was warranted and charges were drawn up. Disciplinary hearings have been held and sanctions have been issued. We must bear in mind, that as these proceedings involve minors, we are legally obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the students involved. The sanctions have been accepted by the students, although one student has asked for leave to appeal.” [my bold emphasis]

That one student was my daughter.

Mrs Gilardi’s letter went on to state:  

“Throughout this process we have relied upon the expert assistance of well-respected lawyer Mrs Shamima Gabie (sic) from Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc, and Adv Hamilton Maenetje SC, who also drew up the terms of reference for the disciplinary process.”

Mrs Gilardi also took the opportunity to talk about changes to St. Stithians’ established governance standards:

“As per our Governance requirements we will be reviewing a number of College policies including the codes of conduct for staff, parents and students. The review of our code of conduct for students in actual fact began last year and a second draft will be ready to be shared with all our stakeholders within the next two weeks.”

In the period of my daughter’s Appeal between 23 June (outcome of the disciplinary hearing) and 5 October (outcome of the Appeal), another small fortune must have been spent on legal fees and management time.

But whatever the Appeal would have cost if the process were simply allowed to continue in the normal manner, can easily be quadrupled given the fact that St. Stithians and its officials maliciously launched a second wave of attacks on my daughter. That Appeal must have cost St. Stithians’ parents at least a few hundred thousand Rand in direct and indirect costs.

Allegations against staff

In the same open letter of 18 July 2020, Mrs Gilardi wrote:

“On 18th June, the Girls’ College instructed attorneys Cheadle Thomson & Haysom Inc. to assist with an investigation into various allegations made against staff as shared by the group of alumni in their memorandum to the College. The attorneys determined that only allegations that were contained in the official memorandum provided to the College ought to be investigated. Further to that, the anonymous submissions would not be considered as staff members could not be expected to be confronted with accusations devoid of all the details that they would need in order to defend themselves. Those who made anonymous submissions were invited to share their evidence with the attorneys in a confidential manner, but this opportunity was not taken up by any of the alumni.

In respect of these allegations where the student appended her name, the attorneys have been able to reach out to the alumni and are engaging with them. The attorneys are in the process of determining the next steps, once they have considered all the evidence.”

The outcome of those investigations, with no teachers being found guilty, was announced in an open letter dated 15 October 2020 signed by Mrs Gilardi and others:

“Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc Attorneys findings were that further investigations of these matters were unnecessary in light of the assessment of each complaint. They did however recommend appropriate training for all staff to assist them to understand the nuances and the need for racial sensitivity and the complexity that diversity brings to the classroom and to the College. In the absence of such training, staff will continue to demonstrate unconscious attitudes, reactions, stereotypes and behaviour that is devoid of any understanding of racial experiences and the profound effect that this brings to an educational experience. Training by a specialist in this fieldwill assist staff to….” [my bold emphasis]

So in effect, none of the accused teachers were guilty of racism, but all teachers and staff were deemed to be practising racists.

Never let a good opportunity go to waste

The legal investigation and report (which parents paid for but were not allowed to see) seem to have been great feedstock for the rest of the identity politicians to jump on the bandwagon and take a large slice of the tuition fees being paid in good faith by parents.

In reading Mrs Gilardi’s letter of 15 October a bit further:

“We initiated discussions about race and racism, with a focus on racial and diversity literacy for all our staff members across the different levels of our schooling. Our current students have also had the opportunity to engage and share their lived experiences, with an intent to develop a programme that will support and give room for all voices to be heard at all times in safe spaces.”

“As a College we are aware that the workshops and conversations held once off will not make a difference, and have therefore structured an Action Plan for 2021 that will continue to support the work of social change in every school…”

“Futhermore (sic), we have formulated Transformation Task Force Groups that have all stakeholders represented for the advancement of organizational (sic) change at all levels. These are: 1. Curriculum Transformation 2. Staff Transformation 3. Discipline and Mediation 4. Student Care 5. Accountability and Transparency”

“The Transformation Office, which is located in the Girls’ School Admin Building has an open-door policy…”

“Attached is a full report on all the work that has been done to date in all our schools and Campus departments.”

