The protest centred on transformation agenda

GORDON Upton makes some interesting, albeit flawed, observations and accusations regarding Monday’s protest at the Collegiate Girls’ High School (“Comments divide black, white pupils”, September 21). I agree with him that the comments made by the said pupil were probably learnt around the dinner table at home from parents, older siblings and even other relatives.

This was not the basis of Monday’s protest, which is why not even one poster referred to the pupil. The racial comments might have served as a trigger, but certainly not the cause. The basis of the protest was:

Lack of meaningful transformation, including programmes to eradicate, not reduce, stereotypes around black children and their culture;

Intolerance for the right of Xhosa girls to converse in Xhosa when engaging with each other;

The use of sarcastic and derogatory words in referring to black girls, such as BEEs;

Selection in sporting activities bearing inclinations towards racial preferences;

Inconsistencies in meting out punishments for transgressions, which I consider punitive as opposed to rehabilitative.

There are clearly a number of other issues, which find expression in more subtle forms, but such have to be dealt with through a proper, objective, credible and facilitated process.

Regarding the protest, the issue is in the main about institutional transformation. It is not in anyone’s interest to “nail” the school, it is about seeking a platform to engage on the issues Upton questions in his letter.

Parents had to be mobilised around a common approach to the issues affecting our daughters. This has been happening for many years, which explains why some former Collegiate girls have rallied to support this initiative.

We are seeking to find constructive and unifying solutions to these issues. However one cannot run away from saying a race issue is a race issue – how else does one deal with it?

We expect, as an outcome of the protest on Monday, that the school will call on the representatives of the concerned parents to engage on the issues raised in the memorandum and deal with some of the issues Upton raises as “questions”. In the end, any process that flows from this must be inclusive, with all concerned parties meaningfully engaged, including the Department of Education, the school governing body, school management, and other interested and affected parties.

This will be a process, let’s not jump the gun. It’s also not an adversarial process, but a consensus-building exercise.

I am saddened that Upton should single Polisa Nojoko out, which might indicate his lack of understanding of how these organisational issues or campaigns work. She was speaking on behalf of all the concerned parents, not on her own behalf.