Education and Classification Under Apartheid
Source 1: “The Life of The Child in South Africa” Link
Who: While the exact author is unknown, this report was published by the Federation of South African Women (FEDSAW), an organization first founded in 1954 and primarily comprised of South African women of color to fight gendered and racial discrimination.
When: Again, the exact date is unknown, but I would estimate the publication date to be in the mid-late 1950s based on the years FEDSAW was the most active.
Summary: This report discusses the home life and education situation for both white and black South Africans during the 1950s. The source begins by noting how, despite the relatively small white population in South Africa, they take the status of “colonizer” and hold positions of power above black Africans and Indians regardless of wealth or education (1).
The report then recounts the typical lifestyle of a white home, noting specifically that each household employs a black, typically female, servant to perform household chores while both parents work outside the home — a system that indoctrinates white children with ideas of white supremacy at a young age. The author likewise describes how the employment of servants in the home defies the very idea of separation set up by Apartheid. Namely, that while Apartheid calls for physical separation of the races in public, in private, no such separation exists.
The report also examines the superior medical and educational facilities to which white South Africans have access. For example, the author recounts how for white populations, school is mandatory until the age of sixteen, and ninety-four percent of white students attend state-sponsored schools. Furthermore, the report discusses the increased resources available within white schools, including physical education classes, school lunches, and health checkups. The report ends its analysis of the white educational system with an examination of South African universities, of which the majority only except white students. Furthermore, the source discusses other gatekeeping measures that keep South Africans of color out of the university system, mainly the allowance of a “comprehensive bursary and scholarship system,” available to white students only (6).
The author of this report then switches their attention to black children. As she argues, these children often grew up with little adult supervision, left “in the care of a sister of six or seven,” while their parents worked, often in the homes of white families (7). The report then describes the often poor living conditions and lack of educational opportunities for African children living in both cities and the countryside. As a result of these poor wages and living conditions, malnutrition and illness were common among black African populations.
Unlike schools for white children, very few of the black schools received money from the state and instead drew from missionary or private funds. This lack of state funding, in turn, the report argues, led to a poor learning environment for black students. A lack of desks, materials, books, facilities, medical screenings, school-provided lunches, and even schools themselves made teaching and learning in this environment difficult for many students. This, coupled with poor living conditions and low wages, meant that few black South Africans graduated high school. As the report describes, only about thirty-four percent of African children attended school, and of these, only four percent graduated, a mere .035 percent of the total black population.
The author ends this report with a critique of the Bantu Education Act passed in 1953. This act further limited educational opportunities for black South Africans by codifying an emphasis on manual labor rather than education or skilled labor, further increasing the educational divide between white and black South Africans under Apartheid.
Source 2: Ayesha Hoorzook Interview clip from South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid, Building Democracy website link
Who: Interview with Ayesha Hoorzook, an Indian woman who grew up under the Apartheid system in South Africa. Interviewed by Matthew Miller.
When: Interview conducted October 8, 2006, in Johannesburg, South Africa
Summary: In this short interview clip, Hoorzook first outlines the process by which South Africans would appeal to a government agency so that they could be reclassified into a different racial category. As Hoorzook describes, Apartheid divided society into a hierarchy of racial classifications assigned to every South African at birth. Laws then ranked people along the social ladder with whites on top, followed by “coloured” South Africans of mixed heritage, then Indians, and finally black South Africans on the bottom.
To move up in this racial hierarchy, Hoorzook notes how people often petitioned the Reclassifications Board to argue that officials had incorrectly classified them. In an effort to test which category everybody belonged in, the Reclassifications Board came up with different tests, including pinching people in an interview to see what language they spoke when injured.
Hoorzook then discusses the implications of this classification and reclassification process on education. Her son, when registered as an infant, received the classification “Cape Coloured Malay” instead of “Indian” like his mother and brother (33:20). As a result, no schools would admit him as most were divided into white, coloured, Indian, and black students respectively. Hoorzook, lastly, describes the difficult process of getting her son reclassified through mountains of paperwork and an extensive interview process in which reclassification officials interviewed her six-year-old son in several languages to see which one he responded to the best. Only then did the state officially change his categorization to Indian so he could attend school.
When taken together, these sources depict the extreme educational inequalities under the Apartheid system. In essence, the color of one’s skin, the racial identification they received as a baby, and the language they spoke often determined access to quality education, state funding, or school medical care. Through these sources, it is easy to see how the white minority in power used this classification system and the educational divide it helped to create to reify their power and perpetuate white control over this system. For example, if so few black South Africans had access to the educational materials and support they needed to even graduate from secondary school, as the FEDSAW report details, it would make it even more difficult for a black African to obtain the same legal, economic, and social status as whites. Yet, it also stands as a testament to black South Africans, both educated and uneducated, who fought against this system nonetheless.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Hoorzook’s interview adds another layer to this whole discussion on education under Apartheid. The mere presence of a Reclassification Board within this system demonstrates the absurdity of racial classification in the first place. As Hoorzook points out, government officials had no real way to determine who fit into which racial category, showing that society, not biology, constructed racial ideas in South Africa and the world. Many South Africans recognized this and used their knowledge to try to improve their lives and seek better opportunities under Apartheid.
Likewise, the two sources demonstrate that people of color in South Africa recognized, lived, and understood the consequences of this educational disparity and how women, like those represented in these sources, worked to overcome those obstacles for the benefit of themselves and their children. By fighting for this right to quality education, whether through overturning the Bantu education system entirely or working to have their children reclassified so they can attend school, women of color in South Africa challenged the Apartheid system of racial discrimination and worked to assert their right and the rights of their families to equal citizenship under the law.