The ‘full report’ attached to Mrs Gilardi’s letter is an 11-page ‘Transformation Report 2020’. It is available on the college website (here). In my opinion, this report:

• Supports several new or amended roles for directors, chairs, consultants, and lawyers;

• Enforces new, foreign ideologies about race, gender, and sex, complete with new roles, consultants, unknown risks and costs;

• Translates into 1000’s of hours per annum of people’s time including leadership, teachers, lawyers, and consultants;

• Translates into a significant proportion of students’ time being spent on identity politics, from pre-prep to grade 12;

• Makes no mention of any cost-benefit analysis, SWOT analysis, a review of risks and rewards, an impact assessment or any other leadership and governance mechanism to properly consider the needs, interests, concerns, and expectations of “one and all” (the St. Stithians motto);

• Contains no selection criteria or vetting standards, including background checks, for the people appointed to deal with such delicate and often intimate matters;

• Ignores scrutiny of appointed companies and institutional partners, whose staff should come under additional direct scrutiny, with comprehensive guarantees;

• Assumes no vested interests or conflicts of interest;

• Contains no unique or clear performance metrics;

• Ignores dispute resolution processes for any unexpected challenges or outcomes;

• Ignores the possibility of creating or driving division in the community;

• Ignores the identification and quantification of any direct, indirect, tangible, or intangible costs;

• Promotes redesigning internationally accepted curricula and standards towards unknown outcomes; and

• Supports labelling and segregating teachers and students and transforming the campus into a re-education camp.

Some questions about 2020

Why did the college leadership capitulate so easily to mostly unfounded claims about racism from mostly unidentified alumni? Why, in the few cases where an accuser was identified, did their accusations come to naught (per the secret legal report)? Why were only students found guilty (by management) and when challenged, were St. Stithians’ findings overturned upon independent review?

Simultaneously, new and unknown ideologies about race, gender, and sex, were forced upon teachers and students? Why?

These actions shamefully suggest that St. Stithians management are free from scrutiny and are allowed to violate the rights of students and parents with impunity. And at great cost. And what about the teachers – were they all in support of these identity politics, or did they simply lay low out of fear for their jobs? And where were the governance officials?

Summary of tangible costs

Let me try to estimate some of the costs for 2020, already incurred and presumably paid:

• Managements and teachers’ time – direct and indirect costs, very likely thousands of hours including senior members of staff duly spent on non-teaching time;

• Legal fees – direct costs, much higher than in prior years;

• Consultants’ fees – direct costs, most likely zero in prior years;

• I estimate R24 000 000 – R36 000 000 via an easy method of applying a small percentage of staff’s time against the estimated salary bill (which will be the largest cost item against estimated revenue). Add a few million for the increased legal and consulting costs, plus other small but directly related costs. Hopefully it’s not higher than this, but I will be surprised if it’s much lower.

So, let’s estimate that R30 000 000 was spent in 2020 on direct and indirect costs, and probably every year since. Plus, let’s budget R500 000 for the direct costs of the current matter between me and St. Stithians.

This excludes items such as:

• Loss of revenue: some students left the school after 2020 due to the identity politics of that year. I know of at least one, but let’s not ascribe a monetary value to this by assuming that a replacement student was immediately onboarded with the same fee structure;

• Loss of staff: some excellent staff left the school due to the same identity politics (I know of at least one) but how do we put a value to this destruction? I won’t try to ascribe a monetary value although I believe it’s significant.

Are St. Stithians parents – past, present, and future – happy with the possibility of your college forking out over R30 000 000 for identity politics in 2020 alone, some of which may still have to be paid? With at least a similar amount as recurring expenditure.

The bad news for the school, however, is that there may be more costs coming. I know someone who is taking legal advice on claims including criminal charges against St. Stithians and some of its officials.

Even further bad news is that it’s possible that other parents, students, and even teachers may bring claims against St. Stithians and its officials.

I hear anecdotally, from several sources, that the ongoing identity politics interventions are not being well received by many teachers, students, and parents. Most are just too scared to say anything at this time for fear of retaliation. It is possible that not everything I’m hearing is correct, but if the anecdotes prove to be true, then the cost estimates in this case study are rather low.

Identity Politics Litigation Fund

Consequently, it may be a good idea for the college to proactively build a contingency fund for legal action pertaining to poor or unintended outcomes of their untested and possibly malevolent ideologies.

Perhaps an initial R5 000 000 plus say R5 000 000 per annum for so long as the institution continues to indulge in identity politics. This amount excludes the perhaps more significant risks associated with St Stithians’ new focus on gender and sex ideologies.

And hey, if I’m mostly wrong, then the money in this proposed fund could perhaps be used to pay towards the sustenance and educational costs of several hundred children living in far less privileged environments.

The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.

If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend

There have been numerous articles and posts in recent times about identity politics, some of them about accusations of racism at schools and colleges in South Africa.

Stories are being told about unfortunate cases at various institutions, including St John’s College in Johannesburg, Michaelhouse in KwaZulu-Natal, St Mary’s DSG in Pretoria, Herschel Girls School in Cape Town, and my daughter’s former college in Sandton, St Stithians.

