Media

RICHARD WILKINSON

7 JANUARY 2024

In November last year, I published an essay entitled The Woke Witch-Hunt at St Mary’s Waverley. In it, I set out why the investigative report into racism and “microaggressions” at the school which was published by Advocate Thandi Orleyn and Zanele Masoek is fundamentally flawed in numerous respects.

It is telling that what should be the core components of the Orleyn-Masoek Report – the allegations and the findings – take up barely more than a page and are dealt with in a brisk and vague manner. Instead, far more space is devoted to covering the history of transformation at St Mary’s Waverley as well as to providing the reader with an overview of how the principles of Critical Race Theory have infiltrated the school’s policy framework. In so doing, the authors of the Report – quite inadvertently – provide a fascinating and disturbing insight into how Woke activism can poison a school and cause immense harm to teachers and children.

In this essay, I intend to explain how, over the period of a decade, St Mary’s Waverley gradually succumbed to ideological capture by a self-referential mob of Woke activists, consultants and lawyers. I also set out proposals for how the school can rediscover its classical liberal foundations and re-establish itself as a kind and welcoming institution that is committed, above all else, to academic excellence and high standards of discipline.

Woke harassment of white teachers

The “anti-racism” activism which erupted so sensationally in June 2020 was not the first racism controversy to undermine St Mary’s Waverley. In 2017, an incident occurred when a white teacher was introducing House Leaders to the parents of the newly starting Grade 8 class. Unfortunately, the white teacher froze when she reached a certain black colleague and could not remember the person’s name.[1]

This was, of course, an embarrassing mistake, but it would not be the first time that someone has blanked out when speaking in public. As one teacher also explained to me, teachers often refer to one another on a first-name basis, meaning that they sometimes have difficulty remembering their colleagues’ surnames when having to address them professionally as Mr X or Mrs Y.  

I would have thought that an apology and a private reprimand for this misdemeanour would have been sufficient. Not so. According to the Orleyn-Masoek Report:

          “Although all the staff interviewed, black and white staff, mentioned that apologies had been given and accepted,                                      what remained, however, was the visible discomfort and lingering trauma from such experiences present in the black                              teachers interviewed. This is trauma that could not be healed through an apology alone…”[2]

It is difficult to take this remark seriously. “Trauma” is what you feel after being involved in a serious car crash, or when you witness family members being assaulted or killed during a home invasion. “Trauma” is not the appropriate way to describe a situation from more than three years ago in which someone forgot the name of a work colleague. Indeed, the idea that this relatively trivial incident caused long-lasting trauma to staff is an excellent example of the exaggerated catastrophising that often marks Woke activism.

St Mary’s Waverley decided to launch an “independent intervention” led by a firm that specialises in promoting “diversity and inclusion”. This involved the entire staff participating in a day of workshops.[3] As is common with these initiatives, the arrival of “diversity” consultants only aggravated matters. Orleyn and Masoek report as follows:

          “Feedback received from some of the teachers who participated in this intervention noted how the workshop                                            mirrored many racial undertones that may be prevalent around the school culture, specifically around questioning                                    the competency and professionalism of black educators in these spaces.”[4]

         “Some black members of staff noted the intervention left many white members of staff negative and defensive                                         rather than reflective leaving them feeling more of a minority within the school than as an integrated component of                                   the school.”[5]

          “The feedback from many white members of staff was that it had been a waste of time. Teachers were noted                                            to be critical of the process resulting in strain to some relationships amongst teachers.”[6]

The school decided that the best way to remedy this disharmony would be to undertake more diversity training – but this time exclusively for white staff.[7] So, 35 white teachers were then subjected to an additional round of “Racial Literacy Workshops”, run by a colleague who has a PhD in the topic. These workshops consisted of three one-hour sessions which “were deliberately framed for white teachers as a means of holding them accountable to self-reflect and grapple with the concepts of white privilege, microaggressions and unconscious bias without imposing a duty on black members of staff to educate them on this area.”[8] Sadly, these workshops appear to have been just as divisive as the earlier round, with some members of staff “in denial about their actions and how they could affect others.”[9]

This outcome should not be surprising. There is now extensive academic research supporting the view that American-style “diversity and transformation” workshops are, in fact, worse than merely ineffectual. Musa Al-Gharbi is a sociologist at Columbia University in New York City.[10] His research indicates that diversity training is “overwhelmingly ineffective” at achieving its stated goals.[11] Al-Gharbi states that “not only is there no evidence that training on microaggressions is valuable for improving the well-being of people from historically marginalised or disadvantaged groups, there is reason to believe it could actually be counter-productive to that end.”[12] Similarly, Harvard professor, Frank Dobbin, has written that “hundreds of studies dating back to the 1930s suggest that antibias training does not reduce bias, alter behavior or change the workplace.”[13]

Many transformation-and-diversity consultants seem to take a sadistic pleasure in upsetting their audiences. Indeed, Orleyn and Masoek explicitly state that diversity workshops are meant to be uncomfortable by design:

