Op-Ed

Op-Ed: Why Siya Kolisi's Comments on Racial Quotas Are Wrong

The Springboks captain has some fundamental misconceptions about what quotas mean

When I was in my final year of high school, my Afrikaans teacher told me that she was having trouble convincing the moderators that I had in fact attained the marks in my portfolio. At the time I didn't understand what she meant. Sure my marks were insanely high but they'd been consistently high, as with every subject I took. She told me that the doubt had been fueled because the moderators had said that "a Black child could not do so well at Afrikaans" - when their very own white Afrikaans learners were failing at their mother tongue. It was only when my distinction was withheld from me that I finally realized that I had been mistaken. I was operating from a place that asserted that academic merit was academic merit regardless of the fact that I was Black. However, they weren't.


Springboks Rugby Captain Siya Kolisi recently commented that he did not think that the late Nelson Mandela would agree quota systems used in rugby and that he wanted a better South Africa for all who live in it. Now, I'm going to explain why he's not fundamentally wrong but why he's also not right as well.


Roughly 24 years into our democracy, South Africa still has to enforce quota systems in the workplace, in sports and pretty much everywhere so that Black people can even get a foot in the door. Twenty-four years into our democracy, we're still having to force various institutions and corporate that when they're hiring competent new talent, that they don't conveniently 'forget' to consider and employ just as equally competent Black people. And so Kolisi is quite right in that regard. Nelson Mandela would not have been pleased that whilst we're still a relatively young democracy, the people for whom he fought are still facing the same barriers they did in Apartheid times.

However, to say that quota systems do more harm than good is something that must be answered two-fold. Firstly, if the understanding that Black people have of quota systems is incomplete and merely centers on them having access to opportunities solely because they are Black, it is understandable why they would feel unworthy of those very opportunities. However, and this is the second part to this two-fold answer, when one understands what structural racism is and how it operates, especially in a country such as South Africa, one can better understand what the quota systems under the umbrella of affirmative action and transformation are actually trying to do.

Remember when we were kids and played outdoors be it at school or home? Often we'd play games that required us to split into different teams or groups. There were always kids who were consistently not chosen by the other more popular or vocal kids, not because they were necessarily bad at the game that was to be played but because of arbitrary reasons such as them being different, 'weird', unpopular or simply because the other kids just wanted to exclude them from the fun.

We can use that analogy to understand how structural racism works. The more popular or vocal kids are White South Africans who although a minority, possess the majority of the country's wealth. The kids they want to be a part of their team are people who look like them, are relatable to them and people they actually like i.e. other White South Africans and perhaps the odd person here and there from other races that may benefit them somehow. And of course, all the weird and unpopular kids are Black South Africans who are then excluded from participating in the country's economy, accessing its wealth and resources, simply because they're Black. And so regardless of how brilliant and competent Black people are, how they compare to White people on all levels and may even excel far beyond them, they still can't be a part of the team because merit by itself is not enough to give them access to spaces that don't want them to begin with.

What Kolisi and so many other Black South Africans need to understand is that quota systems are not meant to be façades as is the sentiment of many white South Africans. It's not about having black faces for the sake of black faces. It's not about employing incompetent Black people for the sheer fact that quotas require we employ Black people. And whilst this is a system that can and has been abused in the past, as with any system or policy to be honest, it's about doing away with the underlying presumption that Black people aren't talented, worthwhile, valuable and competent to begin with and hence the need to continue keeping them out of spaces.

I used to think merit was enough, that simply being excellent was enough to place me on the same playing field as a White person because that's what our struggle veterans fought for and that's was our Constitution upholds. But as I learnt in my final year of high school, merit and excellence aren't enough when you're Black. Hard as it is to believe and accept, that is the sobering reality.

And so to Black South Africans who feel inadequate owing to quota systems, remember this: You're not there simply because you're Black. You're there in spite of being Black.