There appears to be a common thread: a handful of activists and their yay-sayers who are hell bent on seeking and amplifying division and cancellation*. These activists are allowed to flourish and are perhaps even encouraged by those in charge. This is not only destructive for any innocent victims, but it is also not what the institutions themselves, or the country, need right now.

It is also very expensive. Yet it seems these schools have lots of spare cash for consultants and lawyers in helping to drive the activists’ agenda and narrative.

I believe there are many innocent victims out there, including students, parents, and teachers, who want to tell their stories but who are too scared to do so for fear of further reprisal. Or perhaps it’s because it takes time and energy to fight back. Either way, it’s not going to help our children if parents sit back while standards of leadership and governance are allowed to decline.

I am a father whose daughter was in Grade 12 at St Stithians College in 2020. I am now suing St Stithians and three of its officials, and, if I succeed, it’s going to cost college management a lot of time and money.

Summons has been issued in the Randburg Regional Court against St Stithians College, Dr Sally James (Head of Girls’ College), Ms Leanne Horwitz (Head of Diversity and Transformation, Girls’ College) and Mrs Ntombi Langa-Royds (former Deputy Chair, now Chair of Council).

Background

What follows is a summary of the case and public record.

For broad context, St Stithians and its officials had a legal duty not to infringe or impair my daughter’s right to a basic education, and to act in her best interests. However, on 31 May 2020, Dr James made false, unfounded, and defamatory allegations against my daughter.

On 1 June, Ms Horwitz was appointed as ‘Chief Investigator’. Interviews and discussions were held with my daughter, while I was prohibited from attending.

On 5 June my daughter was issued with a notice to attend a disciplinary hearing on 12 June. She was charged with ‘Racism, racist conduct or other offensive behaviour’ and with ‘Dissemination of a WhatsApp communication with an (sic) alleged racist content’.

On 12 June my daughter pleaded not guilty to all charges at the disciplinary hearing chaired by Mrs Langa-Royds, who proceeded to find my daughter guilty on both charges and recommended the following sanctions:

• A written warning valid for 6 months with expulsion for any offences of a similar nature; and
• A ‘Restoration and Reflection Task’ of purchasing and reading ‘Waking up White: and finding myself in a story of race’ by Debby Irving, followed by a two-page essay.

My daughter maintained her innocence throughout and appealed against the findings and sanctions.

Advocate Ngwako Hamilton Maenetje SC was appointed by St Stithians to chair the appeal process. Despite the appeal having been noted, St Stithians and Dr James proceeded to implement the sanctions.

On 5 October 2020 Adv. Maenetje SC ruled against St Stithians, Dr James, Ms Horwitz and Mrs Langa-Royds, and dismissed both the finding of guilt and the sanctions imposed upon my daughter.

Intentional conduct

St Stithians, Dr James, Ms Horwitz and Mrs Langa-Royds intentionally and deliberately failed to act in my daughter’s best interests; they failed to properly investigate the veracity and origin of the false allegations and acted with undue haste in their quest to prosecute her.

It appears that this was due to pressure from certain groups within and without the St Stithians community (which they referred to as the ‘greater school community’) and in the context of the ‘Black Lives Matter Movement’. Dr James, in her capacity of Head of the Girls’ College, decided to make an example of my daughter and to punish her in an attempt to quell the pressure from mainly black students and negative publicity on social media targeting several white students and teachers.

Ms Horwitz, as Chief Investigator for St Stithians, persisted with the prosecution of my daughter without having conducted a reasonable and proper investigation and without having investigated the origin of the allegations.

Mrs Langa-Royds, chair of the disciplinary hearing, found my daughter guilty on all charges, despite finding that she could not determine whether my daughter disseminated the alleged WhatsApp communication with the alleged racist content. Mrs Langa-Royds nonetheless found her guilty of racism, racist conduct or other offensive behaviour.

Negligence

St Stithians management failed to consider the damage and devastating consequences for my daughter of being found guilty of serious charges of racism.

St Stithians management failed further in their duties to my daughter when they opposed the appeal brought by her, at which they introduced a large volume of documents, most of which had not been introduced at the initial disciplinary hearing and were therefore irrelevant to the appeal process.

My daughter was denied legal representation during the investigative, disciplinary and appeal processes and was represented where possible by me, her father.

Claim

I had to prepare to be able to assist my daughter properly and spent many hours preparing for defending her against the conduct of St Stithians and its officials.

I set out the time I had had to spend, as well as the relevant costs attendant thereon, in an invoice to St Stithians.

It is for payment of this invoice that I am now suing St Stithians and its relevant managers. St Stithians in turn is suing me for outstanding fees for the year in question; I am defending this claim strenuously. If I win both matters, it will likely cost St Stithians over R500 000.

