Patronising foul play

SIR — I agree with all the sentiments expressed in your editorial, “Race and rugby” (September 18) except one.

I agree wholeheartedly that “too few black children are exposed to rugby at school”, but disagree that this is “what must be addressed”.

It must be tackled by schools, if schools want to address the issue.

One of the most demeaning aspects of the transformation debate is the patronising nature with which leadership determines what people need and what is good for them.

Common experience in government schools over the past 20 years is that, as the populations of schools have become more black, the demand has been for the introduction of soccer to be played at school.

Often, this is more or less at the expense of rugby. There is nothing wrong with this. It means that the parents and teachers are meeting the needs and desires of the children.

At Afrikaans or private schools, rugby is still likely to be a major sport, if not necessarily the major sport — but that is also a matter of choice.

As the editorial points out; those who consider the failure of those in charge to ensure that the national team reflects the country’s demographics to be proof of racism, are lazy and mean-spirited.

The self-righteous, mean-spirited types, with their rigid dogma and patronising of the South African public, have no right to dictate the choices of others.

They have a right to speak up when the right to exercise that choice is unfairly hindered in some way.

SC Weiss Parktown North