The front page of The New York Times on January 16, 2019

Kenyans Are Furious at the New York Times for Posting Photos of Terrorist Victims

After the the deadly attack on Tuesday, many are accusing the American newspaper of having a double standard on which dead bodies they allow into the paper

Is the New York Times guilty of a double standard when it comes to publishing images of dead bodies?

Kenyans, and others fed up with the coverage, took to social media in the hundreds to denounce a Times article that included an image of victims of Tuesday's Nairobi terrorist attack, bloodied from bullets, and lying hunched over their laptops, dead.

It has cause enough debate online to where the Times' incoming East Africa Bureau chief Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura felt the need to explain their photo policy, which is to show the dead only if their faces cannot be seen in the image. The photo in question fits the policy as the faces are facing away from the camera. She would later apologize before posting the official policy to her Twitter account. The photo remains up.

The Times' official response, as those tend to do online, has only created more anger. But unlike many unruly Twitter mobs, those responding to the official statement have a rather coherent message—"you wouldn't do this with photos of the American dead."

Some of the responses to the Times' official statement.

In a response to the controversy from the Poynter Institute, a typically astute observer of journalistic practice in the United States, they run through the typical American journalism school approach to publishing photos that might shock or offend. They write:

Should the Times have run the photo?
There is no easy answer.
The first question any news organization must ask when deciding to publish violent images is: WHY show it?
In other words, what is the news value? Does the public need to see such an image to fully grasp what happened? Does the public need to see such a photo to confirm or disprove the official account of the events?
An argument could be made that a writer's words could accurately describe the scene without being as disturbing as the image. In addition, when it comes to an act of terrorism, might publishing such a photo actually advance the cause of the terrorists, showing the damage they caused, thus fueling dread and panic?
Also this: The photo on the Times website came without warning. As a reader, you didn't know you were going to see a photo of dead people until you actually saw it.
Those are arguments to not run such a photo or, at least, warn readers of its graphic content.

While it's a fine analysis of when to show a violent image, it misses the central issue at play for those aggrieved by the Times' posting—that the American news-gaze values certain lives differently. Black, brown, foreign, poor—American journalism organizations, including the New York Times, cannot escape a base ethnocentrism in their coverage. It's so embedded into how these institutions operate, and the gap in understanding is so wide, that to much of the world, the Times' official response is laughably wrong at first glance.

"We take the same approach wherever in the world something like this happens--balancing the need for sensitivity and respect with our mission of showing the reality of these events"

And while there are examples from the Times that complicate this feeling, like these images of the dead in the terrorist attack in Nice, France, it doesn't discount the wider and correct feeling that the white victims of American mass shootings are treated differently than their African counterparts. And while there are complicated and systematic reasons for this which will always make discussing it difficult, to simply deny that different standards exist, does not increase the Times' credibility with Kenyans or the newspaper's growing online audience which will only become more vocal about how they're portrayed.

Falz 'Moral Instruction'

The 10 Songs You Need to Hear This Week

The best music of the week featuring Falz, King Monada, Zlatan, Yemi Alade and more.

Every week, we highlight the cream of the crop in music through our Best Music of the Week column.

Here's our round up of the best tracks and music videos that came across our desks, which you can also check out in our Songs You Need to Hear This Week playlists on Spotify and Apple Music.

Follow OkayAfrica on Spotify and Apple Music to get immediate updates every week and read about some of our selections ahead.

Keep reading... Show less

Violent Attack at Kenyan Hotel Ends With 14 Dead

The remaining hostages were freed after a 17-hour standoff between militants and Kenyan security forces on Wednesday.

The final hostages in the violent terrorist attack which took place at the DusitD2 Hotel in Naoribi's affluent Westlands district yesterday have been freed after a 17 hour standoff between Kenyan security forces and Al Shabab militants.

In a speech this morning, Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta declared the rescue mission over, stating that there were 700 people rescued and a total of 14 casualties. He also stated that all of the attackers had been killed in the operation, according to Quartz Africa. "Every person that was involved in the funding, planning and execution of this heinous act will be relentlessly pursued," added Kenyatta.

Keep reading... Show less

get okayafrica in your inbox

news.

popular.