          “It is disheartening that individuals view diversity and inclusion workshops as unnecessary or a place of                                                      discomfort. They are a place of discomfort intentionally as within that discomfort one must grapple with                                                    their shortcomings on areas within themselves; areas they are unaware are existing nor how they present                                                    themselves to others.”[14]

Another feature of these workshops is that they typically give rise to extremely annoying and self-indulgent virtue signaling by some participants at the expense of their colleagues. St Mary’s Waverley was not spared this sanctimony:

          “One white member of staff falling within the group tasked with supporting those reflecting, noted how her                                                group struggled to support black members of staff’s pain and how she found herself being the only individual                                            in the group speaking in support of others.”[15]

          “Another senior white member of staff reported to investigators how she believed that there was not enough                                              reflection and people were left with open wounds after the intervention leaving the staff more divided as the                                              intentions of the intervention, unfortunately, did not match the outcomes in that it polarised the staff as it left                                            many black teachers feeling isolated after this.”[16]

What is extraordinary is how a single, relatively trivial incident – where a white teacher forgot the name of a black colleague – was used to trigger an avalanche of workshops, culminating in teachers effectively being told by Orleyn and Masoek that they must submit to the new Woke orthodoxy or leave the school:

          “Unfortunately, despite intervention some may remain unchanged and unreflective, and some may not be                                                    in a space where they are able to adapt quickly enough to the changing landscape of consciousness that                                                   exists within the emerging youth of today… This is an indication that the school may need to recruit teachers                                             that can truly evidence the dynamics required that ensures the values of the school are preserved.”[17]

Frankly, it is a miracle that anyone still wanted to turn up to work in an environment this toxic.   

Woke bullying of white children

More disturbing than the ongoing harassment of white teachers at St Mary’s Waverley is the revelation that many white children have been subjected to abuse and intimidation under the cover of “anti-racism” activism. Orleyn and Masoek state that:

          “It needs to be highlighted that often when pupils of colour express their opinions and emotions                                                                    on race-related matters, they are viewed as aggressive and attacking white pupils when sharing their                                                            own experiences. Many examples of teachers, black and white, intervening in conversations to seemingly                                                  manage the conversations and emotions that flare up are received as the chastisement of an expression                                                    by black pupils.”[18]

One child who was interviewed stated that:

          “if you accuse an individual [white pupil] of expressing racist views, the girl cries and then it becomes about                                              the aggressor rather than the complainant.”[19]

These paragraphs clearly indicate that several white girls have been targeted by mobs of “anti-racism” activists and subjected to bullying, causing some of them to burst into tears. This is certainly not unusual in South African English-language girls’ schools. I have spoken with numerous parents at St Anne’s College, Roedean, St Stithians Girls’ College, St Mary’s DSG (Pretoria), Cornwall Hill College and Herschel Girls School whose daughters have been subjected to similar abuse. In many cases, this bullying was ignored or even validated by school officials. Many children have had to be withdrawn from schools and referred for specialist psychological treatment. Indeed, the bullying of one Roedean girl[20] (who is a member of a racial minority) was so severe that it attracted coverage in City Press and The Sunday Times. Reports indicated that the girl who had been bullied had expressed suicidal tendencies and that, at one point, an incident at the school required the intervention of both the Gauteng Department of Education, as well as the South African Police Service.[21]

But Orleyn and Masoek are not particularly concerned about the happiness of white children. In fact, they criticise the teachers for intervening:

          “Black girls being characterised and viewed as aggressive becomes an acceptable narrative imposed on                                                    these pupils rather than an encouragement to all pupils and staff to look at the expression as an experience                                              of the impact such conduct has on the recipient and the lingering feelings that remain despite the time                                                        elapsed since the incident, and despite the intentions of the perpetrator.”[22]

This reflects an inversion of roles which is common to Woke activism: the bully cynically assumes the posture of being the victim. Orleyn and Masoek go on to declare:

          “This results in the continued perception held by black pupils in the school that white fragility is guarded                                                    and protected by the school. That the tears of white pupils often allow for teachers to see the black girls                                                      as attacking and bullying.”[23]

These remarks should make the blood of every parent at St Mary’s Waverley run cold. The references to “white fragility” and “white tears” are further clear indications that concepts from Critical Race Theory (particularly the ideas of Robin DiAngelo) are now prevalent at the school, concepts which American author, James Lindsay, describes as being a form of “identity-based sadism.”[24]

One current parent of St Mary’s Waverley provided me with an example of how “anti-racism” activists attempt to entrap their targets. According to the parent, a group of black girls approached a white girl in the playground. One of the black girls started eating a banana. “What does this remind you of?”, said the black girl playfully to the white girl. Some of the black girl’s friends started making gestures and noises imitating monkeys. “COME ON… just say it! What does this remind you of?” Of course, if the white girl were to respond by saying “A monkey”, then she would be promptly reported to the school’s leadership for racism with the relevant context obviously being disregarded.

Aside from these anecdotes, the Orleyn-Masoek Report provides the following quantitative data[25] (red highlighting added by me) which indicate that white children might not have been entirely comfortable at St Mary’s Waverley over the past few years.