Release full report on Pretoria High School for Girls, IRR urges GDE

For the Gauteng Education Department (GDE) to gain any public trust in its stated objective of testing allegations of racism at Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG), it must immediately publish the full report compiled by the law firm, Mdladlamba Attorneys, which it appointed to conduct the investigation.

The GDE must also publish the record of its mandate to expand the scope of the investigation.

So says the Institute of Race Relations (IRR).

The IRR argues that these steps are necessary in light of the outcome of an earlier inquiry (which, among other things, found 12 accused pupils not guilty of racism or of expressing “inappropriate opinions”), and the considerable public comment on the matter, not least after former President Thabo Mbeki’s scathingly critical observations on the earlier actions of the GDE.

In the latest development, Gauteng Education, Sport, Arts, Culture & Recreation MEC Matome Chiloane announced on 4 November some details of a GDE-mandated investigation by Mdladlamba Attorneys to probe "allegations of a culture of racism at Pretoria High School for Girls and provided recommendations to address such".

Going by the GDE’s record in its engagement with PHSG, this statement deservedly attracts a great deal of cynicism, says IRR head of strategic engagement Sara Gon.

The GDE was accused of widely of publicising allegations of racism against white learners in July, prompting their being suspended while they were preparing for prelim exams, and of being willing to foster perceptions of guilt before any disciplinary process had even been convened.

As it turned out, the GDE's witchhunt crumbled when a panel of three appointed by the school governing body and chaired by an independent advocate, found all 12 girls not guilty of both charges.

The charges were:

• Being "part of a WhatsApp group that allegedly expressed inappropriate opinions"; and
• Having allegedly contravened the school's Code of Conduct and Social Media Policy by which “(the) learner makes herself guilty of racism, sexism, sexual harassment, or public use of hate speech, or expression of opinions to cause spread of hate."

At the time, GDE spokesperson Steve Mabona said that the department "respected" the decision, but he spent another two pages expressing the GDE’s unhappiness with the finding and essentially saying that the real reason for respecting the decision was because the department had no legal authority to challenge it.

Mabone announced: “Consequently, the Gauteng MEC for Education, Sport, Arts, Culture & Recreation, Mr Matome Chiloane, will be launching an independent investigation into Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) to determine whether a culture of racism exists at the school."

The GDE's malevolent position was thus revealed. The principal was then suspended pending the outcome of the departmental investigation.

The MEC's triumphalist statement this week about the outcome of this investigation does nothing but heighten suspicion of the GDE.

His comments reveal eight allegations that the report apparently says should be the subject of disciplinary hearings. On the face of it, none of the allegations appear sufficient to sustain any sense of there being a "culture of racism" at the school.

As an example, one aspect of one of the charges (relating to the earlier hearing by the panel appointed by the school governing body) was: "The GDE should engage the school to establish if indeed an invoice was submitted to PHSG for the chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing to be paid for the services he rendered. In the event it is found that the said payment is contrary to the provision of section 27 of South African Schools Act (SASA), PHSG must take the necessary steps to recover such payment and take disciplinary steps against those that authorised the payment accordingly."

First, there is nothing improper about an external chairman being contracted, and paid, to fulfill the function. Second, Section 27 of SASA provides that a School Governing Body (SGB) member may be reimbursed for necessary expenses incurred in performing his or her duties, and that no member of an SGB may be remunerated "for the performance of his or her duties".

The chair of a disciplinary hearing appointed by an SGB is not subject to Section 27. Why would any outside professional chair a hearing without being paid?

This gives a flavour of the way in which the report was written − unless these are merely the MEC's interpretations of its contents. Most of the allegations are either petty or completely unclear.    

The GDE’s media releases of August and of this week both appear to distort the results of the original disciplinary hearing, and thus fail to give the public any confidence that the GDE is acting in the best interests either of PHSG and its staff and students, or education in Gauteng in general.

In this light, it is vital for the GDE to publish the record of the expanded mandate which prompted the investigation by Mdladlamba Attorneys, and to immediately publish the law firm’s full report.

Media Contact: Sara Gon, IRR Head of Strategic Engagement, Tel: 083 555 7952 Email: sara@irr.org.za

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