The college’s management may have felt under pressure to be seen to be dealing with several allegations of racism. However, they were obliged to thoroughly investigate any allegations being made. In the current climate, being falsely accused and found guilty of racism can destroy a child’s schooling and prospects.

This may be hard on management, but they are obliged to manage these fraught scenarios fairly and professionally.

*cancellation is the ostracism of someone from media, social media or in person, for doing or saying something that is contrary to the view held by those promoting the cancellation.

[Image: https://www.stithian.com/girls-college/news/category/girls-college/]

The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR

If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend

On 14 June The Daily Maverick published an article titled ‘South African non-racialism or American antiracism? UCT muddles through muddied waters’ by UCT professors Nicoli Nattrass and Jeremy Seekings.

The authors discuss the ideological difference between contemporary American antiracism and South African non-racialism and explain that the former has come to dominate the university’s transformation and social justice agenda.

The authors explain, with reference to the work of ‘the American guru of “antiracist training”’, Robin DiAngelo (author of White Fragility), that ‘American antiracism does not simply mean being anti or against racism’. Instead, it requires an ‘essentialist apartheid understanding of “race”’ and rejection of ‘colour-blindness’, leading the authors to conclude that ‘Contemporary American antiracism entails a rejection of non-racialism’.

Warnings

The Institute of Race Relations has over the past two years sounded warnings about this new and illiberal idea of social justice.

We have argued that antiracism has become the default position when it comes to matters of social justice in private schools. In investigating this we have read school anti-discrimination policies, codes of conduct, and antiracism statements adopted by schools and organisations like the Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa (ISASA); conducted numerous interviews with concerned principals, teachers, and parents; and engaged with reading material recommended by school antiracist consultants and transformation committees.

Despite this, we have been derided by some commentators for creating unnecessary panic about an apparently non-existent phenomenon. We have been accused of importing American right-wing talking points and been told by critics that we just don’t ‘get it’. At every turn we have countered the critics with reasoned arguments citing examples proving our case.

It was reassuring therefore, to read the article by Nattrass and Seekings who are among very few academics (Professor David Benatar is another) who have been willing to criticise antiracism and its grip on tertiary institutions in South Africa, particularly at UCT.

Features inherent to antiracism

The authors highlight a number of features inherent in antiracism which they see as undermining efforts to advance social justice – features that, the IRR has argued, are present to varying degrees in private schools countrywide.

Our primary concern with antiracism ideology is its rejection of non-racialism in favour of race consciousness.

Antiracist ideology, explain Nattrass and Seekings, ‘frames all disadvantages experienced by “black” people as the result of “systemic racism”, meaning the institutional and cultural promotion of “white supremacy”’.

Once this worldview is accepted, achieving social justice becomes a matter of ‘dismantling systems’ associated with ‘whiteness’. Not only is this empirically spurious but it results in a profound scepticism of anything associated with white people.

The idea plays out in schools in concerning ways including school policies asserting that ‘whiteness’ is synonymous with the oppression of black people, that white pupils need to feel guilty and apologise for their ‘white privilege’, and that white pupils be required to acknowledge that they are necessarily racist because they are white.

It is unsurprising given this focus on race that we have seen the adoption of what Nattrass and Seekings call ‘DiAngelo-style “affinity groups”’ in schools. These affinity groups are racially exclusive and serve different purposes depending on what colour skin you have.

Nattrass and Seekings discuss affinity groups for white people, formed ‘as part of a broader effort to “decentre whiteness”. We at the IRR are aware of affinity groups in schools reserved for black people, the purpose of which, as one school explains, is to create a space for students where they can be safe from the oppressive nature of white spaces.

Rejection of colour blindness

In a significant number of private schools, particularly those affiliated with ISASA, there is an outright rejection of Martin Luther King Jnr -style ‘colour-blindness’. In fact, some schools have even included expressions of colour-blindness on official lists containing examples of racist speech, effectively prohibiting constitutionally protected speech.

A second although no less pressing concern is the way in which antiracist advocates promote their race essentialist ideas.

Nattrass and Seekings describe how antiracism initiatives at UCT are being pushed ‘as a matter of ideological (or religious) conversion rather than critical engagement’. This too is the case in private schools where pupils and staff are regularly required to attend mandatory antiracist or so-called diversity, equity and inclusion training sessions where any criticism of antiracism is quickly stifled with unchecked moral certainty.

American antiracism, as the IRR along with Nattrass and Seekings have argued, leads to tribalism and the muffling of viewpoint diversity. The IRR believes that social justice depends on the affirmation of the constitutionally enshrined values of non-racialism and freedom of opinion. As such, we will continue to criticise antiracist ideology as and when it is foisted upon the youth of South Africa.