PHSG: Using Teenage Girls for Political Agendas . .

Makone Maja states that a disagreement between individuals who happen to be white or black does not automatically make the dispute inherently racist.

In a move reminiscent of Stalin’s infamous phrase, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,” the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) has turned its attention to alleged racism at Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG). The Thabo Mbeki Foundation has criticized the GDE's efforts, describing them as a “fishing expedition.”

The controversy began with resurfaced complaints of racial discrimination by students and a leaked WhatsApp group chat alleged to contain racist remarks by white learners targeting their black peers. The chat sparked a student-led protest at PHSG, prompting the GDE’s involvement. The department claimed its intervention was due to the protest and that it was invited by the school principal.

Following this, the school governing body’s disciplinary committee investigated the allegations against 12 students involved in the chat. The committee found no evidence of racism or discrimination. This conclusion was later affirmed by the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, and the GDE upheld the ruling, stating it would not revisit the matter.

Despite this, Gauteng Education MEC Matome Chiloane announced an independent investigation into PHSG to determine if a broader culture of racism exists at the school. The department’s statement cited unspecified “allegations” and the “presumption” of racism as the basis for this new probe.

Gauteng Education MEC Matome Chiloane's decision to launch an independent investigation at Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) is not focused on the 12 learners previously implicated in a controversial WhatsApp group but on broader allegations of systemic racism at the school. This move stems from the fact that the school governing body’s (SGB) report made no mention of racism or discrimination, despite persistent claims suggesting its presence at the school.

Chiloane and the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) expanded the scope of their inquiry beyond the original terms of reference, with the MEC arguing that this was necessary to address recurring allegations and lay the matter to rest. Critics, however, have labeled this expansion a “fishing expedition.”

The MEC dismissed the Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s report, which concluded there was no evidence of racism, describing it as mere advice despite its reliance on common law, case law, and constitutional principles.

While the GDE’s investigation has since concluded, its findings remain undisclosed to the public. The MEC has only shared limited information through media appearances and statements, leaving the public with little more than the Mbeki Foundation’s report, which casts doubt on the GDE’s approach.

The Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s report highlights a troubling stance by the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) regarding the Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) case. The GDE not only challenged the school governing body’s (SGB) disciplinary committee’s decision to find 12 white learners from the WhatsApp group chat not guilty of racism but also contested the ruling on a black learner involved in a separate incident.

This black learner, who had filed her own complaints of racism against the school, appeared in a leaked private video where she mocked white learners, suggesting they kneel in atonement for their privilege and history of racism—an act reminiscent of performances by some American protesters after George Floyd's murder in 2020. While the act itself has been widely criticized and ridiculed, the SGB disciplinary committee ruled her not guilty of racism.

The GDE argued that the black learner should also face charges of racism, implying her acquittal was intended to justify the not-guilty findings for the white learners. This criticism marks a significant reversal from the GDE’s earlier endorsement of the SGB’s findings and suggests a shift in its approach to the case.

By reopening the investigation and expanding its scope, the GDE appears to have breached its own stated terms of reference, raising concerns about its motives. Critics suggest the department seized on the dispute among students as an opportunity to target the school with unsubstantiated accusations of systemic racism, using the learners involved as pawns in the process.

While it’s not uncommon for teenagers to make thoughtless or even offensive remarks in WhatsApp chats or videos, a more constructive approach from adults might involve having a conversation with the learners rather than subjecting them to suspensions, investigations, and disciplinary hearings under the intense scrutiny of the media and public.

What benefit does such public exposure bring to young people still navigating adolescence? Mistakes made in their youth should be teachable moments, not life-altering stains on their futures. A suspension, especially in a critical year like matric, could irreparably harm their prospects. Moreover, what lesson does this teach about conflict resolution and accountability as they transition into adulthood? Adolescence is already fraught with confusion, and involving political and media machinery in what amounts to teenage squabbles only exacerbates the challenges they face.

Encouraging robust, open discussions—even those that test boundaries—is essential for developing critical thinking. Parents, not bureaucrats with political motives, are best positioned to guide and support their children through these moments of growth. The path to independent thought and maturity often involves making mistakes and learning from them, not having every misstep magnified for public consumption.

Conflicts, whether rooted in cultural, racial, or even personal differences, are part of life in a diverse society like ours. They happen every day—be it colleagues negotiating office temperatures, churches balancing English and African praise songs, or sports bars deciding whether to broadcast soccer or rugby. The key difference? These ordinary frictions don’t become fodder for political or media hysteria. Allowing young people to navigate and resolve their differences without undue interference fosters resilience, independence, and a deeper understanding of the complexities of society.

Conflicts can and do occur between individuals of different races, but the involvement of people who happen to be white or black does not automatically render a disagreement racist. Unfortunately, allegations of racism have become a convenient tool for some activists to dismiss opposing views, criticism, or even mockery as acts of bigotry. This tendency appears to underpin both the Pretoria High School for Girls (PHSG) students' complaints about the WhatsApp group and the MEC's subsequent handling of the situation. While teenagers might understandably interpret conflicts through this lens, politicians engaging in such reductive reasoning deserve sharper critique, as the Thabo Mbeki Foundation rightly highlighted in its rebuke of the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE).

The Mbeki Foundation’s report referenced a legal precedent emphasizing that feelings of being discriminated against on the basis of race are subjective and do not inherently prove racism. The court clarified that even deeply held emotions can be mistaken. Yet, the MEC and GDE appear to promote a contrary message to these young learners—that every emotional reaction they experience must be validated as absolute truth. This approach is not only misguided but borders on irresponsibility.

Politicians catastrophizing adolescent disputes and exploiting them for political narratives through racial framing is reckless and harmful. The MEC's actions at PHSG, amplified in the media for national consumption, reflect a pattern of persistent racialization that does little to serve the students or foster genuine understanding. Instead, such behavior risks entrenching division and miseducation among young people.

Makone Maja is the Campaign Manager at the Institute of Race Relations . .