Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls vs Daily Maverick (1)
Deputy Press Ombud: Tyrone August
28 October 2024
Finding: Complaint 31990
Date of publication: 31 July 2024
Headline:
‘It’s heartbreaking,’ says Pretoria Girls High parent as school faces fresh allegations of racism
Author: Nonkululeko Njilo
Particulars
This finding is based on a written complaint lodged by a group of parents representing a number of pupils at Pretoria High School for Girls, along with a redacted record of the School Governing Body’s disciplinary inquiry; a written reply on behalf of Daily Maverick by its journalist, Ms Nonkululeko Njilo; and a written response by the group of parents representing a number of pupils at Pretoria High School for Girls.
Complaint
The complainants submit that the article transgresses Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code:
“1. The media shall:
“1.1 take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly;
“1.2 present news in context and in a balanced manner, without any intentional or negligent departure from the facts whether by distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation, material omissions, or summarisation;
“1.3 present only what may reasonably be true as fact; opinions, allegations, rumours or suppositions shall be presented clearly as such; … “
- Summary of article
1.1. According to the article, the Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) is facing new allegations of racism and, as a result, some parents of black pupils have expressed concern about the mental wellbeing of their children.
1.1.1. It further reports that a group of black pupils held a protest the previous week to demand action against white pupils who allegedly made statements about them with racial connotations and displayed “microaggressions” in a “whites-only” WhatsApp group.
1.1.2. It also notes that disciplinary proceedings against 12 white pupils started on July 23, and that eight of them were removed as prefects.
1.2. Political parties protested outside the school on July 31. Gauteng education MEC Matome Chiloane also visited the school and subsequently briefed the media on the latest developments regarding the matter.
1.2.1. He reportedly said that new evidence emerged that the latest incident was not isolated and that there had been complaints since 2023 that some black pupils were being victimised by some of their white peers.
1.2.2. As a result, he said, the department decided to place the principal, Phillipa Erasmus, on a three-month precautionary suspension while the disciplinary process was under way.
1.3. Several black pupils told Daily Maverick that they had seen leaked messages from the “whites-only” group suggesting they wanted “special treatment” and that they were allowed to get away with “having afros and dy[e]ing [their] hair”.
1.3.1. They were reportedly also told to “get over apartheid” or else South Africa would never move forward.
1.4. Black parents told Daily Maverick of their concern about the impact of these “racial connotations” on the wellbeing of their children.
1.4.1. Jane Nyalungu said she had encouraged her daughter, a Grade 11 pupil, to report some of the incidents but was shocked when the principal did not take any action. She said this suggests that the principal “does not see anything wrong with these problematic remarks”.
1.5. Daily Maverick approached the school about the latest allegations of racism as well as those in previous years, and asked what had been done to address them since an earlier protest in 2016.
1.5.1. The school’s marketing manager, KL du Toit, referred queries to the provincial education department.
1.6. In 2016, pupils reportedly staged a protest against a long-standing rule which required them to chemically straighten their hair because Afro hairstyles were deemed to be untidy.
1.6.1. At the time, then education MEC Panyaza Lesufi said he wanted to address the situation before it got out of hand. Eight years later, however, the school reportedly finds itself in the same situation again.
1.6.2. Chiloane echoed Lesufi’s sentiments and said the education department needed to set a precedent “so the message goes out … that racism will not be tolerated in our schools in any way”.
1.7. Nyalungu said a suitable sanction would be to expel the perpetrators, while Basetsana Monareng, the parent of a Grade 8 pupil, welcomed the stripping of eight girls of their roles as prefects and associated privileges.
1.7.1. Chiloane said the department would conduct a diversity and social cohesion programme that would be monitored regularly, and would include pupils, parents and teachers.
1.8. Gauteng education spokesperson Steve Mabona further said that a Grade 12 pupil was suspended after she allegedly made racial remarks on a video that was purportedly made in February.
1.8.1. He added that the department was “firmly committed to fostering a safe and inclusive environment for all learners”.
- Arguments
Parent Group Pretoria High School for Girls
2.1. A group of parents representing a number of PHSG pupils who were recently implicated in a “race scandal” complained that the article was one-sided.
2.1.1. They note that the article first appeared under the heading “Maverick News” and was therefore not an op-ed piece expressing subjective opinions. As such, they submit that the article is in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the Press Code.
2.2. The complainants point out that all references to the WhatsApp group on which some of the 12 suspended PHSG pupils allegedly expressed “inappropriate opinions” are prefaced with the words “whites-only”.
