Confronting racism in our schools
The latest incident of alleged racism at Bryandale Primary School in Bryanston is yet another painful reminder that South African schools still have a long way to go before genuine transformation and inclusion are achieved.
It is alleged that an Indian learner told two Black students, 'You stupid Black people are so predictable.' Such language is deeply offensive, dehumanising, and has no place in any learning environment.
This incident must be treated with the seriousness it demands, not as a 'playground misunderstanding,' but as a reflection of wider issues of racism and marginalisation that persist in our schools. While many public and private schools proudly promote values of diversity and transformation in their mission statements, these values must go beyond lip service.
Transformation is not a passive hope; it requires active, ongoing engagement and institutional introspection. Schools play a critical role in redressing the deep inequalities and marginalisation embedded in our society.
They must be proactive in creating safe and affirming environments for all children, not only through symbolic gestures but through deliberate action, anti-racism training, and clear accountability mechanisms.
The incident at Bryandale is not isolated. Just two days ago, a Grade 8 learner at De La Salle Holy Cross College was reportedly told, 'You don't belong… go home, you (K-word).'
In 2024, Pretoria High School for Girls made headlines after racist WhatsApp messages targeted Black pupils.
That same year, Jeppe High School for Girls in Johannesburg came under fire when Black pupils were removed from class for wearing coloured braids, while white pupils with dyed hair faced no repercussions.
These are not isolated "bad apples." They reflect systemic failures that schools must urgently address. We call on school governing bodies, education departments, and communities to treat these incidents with the seriousness they deserve.
Silence or delay enables racism to fester. We must demand not only awareness but transformation that is measurable, monitored, and real.
Because if our schools can't be safe and just spaces for our children, we cannot expect our society to be either.
Matthew Cook, GOOD National Chairperson and City of Johannesburg Councillor
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
14 minutes ago
- The Star
Black Economic Empowerment: Has BEE failed South Africa's poor
Thabo Makwakwa | Published 1 week ago The debate surrounding the effectiveness of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) in South Africa has intensified in recent months, with critics pointing to its shortcomings in achieving its core objectives. BEE is a government policy enacted in 2003 to increase economic participation by black South Africans. It seeks to transform the economy by promoting black ownership of companies, increasing black representation in management and boardrooms, and fostering entrepreneurship among historically disadvantaged communities. Although its objectives are widely supported, the policy's success has been scrutinised. In a detailed analysis published in the St Andrews Law Review on May 24, 2023, James Vandrau argued that BEE has failed to reconcile social inequalities in South Africa. He pointed out that resistance from the white business community has hampered the policy's effectiveness. 'This demographic has largely opposed the changes instigated by BEE, leading to a considerable backlash against the program,' Vandrau noted. According to a 2006 survey, approximately one-fifth of South African companies had no plans to implement black empowerment initiatives. The slow pace of progress prompted the Presidential Black Business Working Group to call for more stringent measures, with the ANC acknowledging that more aggressive interventions were necessary to meet BEE targets. This frustration has led many black entrepreneurs to advocate for faster economic de-racialisation. One of the most persistent criticisms of BEE is that it has been undermined by corruption and nepotism. Critics argue that a privileged few have benefited disproportionately at the expense of the wider black community. Gelb & Black (2004) highlighted how unissued equity was transferred from white-owned companies to a select group of 'tenderpreneurs'—black businesspeople often with high political profiles but limited business experience—resulting in a form of enrichment rather than broad-based empowerment. Furthermore, the representation of black individuals in senior management and boardrooms remains disappointingly low. The Black Business Executive Circle report of October 2005 revealed that only five of the top 200 companies on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange (JSE) had black ownership exceeding 51%. Only 32 companies had black ownership above 25%, collectively accounting for less than 2% of the JSE's market capitalisation. In an opinion piece published in The Star three months ago, Professor Bheki Mngomezulu, Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University, acknowledged that BEE was a noble idea but emphasised that corruption has derailed its progress. 'The process should start with politicians who have corrupted the system and then move to businesses that have exploited loopholes to serve self-interests,' Mngomezulu wrote. 