The dust in the controversy generated by the 2013 National Grade Six Assessment (NGSA) and Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) results has long settled. And, as has been the case over the years, we will await the results in 2014 for a new round of arguments. But when the leader of a major political party in this case, David Granger, makes a charge, one that has been re-echoed and re-interpreted by others in and out of politics, that we have the return of apartheid in education in Guyana, then it is time for us to take note.
In an ethnically contentious society, such a charge is not without profound implications and consequences. Given the fact that Granger is the head of an ethnically based political party that makes no secret of its primary concern for the welfare of its constituency and the fact that he spoke to an audience of the same ethnic make-up, the statement acquires even greater significance. While some have sought to explain what Granger may have meant, there is nothing that can be done to add another hue to the term apartheid. It clearly and unequivocally refers to a system or policy of racial dominance, discrimination and segregation. No amount of interpretation or engineering could alter the connotation of the word to mean ability to pay for education, as one writer has put it. And, no matter how obnoxious a system is based on ability to pay, on this ground alone it cannot be deemed to be apartheid.
If there was any ambiguity in Granger’s statement as to the meaning of the word “apartheid”, then enough light was shed on it in a subsequent letter from Dr David Hinds, who referring to the Granger statement, concluded that the Caribbean Examination Council (CXC) results of 2013 revealed a class polarisation that “has an ethnic look about it”. How justified was this conclusion, and on what solid empirical foundation does it stand? Let us see. This year, over 13,500 students wrote CSEC. The Education Ministry declared two sets of results: the first is the results of 69 students (0.5 per cent of the total) with a minimum of eleven grade ones, and the second 231 (1.8 per cent of the total) students with a minimum of eight grade ones. The actual ethnic composition of these groups is not known, though one can make guesses from the names. But guessing would be as foolish as it would be dangerous. In which ethnic group, for example, are we going to put a Kissoon, a Sharma or a Peters?
The only way an informed conclusion could be arrived at is if we have the full result of the 13,500 students and their ethnic “look”. Failing such a disclosure, could one not reasonably conclude statements attributed to Granger and Dr Hinds, are designed to foment and deepen racial insecurities and consolidate the ethnic block? Can the structure of the department of education give rise to Granger-Hinds contention of an apartheid education in Guyana? I think not. All the prominent high schools in Georgetown, for example, have including the iconic Queen’s and Bishops’, been headed for many years by persons of a particular “ethnic look”, to use Dr Hinds’ egregious statement. When last was there an Indian head master at Queen’s or Bishops’, for example? Headships at these schools seemed reserved for that particular ethnic look.
When we look at the ethnic composition of the teacher population, we see a large number, if not a predominance, of persons belonging to the same supposedly aggrieved ethnic group. At the same time, teacher unions in Guyana have been historically dominated by persons of the same group. I would think that if anyone or group could make a justifiable case it would be teachers and their unions. And, our teacher unions have not been exactly paper tigers.
Further, in the Education Ministry itself, the cream of the crop, year after year, has been made up by persons of this particular ethnic look. So, if in the last 21 years, the period under contention, there has never been an Indian as the chief education officer, for example, and if all the major positions have been traditionally filled by persons of a particular ethnic look, in the face of such an overwhelming contradiction, how can anyone reasonably level the charge of apartheid in the country’s education system?
Can such a contention be made on the basis of discriminatory practices in the allocation of resources to the nation’s schools? It can’t be otherwise because clearly our schools are not segregated. If such practices do exist and if schools dominated by students of a particular ethnic look are denied resources given to others, then one may accuse the system of discriminatory practices, and in the case of imagination running wild, even apply the apartheid indictment. But, I doubt whether we will find this to be true even if we compare Mackenzie High and Line Path Secondary. The bottom line of me is the answer to this question: does the government of Guyana expend more resources, in a systemic way, on the education of an Indian child than it does on an African child?
Politicians are given to playing the gallery and do indulge in extravagant and intemperate outbursts. Race-baiting is a way of life among them. But even for them, the apartheid characterisation takes this game to a totally different and dangerous level. In any case, neither Granger nor Dr Hinds is a typical run-of-the-mill politician. Each brings a cold, studied, scholastic, discipline to their various pronouncements, and on this account they have to be taken with earnestness. Each is a person with strong academic credentials. But this is certainly not the way to enlist support for their cause.