2.2.1. They argue that there is a big difference between a WhatsApp group that comprises only white pupils and one that actively restricts membership to white pupils. They submit that the phrase “whites-only” suggests that the group falls into the latter category.
2.2.2. However, they contend, there is no evidence to support this interpretation and add that placing the reference in quotation marks “does not diminish its harmful effect”.
2.3. The complainants further submit that the postings on the WhatsApp group were misrepresented. For example, they state, the claim that the group said black girls needed to “get over apartheid or South Africa would never move forward” is an overstatement. Instead, they say, the actual posting was more temperate: “Everybody is treated the same … if they keep going back to race then this country will never move forward.”[1]
2.3.1. They believe that this inaccuracy was prejudicial to the 12 white pupils.
2.4. The complainants also point out that the article does not record the views of any white pupils at the school nor does the article record the views of any pupils “of whatever race” who express sympathy with the 12 white girls or who agree with their opinions. They argue that this indicates a lack of balance.
2.5. The complainants take issue as well with what they regard as the one-sidedness of the interviews with black parents and ask why the article does not reflect the concerns of many white parents about what they viewed “as an act of racial bullying” by the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE). They believe the failure to do so suggests bias.
2.6. The complainants go on to dismiss as false the following statement in the article: “In the racism incident in 2016, pupils staged a protest against a long-standing rule which required them to chemically straighten their hair because afro hairstyles were deemed to be untidy.”
2.6.1. They question the reference to a racism incident in 2016. They maintain that the only incident that year was a protest against alleged racism, but that an independent firm of lawyers did not bring any charges against any pupil or staff member and that no racism was found.
2.6.2. They also challenge the claim that a school rule ever existed that required pupils to “chemically straighten their hair”. While there are school rules regarding hair, they state, “none come close to what is claimed” in the article.
2.7. The complainants further argue that, in light of the fact that the school was prohibited from communicating with the media, it was particularly important to take care in reporting fairly and accurately on the school’s actions. They believe the article failed in this respect.
2.8. The complainants also object to the following sentence in the article: “Daily Maverick understands that parents of the 12 suspended pupils have since called in lawyers to represent their children at the disciplinary hearings and appeal for lenient sanctions.”
2.8.1. They submit that no lawyers were called in, and say that a group of advocates approached the parents of the 12 pupils and offered their services free of charge.
2.8.2. They also dispute the claim in the article that parents brought in lawyers to “represent their children at the disciplinary hearings and appeal for lenient sanctions” (emphasis in the original).
2.8.3. They state that there was no appeal for lenient sanctions as all 12 pupils had pleaded not guilty to the charges and all of them were ultimately acquitted on all charges.
2.9. The complainants submit that the article constructs a narrative of “stoical black school children that are the victims of repeated acts of racism”, a school management that is indifferent to this racial abuse, a group of white pupils whose social media postings caused injury to their black peers and an education department that has acted firmly and is committed to eradicating white racism in schools.
2.9.1. They argue that, in order to construct such a narrative, the article “has had to colour (and in some cases invent) facts in ways that are deeply prejudicial to the school and the 12 white girls”, and selectively records only the opinions of those whose views reinforce this narrative. They regard this as bias.
2.10. In conclusion, the complainants ask that Daily Maverick be instructed to retract the article and publish an apology to the 12 white pupils who were suspended (“and subsequently found not guilty”) for the errors in the article.
Daily Maverick
2.11. The respondent denies that it violated any provisions of the Press Code, and says that it drove to the school to speak to pupils, teachers and members of the School Governing Body (SGB), but that this was in vain as tensions were high and security was strengthened in and around the school.
2.11.1. It adds that it deliberately used the “whites-only” phrase in inverted commas to indicate that this was not its own choice of words and to suggest that the phrase was invented by others, including the school’s black pupils, parents and protesters.
2.12. In reply to the complaint that it did not record the views of any white pupils at the school or any views which sympathised or agreed with their WhatsApp posts, the respondent again points out that it visited the school with the intention of getting accounts from all individuals, but was prevented from gaining access due to heightened security measures.
2.12.1. It says the only pupils it was able to approach were black and points out that some of them were participating in a protest outside the school.
2.12.2. Furthermore, it felt it was irresponsible to interview some of the white pupils on such a sensitive issue without parental consent as they were effectively minors. (It adds that the parents of the black pupils mentioned in the article approved their children’s interviews.)
2.12.3. The respondent adds that none of the pupils interviewed expressed any sympathy for the 12 white pupils. In fact, it notes, one “Indian” student was strongly opposed to them.
2.13. In response to the complaint that the article does not reflect the views of any white parents, the respondent reiterates that it was unable to contact any white parents at the time due to heightened security during the disciplinary investigation and subsequent protests.