'Unless these corrupt practices are addressed, BEE will hinder economic growth and exclude those it was meant to benefit.' Weighing in, Dr. Khwezi Mabasa, a sociology lecturer at the University of Pretoria and an economic policy analyst, emphasised the need for a broader approach. Speaking to IOL, Mabasa highlighted that current legislation and initiatives, such as the broad-based black economic empowerment codes (B-BBEE), must be complemented by efforts outside the stock exchange, including supporting small and medium enterprises, entrepreneurship, and local economic development. 'We need to look beyond listed companies,' Mabasa explained. 'Most businesses are unlisted, and we must focus on fostering local ventures, job skills development, and access to affordable financing for black entrepreneurs. 'Transformation should also prioritise building sustainable local economies, especially in townships, rather than relying solely on high-profile corporate ownership.' Without these reforms, Mabasa argued that South Africa risks perpetuating the inequalities that the BEE was designed to eradicate. [email protected] IOL Politics
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
SA can fix its borders with a TV show – here's how
If police officers knew they'd be on TV, they would do their best to make sure they're not embarrassed in front of the whole nation. Julius Malema isn't special. Controversial rock star Marilyn Manson is also having trouble getting into the UK. One must be pretty envious of a country where border control actually means something and has the desired effect. Our minister of home affairs has launched the awkwardly named Operation New Broom to deal with illegal immigration, but why do we need all that effort? We have TV, we have an audience starved for good local content, and we have the knowledge that true crime makes for compelling television. If people needed rapper Xzibit to have a TV show to get their rides pimped and we need a depressing end to our Sunday night in order to uncover corruption, why not extend that energy? ALSO READ: Home Affairs committee raises alarm over border authority underfunding Where is our South African border show? Can you imagine? There would be no need for a Bheki Cele 'stomach in – chest out' speech! If they knew they'd be on TV, the cops would make their bodies enviable just not to be embarrassed in front of the whole nation. Imagine if you then made it competitive. Which cop busts the most border crossings this week? Though this is South Africa, so it may get to a point of which cop scores the highest bribe. Whatever. In this economy, we'll have to take any injection to the budget. Gosh, what if we got the army involved too and made it a team sport. We can identify the most common time for immigration illegalities and have a live feed. Our local TV doesn't have to be relegated to dull reruns and R50 giveaways. Best of all, we already pay the cast. The extras will likely be deported so the production cost can be kept down. The newsroom can make use of the footage, so there's a win for the station there and we're pretty sure to win an Emmy. If you look at the Emmy winners from the last couple of years, surely a South African illegal immigration policing show will outdo RuPaul's Drag Race. Call the show 'Operation New Broom' for all I care, but please make it happen. ALSO READ: Home Affairs launches Operation New Broom to tackle illegal immigration I know it's sad to admit that we need a TV show to inspire some dedication to the work we desperately need done in the country, but if this is how it must happen then let it be so. And you absolutely know that there will be a spin-off as well: 'Surviving SA Cops' – teams of illegal immigrants compete to avoid being busted. Not only will it bring in the ratings but what's left of our intelligence services would welcome the insight into the latest tricks of the trade. Oh South Africa, the gold mine we sit on is not just under the ground. Ninety-nine problems and we can't make a TV show out of even one? Australian border patrol? Who cares about some Middle Eastern aunty trying to smuggle a bit of za'atar into the outback? Dog the Bounty Hunter? I don't think anybody can take a dude who introduces himself to a bunch of school kids as Uncle Dog seriously. But South African cops? Boy oh boy, do we love ourselves a good popo story. From the police officer who was delighted to be videoed on the iPhone of the driver who pays her salary to our being treated to exquisite asynchronous marching, there's entertainment value to law enforcement. That kind of stuff shouldn't be limited to TikTok and YouTube. If it's happening and its entertaining, then let the masses see it… and let those who are tasked with enforcing the law have whatever inspiration they require to get the job done. If inspiration comes from being on TV, then let's do it. What have we got to lose? NOW READ: BMA intercepts and detains over 6 000 people trying to enter or leave SA illegally
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
The Constitutional Court at 30: Time for a critical reflection
Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu The Constitutional Court is an apex court in the land. Its responsibility is to uphold the country's constitution and to protect human rights. Over the years, significant changes have occurred within this institution. The court has been led by different judges, passed different judgements, and interacted with various high-ranking individuals and political parties. This has earned the court accolades and criticisms from different people. Having existed since the dawn of democracy, it is the opportune moment to reflect on how the court has performed. In so doing, it is fair to consider both its highs and lows. In 1993 as the country drew closer to turning a new page by moving from a racial era to the current political dispensation, an interim constitution was passed. It was this interim constitution which guided the first democratic election in 1994. The motivating factor was that at the time the judiciary was predominantly white male. As such, it lacked legitimacy since it did not represent the multiracial South African community. It was necessary, therefore, to establish a court that would protect the Constitution against anyone. The Constitutional Court formerly opened its doors on 15 February 1995. It then facilitated the adoption of the 1996 constitution which is currently in place. As was expected, the new constitution confirmed the existence of the Constitutional Court which has 11 judges. These include the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and 9 other judges. It used interim offices before moving to the Constitution Hill in Braamfontein where it currently sits. The signature case for the court was the case between the state and Makwanyane in 1995 on the death penalty. At the centre of this case was whether it was constitutional or not to use the death penalty under the new political dispensation. Delivering its judgement on 6 June 1995, the court unanimously agreed that indeed the death penalty was against the country's constitution, especially Sections 10 on human dignity, 11 on the right to life, and 12 on freedom and security of the person. This was a landmark case which saw South Africa ending the death penalty which led to the loss of life of many liberation fighters at the hands of the apartheid operatives and their racist government. Since then, the court has passed judgements on various cases including equality, violence, socio-economic rights, and political cases. There have also been cases on privacy and religion. But while it is true that the court has tried its level best to uphold the constitution, and to interpret the constitution as part of its contribution to democratic consolidation, there have been instances where the court has been on the receiving end of the South African public. The question is why has the public been critical of this court? Importantly, what should the court do to redeem its public image? The first concern about this court is that it spends more time dealing with political cases. Even parliament runs to this court about issues which should be resolved by parliament. In this regard, the concern is that the court is too accessible to politicians. Political parties like the DA have frequented the court about issues which should have been addressed by parliament. This has tarnished the image of the court. Another accusation against the Constitutional Court is its weaponisation by the political elite. Some judges are accused of being too sympathetic to certain politicians while being excessively harsh against others. The removal of Adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane from her position as Public Protector and the impeachment of Judge Hlophe were interpreted by the public as evidence of the politicisation of the court. The argument was that the court was used to fight political battles. Whether these accusations are true or not is not the main issue. What is concerning is that the court has lost credibility in the public eye. The Zondo Commission had many instances which painted the court in a bad light. Firstly, the public was concerned about the appointment of Chief Justice Raymond Zondo to head the Commission. Part of the reason was that Zondo was not the best candidate that was recommended by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to President Ramaphosa. Justice Mandisa Maya received the nod. However, Ramaphosa used his constitutional prerogative and appointed Zondo to be the Chief Justice. As the Commission carried out its work, the Constitutional Court was drawn in. Firstly, Zondo was seen to be lacking objectivity. He was accused of being too harsh against Former President Zuma but too soft on President Ramaphosa. This resulted in Zuma refusing to return to the Commission. Zondo approached the Constitutional Court directly. Not only did he lay a charge against Zuma, but he also prescribed a sentence of two years. This raised eyebrows because the litigant also assumed the position of a judge. In its judgement, the court forced Zuma to return to the Commission. It also removed his right to remain silent – the same right which had been given to other witnesses like the late Dudu Myeni. Once again, the court was accused of being biased. When Justice Sisi Khampepe was appointed Acting Chief Justice, she read her judgement against Zuma in an angry tone. She sentenced Zuma in absentia to 15 months in prison. This resulted in the loss of many lives, loss of jobs, and the destruction of the infrastructure. Many businesses which closed in 2021 never recovered. This tainted the image of the court. Given these instances, the second question about the future of this court becomes relevant. Going forward, the court should take these criticisms seriously, identify those that are factual and act on them, but also consider the rest that have not been substantiated and investigate them to confirm their authenticity. The two main issues that the court should take seriously include too much accessibility to it by politicians and the weaponization of the court by politicians. Failure to address these would further tarnish the court's public image. * Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
