School violence: Fun of learning can evaporate

In some schools in the USA, metal detectors are common, as sometimes is the presence of a Police patrol on the outskirts.

Some may be tempted to ask why, in a country that is rich and is the bastion of freedom and democracy. Others may counter that exactly because of what the country represents, it can afford to have such mechanisms in place. The answer basically lies in trying to curb violence in schools.

While the measures may appear to some as being extreme, given what unfortunately happened in the past, when lives were senselessly lost to bullets, the measures may be deemed inadequate. After all, violence in schools has not stopped. Other menaces are bullying and gang-related violence. These are the harsh realities in some institutions of learning there, with an obvious negative impact on the student population involved.

Violence in schools is not confined there, and is prevalent in many other places. In Guyana, we have, in the past, seen a collaboration between the Guyana Police Force and the Education Ministry wherein random searches were conducted at schools for potential weapons. Surprisingly, screwdrivers, knives, scissors, and toy guns were found during some of these random searches.

An important aspect of the Education Ministry’s collaboration with the Police is that the partnership involves discussion on topics of violence, crime committed at schools, gang fighting, offensive weapons and, significantly, consequences.

Who would have thought that in the process of getting an education here in Guyana, safety in schools is becoming a primary concern? With the threats in question, it seems rightfully so.

Of recent, we have seen several teachers being severely beaten by parents, and also, in the past, there were several cases in which students fought their teachers. Over time, there were other reports of students being stabbed by others, or hurt by other means. Bullying, which is just another form of abuse, and even violence, was reported to be highly prevalent in many schools. The recent fight among St Joseph High School students, which went viral on social media, is a good example of violence in schools.

Those represent reported cases, as the understanding is that many cases are unreported out of fear of repercussion.

Solace must not be taken in living in a changing world. Violence, over the years, and its extensive coverage through the media, have led to seeming immunity to the gory images, and now make for casual reading.

This must not be allowed to slip into the mindsets of students and teachers. They must be free from such psychological stress and be able to focus on learning, to build much-needed capacity for the future of the country. All have an integral role to play in helping to repel this scourge.

While there may be compelling arguments over what may be the reasons perpetrators act the way they do, and the spread of violence, immediate mitigating measures have to be derived and implemented.

Police random searches, while a potential deterrent, may not be enough in the long term, as sustainability could become an issue.

Many have argued that parents and guardians need to be more involved and aware of what their children are doing, keeping an eye on any possible worrying signs. While that could still be effective in many ways, there is a challenge as the child approaches adulthood. At that stage, one’s space and privacy could present barriers. There are also social factors that contribute to disallowing such necessary interventions to some extent, which further complicates an already complicated situation.

The situation would probably demand the establishment of a non-partisan special task force, comprising skilled personnel from the relevant sections of Government and civil society, to examine and recommend practical solutions within the shortest possible time.

Whatever the findings are, the resources must be found to implement, given what’s at stake. If not, the fun of learning could be evaporated.

Dear Editor,

The current debates in Parliament around Budget 2023 are allowing us to witness, live and direct, the dynamics of racialisation and de-racialisation of Guyana’s politics.

The term “racialisation” as used here refers to the unnecessary insertion of race and racism into political discourse. “De-racialisation,” on the other hand, is part of a process of anti-racism whereby speakers refuse to allow political discourse to be infected with racio-political utterances.

Readers may already know that, for some time now, the APNU and AFC have been trying to paint Guyana in the language of an apartheid society. These political parties have been supported by local and dispora intellectuals who produce dystopian narratives that find ready expression in local outlets, as well as on various social media platforms. The highly inflammatory charge of racial discrimination found its way into Guyana’s 2023 Budget Debate when APNU Member of Parliament Vinceroy H Jordan ventured into a nearly uncontrollable performance laced with innuendos of racial discrimination, and in at least one instance, use of the term apartheid.

It appears that Mr. Jordan is not aware of what constitutes apartheid, either in law and history, or in the practice of that dastardly form of power politics, as practised in Southern Africa. For his sake, and those who support his project of racialisation in Guyana, the definition of apartheid by the African Union Human Rights Project should be instructive. It reads as follows – “The Apartheid (1948 to 1994) in South Africa was the racial segregation under the all-white government of South Africa which dictated that non-white South Africans (a majority of the population) were required to live in separate areas from whites and use separate public facilities, and contact between the two groups would be limited. The different racial groups were physically separated according to their location, public fa- cilities, and social life (AUHRM Project Focus Area: The Apartheid).

South African History Online offers the following on apartheid – “Apartheidmade laws forced the different racial groups to live separately and develop separately, and grossly unequally too. It tried to stop all inter-marriage and social integration between racial groups. During apartheid, to have a friendship with someone of a different race generally brought suspicion upon you, or worse. More than this, apartheid was a social system which severely disadvantaged the majority of the population simply because they did not share the skin colour of the rulers. Many were kept just above destitution because they were 'non-white”. (https://www. sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa).

Mr. Jordan, as well as Mr. Rosydale Forde, who bellowed charges of discrimination, must know now that there is nothing remotely resembling apartheid in Guyana. A quick check of the Guyana Parliament shows that there are approximately twenty-five Africans, twenty-five Indians, and fifteen persons of Amerindian, Portuguese, and/or ‘mixed’ background. Where is the separation? Who is dominating whom? All of the parties have mixed representation beyond tokenism.

Let us go back to the South African Parliament for comparison. The Britannica historical archive describes the situation well. Here is what they observe - “After its victory [1948] the National Party rapidly consolidated its control over the state, and in subsequent years won a series of elections with increased majorities. Parliament removed Coloured voters from the common voters’ rolls in 1956. By 1969, the electorate was exclusively white: Indians never had any parliamentary representation, and the seats for white representatives of Blacks and Coloureds had been abolished” (https://www.britannica.com/place/South-Africa/TheNational-Party-and-apartheid).

Editor, Mr. Jordan’s allegations, though unfounded, were subjected to an informed and impassioned critique from Bishop Juan Edghill. The Hon. Minister of Public Works also noted three key elements of apartheid, namely: political parties are of one ‘race’, there is a subjugated population based upon race, and there are laws that regulate the spatial dynamics of the society. Specifically, apartheid laws prohibit persons of different ‘races’ from being in the same place.

Edghill went on to charge that the real issue is anyone who does not support the APNU-AFC is considered a racist. He went on to say that if you are Afro-Guyanese and you do not support the PNC, you are not considered ‘Black’. What makes you ‘Black’, in other words, is to join a party or support a party that has the longest streak of authoritarian tendencies in the history of the Caribbean.

In a moment of veritable pride, Juan Anthony Edghill turned to the PPP/C’s side of the House and challenged the Opposition to say that it was of ‘one race’. Juan Edgill disallowed Mr. Vinceroy Jordan’s play of racialisation to ground itself in the National Assembly.

Minister Kwame McCoy also played a significant role in pushing back against the epistemology of racism offered by the young and cantankerous MP Mr. Jordon.

Editor, the efforts at refuting charges of apartheid in Guyana are not only for our national good, but also in defense of the noble and courageous people of Southern Africa, who know what apartheid was, and who mounted one of the great fights for human rights in all of modern history. Anything less would amount to disrespect for the victims of apartheid, something that Guyana, including the PNC, fought against.

Let us have some decency, at least where references to apartheid are concerned.

Sincerely,

Dr Randolph Persaud