2.13.1. However, once tensions eased and the 12 pupils were cleared of any wrongdoing, the publication says it made two additional attempts to visit the school and briefly spoke to two white parents.
2.13.2. These parents expressed opposing views, which were recorded in a follow-up article, “How SA schools are tackling the nuances of racial clashes”.[2]
2.13.3. These interviews took place in the school’s parking bay/drop-off point. However, as the publication attempted to speak to a third parent, security was called and the publication was asked to vacate the premises and told that media queries should be sent to the GDE.
2.14. The respondent reiterates that allegations of racism against the school are not new and that similar issues were widely reported in 2016, including by international media.
2.15. The respondent further states that it was fully aware that the school was restricted from communicating with the media. For this reason, it contacted the GDE to obtain “the school policy” and requested the school to provide information on its policies. However, it says, the school’s marketing manager did not provide the information requested.
2.15.1. In light of these circumstances, the publication argues, it did not have any option but to rely on the information provided by its sources. It believes the school can, or should be able to, approach the GDE regarding any inaccuracies in the information it shared with the media.
2.16. The respondent states that it was informed that lawyers were brought in to represent some of the pupils. The publication says it is not concerned about how the lawyers were brought in and merely reported on the fact that they had been roped in.
2.16.1. It also denies that a statement in the article implies that the parents of the 12 pupils believed they were guilty and therefore brought in lawyers to argue in mitigation for a more lenient sentence. It describes this as the interpretation of the complainants and disputes that this implication is contained in the article.
2.17. The respondent further takes issue with the claim that it tried to construct a particular narrative in the article and views this as another example of a misinterpretation of the article by the complainants.
2.17.1. It emphasises that it has never directed its readers to take any particular side and suggests that to do so would be an insult to the intelligence of its readers.
Parent Group Pretoria High School
2.18. In reply to the respondent, the complainants state that they do not believe the publication responds adequately to their complaint. Furthermore, they do not believe that the respondent’s reply raises any further issues which require a response.
2.18.1. They reiterate that they stand by their initial complaint.
- Analysis
3.1. Complaint one objects to the use of the phrase “whites-only” in relation to the WhatsApp group on the grounds that it implies that the group is restricted to white pupils and that placing those words in quotation marks to suggest that they were created by others does not diminish their harmful effects.
3.1.1. There is no merit in this claim. If the publication did indeed want to suggest that the WhatsApp group’s membership was restricted to white pupils, it would not have been necessary to place the phrase in quotation marks.
3.1.2. The employment of quotation marks is a standard practice to indicate that certain words were uttered by someone else. In its reply to the complaint, the publication clearly identifies those who used the phrase as, among others, the school’s black pupils, parents and protesters.
3.1.3. This reason why the publication used the phrase in quotation marks is, therefore, perfectly legitimate. To suggest otherwise would be to impose an unreasonable interpretation on the conventional use of quotation marks in the article.
3.2. Complaint two is that the article misrepresents the postings on the WhatsApp group. However, in the example cited by the complainants, Daily Maverick is not paraphrasing nor summarising the posting; it is reporting what it was told by black pupils about the content of the postings.
3.2.1. A related complaint is that the article lacks balance in that no white pupils are quoted in the article nor are the views recorded of anyone sympathetic to them. In this regard, too, the publication provides a reasonable explanation – that access to the school was restricted due to heightened security measures at the time.
3.2.2. By contrast, it was easy to obtain the views of black pupils quoted in the article as they were protesting outside the school, and their parents – who were presumably also outside the school premises – granted permission for the publication to quote them.
3.3. Complaint three relates to the fact that no white parents are quoted in the article. The explanation once again offered by the publication is that security measures prevented it from gaining access to the school.
3.3.1. However, when tensions subsequently eased, it did attempt to solicit the views of white parents and spoke briefly to two of them before being asked to leave the school’s premises while speaking to a third parent. The views of the two parents were duly published in an article on August 10, “How SA schools are tackling the nuances of racial clashes”.
3.3.2. The publication of the views of white parents in a follow-up article indicates that there was no intention to deliberately exclude the views of white parents from the article published on July 31, but was due to the practical difficulty of contacting white parents at that stage.
3.4. In complaint four, the complainants deny that there was a “racism incident” in 2016 and point out that no charges were brought against any pupil or staff member after an investigation into alleged racism.
3.4.1. There are indeed grounds for this complaint. The publication cannot make an unqualified reference to “the racism incident” when an investigation did not find any evidence of racism. There is a significant difference between allegations of racism and a confirmed incident of racism, and this distinction should be clearly acknowledged and reflected.
