|
|
|
|
|
|
|
described in the local School Board minutes as 'slightly coloured' but colloquially known as 'borderline cases'" (Watson 1970, 57). These schools predated apartheid, and the practice of accepting light-skinned coloured children into them was well-established before 1948. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many borderline students were admitted to Colander High through a process full of ad hoc decisions and negotiations spanning years. This was facilitated in the first instance by the contradictory and arms-length relationships among those parts of the government charged with classifying people. To attend a school, a pupil received a classification from the School Board. Before apartheid, the Education Ordinance of 1921 stated that parents must prove European heritage for the child to be defined as white. Prior to 1963, the Superintendent-General of Schools was not bound by the decision of the Director of Census and Statistics (who managed the Population Registration Act). Thus, it was possible for a child whose parents both carried white identification cards, but who was dark-skinned, to be rejected by a white school. Similarly, the Superintendent-General, via the school principals, could act to let a child into the nominally white school. Principals who were in doubt about the race of the pupil could request an interview with both of the parents and with the school committee. Sometimes the parents and even grandparents were asked to produce birth and marriage certificates. The hearings, like those of the Race Classification Board, were held in camera. Watson notes that there was often disagreement among members of the School Committee about the classification decisions. Of the many cases heard by the committee of Colander High School, twenty were rejected. Of these, seven were rejected because one or both parents failed to appear; the rest were refused primarily on grounds of appearance (Watson 1970, 43). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The number of appeals from these decisions were small, as the principals and committee members were loath to confront parents directly. Watson notes that parents were not told of the real reason for the child's rejection from the school, and often the blow was softened by simply saying, "we're full." He continues: |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Moreover, the parents of rejectees, whether they have been summoned before the Committee or not, are not informed of the real reason for their rejectionthey are normally told simply that the school is full. Not even the School Boardto whom the Principal has been instructed to disclose the reason for each refusalis told unequivocally that a child has been refused on the grounds of colour: in correspondence addressed to the Board the Principal covers himself by claiming that 'In the first instance, inability to accommodate is the reason for refusal.' In answer to verbal queries from the Board the |
|
|
|
|
|