3.4.2. Related to this complaint is a denial that there was ever a school rule requiring pupils to chemically straighten their hair.
3.4.3. Be that as it may, some black pupils did express dissatisfaction about the school’s policy on hair in 2016. Daily Maverick published an article recording their views on 30 August 2016, “Pretoria Girls High: A protest against sacrificed cultures and identities”.[3]
3.4.4. And, before publishing the article on July 31, the publication approached both the GDE and PHSG for a copy of the school’s policies. However, their requests went unanswered. The publication therefore cannot be sanctioned for failing to obtain information on the school’s policies when it did make attempts to do so.
3.4.5. Related to this complaint is that the publication was aware that the school was prohibited from communicating with the media and that, in the circumstances, it was particularly important to take care in reporting fairly and accurately.
3.4.6. As noted under point 3.4.4 above, the publication did contact PHSG but did not receive a response to its request for a copy of its policies. For this reason, the respondent’s only sources of information ended up being the GDE and some black parents and pupils.
3.4.7. Despite this, the respondent was nevertheless justified in publishing the information at its disposable for the following reasons: one, it made efforts to reach additional sources of information and, two, a protest about allegations of racism at a school was in the public interest and could therefore not be ignored.
3.5. Complaint five concerns the statement in the article that the parents “called in” lawyers to represent the white pupils. This is clearly a misrepresentation of what transpired: the words in question suggest that the parents approached lawyers to provide legal assistance.
3.5.1. This was certainly not the case as it was the lawyers who, in fact, approached the parents. It is disingenuous for the publication to claim that it does not matter who approached who and to argue that the fact remains that lawyers were roped in.
3.5.2. There is an important difference between approaching someone and being approached by someone; one relates to an act with deliberate intent in pursuit of a specific objective; the other is an entirely passive role.
3.5.3. Related to this complaint is the complainants’ denial that the lawyers were approached to appeal for lenient sanctions for the 12 suspended pupils. In view of the fact that the parents did not approach the lawyers in the first place, there is no factual basis for this claim either (never mind the fact that all 12 pupils pleaded not guilty to the charges).
3.6. The sixth complaint is that, in general, the article constructs a biased narrative. However, there is insufficient evidence to support a claim that the article wilfully attempted to provide a misleading narrative: it relied on the information at its disposal at the time.
3.6.1. As noted in point 3.4.4 above, the respondent made reasonable efforts to obtain information from various sources and, even though there was limited information at its disposal, it could not ignore a protest about a matter that was in the public interest and not report on it.
- Finding
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 is upheld for the reason set out in point 3.4.1 of my Analysis.
The other complaints that the article is in breach of Clause 1.1 are dismissed for the reasons outlined under points 3.1.1 to 3.1.3 and 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 is upheld for the reasons set out under points 3.5 to 3.5.3 of my Analysis.
The other complaints that the article is in breach of Clause 1.2 are dismissed for the reasons outlined in points 3.2 to 3.2.2, 3.3 to 3.3.2 and 3.4.2 to 3.4.4 of my Analysis.
The complaint that the article is in breach of Clause 1.3 is dismissed. The breaches of the Press Code have been sufficiently addressed under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2, and there is no compelling evidence that warrants an additional ruling in terms of Clause 1.3.
Firstly, Daily Maverick is required to publish an apology to the complainant for breaching Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 in the instances mentioned, and should:
- be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
- be published online, on Daily Maverick’s landing page for five days, as well as on all platforms where the article was published;
- be published with a headline including the words “apology” and “Pretoria High School for Girls” (or a recognisable alternative);
- be published with a link to the updated online article;
- refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
- end with the sentence, “Visit presscouncil.org.zafor the full finding”;
- be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
- be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud who adjudicated the complaint.
Secondly, the updated article should publish a note under the headline: “NOTE: This article has been updated. See Editor’s Note below, including an apology to Pretoria High School for Girls.”
The Editor’s Note should state when and how the article has been updated, and should include the full apology to Pretoria High School for Girls as directed above.
Thirdly, the apology and the final updates to the article should be approved by the Deputy Press Ombud prior to publication.
Appeal
The Complaints Procedures lay down that, within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Tyrone August
Deputy Press Ombud
28 October 2024
[1] This quote is from a redacted record of the Disciplinary Inquiry transcript (PHSG statement, 2 August 2024).
[2] See https://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2024-8-10/education-transformation-sa-schools-try-to-navigate-the-nuances-of-racial-clashes-in-the-classroom/
[3] https://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-8-30-pretoria-girls-high-a-protest-against-sacrificed-cultures-and-identities
