Tweet
The anti-JC bias
Michael Burke
Thursday, November 29, 2007
ANOTHER student has died as a result of violence among teenagers. It has happened in schools before, but of course, when it happens at Jamaica College a certain amount of hypocrisy chips in. The usual nonsense about "look at what JC has come to" is noised abroad. Whenever there is violence at other schools, the media and other top-society talkers correctly lament the state of the human environment from which these youngsters come. But whenever it happens at JC, it is a horse of a different colour.
It is right and fitting that the death of a student by violence be a news item. No one is complaining about that. When someone dies, it is no longer just a domestic school issue. Fair enough! But less than that at JC has made the news. In 2000, some fifth formers misbehaved, and the then principal Stuart Reeves cancelled the graduation. I asked in my Observer article "Why pick on JC?" on Thursday, July 6 , 2000, "What is so earth-shattering about that?" The difference is that bad news about JC sells, but the good news does not.
In my piece entitled "Depends on who does it" in the Observer of Thursday, June 24, 2004, I wrote: "Sections of the media highlighted the Jamaica College students who were taken off a bus for unruly behaviour. I have not heard the students' side of the story, but if the report is true, they were wrong and should be punished. When students from other schools behave badly, we hear that it is the society, the environment and the poor rate of family life that are the reasons, and this is true. Aren't JC boys from the same society, the same environment, many of whom have the same poor state of family life as found in Jamaica? I would imagine so."
In that same piece I wrote, "It is my lot in life to belong to two groups of people who get bad press. One is my school and the other is my church." I am Roman Catholic.
The "bad-mouthing" of Jamaica College started in January 1958. In 1957, the PNP government under the premiership of national hero Norman Washington Manley started a system of partially free education. The first students to take the Common Entrance Examination, as it was called then, did so in 1957. Those who were awarded scholarships began their high school tenure in January 1958.
As children of poor parents sat beside "rich people pickney" in the same school, the prejudice and the snobbery started to manifest itself. The cry went out that "JC had gone to the dogs". One year, the head boy said at a prize-giving ceremony that "JC had not gone to the dogs, it is the dogs that have come to JC", for which he got a heavy applause from the audience.
I attended Jamaica College between 1964 and 1971. On April 1, 1970, in an article entitled "Schoolboys a menace", a writer in the STAR newspaper wrote some terrible things about JC boys and their behaviour at the bus stops. This was 37 years ago.
I replied on behalf of the students and the letter was published in the STAR of April 16, 1970. But not before the then general editor of Gleaner publications Theodore Sealy (now deceased) summoned me by telegram to the Gleaner offices and tried to lecture me about challenging people. I stood my ground and demanded that the letter be published.
What was interesting about the whole thing was that while I conferred with Sealy, the late Morris Cargill entered the office and joined the conversation. He offered me a cigarette while in my school uniform (khaki in those days, not the blue uniform that has been worn since September 1972).
Fortunately for both my school and myself, I said "No, thank you."
I think it is time to publicly reveal after 37 years and 7 months that Sealy tried to catch me off guard by asking me if it was true that a teacher had been raped at JC. Please understand that this was April 1970 and I would not turn 17 until November that year (I just turned 54). Factually, neither rape nor sex had happened in that incident involving a precocious fifth former and a teacher, who was a Caucasian Englishwoman, but it was blown out of proportion by rumours.
Being asked such a question by the editor of the Gleaner, I had the reputation of JC in the palm of my hands. I did my best in explaining exactly what happened and included a particular suggestive remark that the teacher had made to the boys. And I succeeded in keeping the incident out of the press. And by the way, the student so accused died of natural causes three years ago.
The solution to the problem of violence is to change the mindset of the young. And to do that there should be more live-in camps where they do not go back home to the sort of environment that breeds the violent behaviour which they exhibit. In the meantime, more men need to volunteer to talk to the male students of all schools. After all, if I give voluntary time to Jamaica College each week, why can't just about everyone else give even a few hours at some school or other?
Michael Burke
Thursday, November 29, 2007
ANOTHER student has died as a result of violence among teenagers. It has happened in schools before, but of course, when it happens at Jamaica College a certain amount of hypocrisy chips in. The usual nonsense about "look at what JC has come to" is noised abroad. Whenever there is violence at other schools, the media and other top-society talkers correctly lament the state of the human environment from which these youngsters come. But whenever it happens at JC, it is a horse of a different colour.
It is right and fitting that the death of a student by violence be a news item. No one is complaining about that. When someone dies, it is no longer just a domestic school issue. Fair enough! But less than that at JC has made the news. In 2000, some fifth formers misbehaved, and the then principal Stuart Reeves cancelled the graduation. I asked in my Observer article "Why pick on JC?" on Thursday, July 6 , 2000, "What is so earth-shattering about that?" The difference is that bad news about JC sells, but the good news does not.
In my piece entitled "Depends on who does it" in the Observer of Thursday, June 24, 2004, I wrote: "Sections of the media highlighted the Jamaica College students who were taken off a bus for unruly behaviour. I have not heard the students' side of the story, but if the report is true, they were wrong and should be punished. When students from other schools behave badly, we hear that it is the society, the environment and the poor rate of family life that are the reasons, and this is true. Aren't JC boys from the same society, the same environment, many of whom have the same poor state of family life as found in Jamaica? I would imagine so."
In that same piece I wrote, "It is my lot in life to belong to two groups of people who get bad press. One is my school and the other is my church." I am Roman Catholic.
The "bad-mouthing" of Jamaica College started in January 1958. In 1957, the PNP government under the premiership of national hero Norman Washington Manley started a system of partially free education. The first students to take the Common Entrance Examination, as it was called then, did so in 1957. Those who were awarded scholarships began their high school tenure in January 1958.
As children of poor parents sat beside "rich people pickney" in the same school, the prejudice and the snobbery started to manifest itself. The cry went out that "JC had gone to the dogs". One year, the head boy said at a prize-giving ceremony that "JC had not gone to the dogs, it is the dogs that have come to JC", for which he got a heavy applause from the audience.
I attended Jamaica College between 1964 and 1971. On April 1, 1970, in an article entitled "Schoolboys a menace", a writer in the STAR newspaper wrote some terrible things about JC boys and their behaviour at the bus stops. This was 37 years ago.
I replied on behalf of the students and the letter was published in the STAR of April 16, 1970. But not before the then general editor of Gleaner publications Theodore Sealy (now deceased) summoned me by telegram to the Gleaner offices and tried to lecture me about challenging people. I stood my ground and demanded that the letter be published.
What was interesting about the whole thing was that while I conferred with Sealy, the late Morris Cargill entered the office and joined the conversation. He offered me a cigarette while in my school uniform (khaki in those days, not the blue uniform that has been worn since September 1972).
Fortunately for both my school and myself, I said "No, thank you."
I think it is time to publicly reveal after 37 years and 7 months that Sealy tried to catch me off guard by asking me if it was true that a teacher had been raped at JC. Please understand that this was April 1970 and I would not turn 17 until November that year (I just turned 54). Factually, neither rape nor sex had happened in that incident involving a precocious fifth former and a teacher, who was a Caucasian Englishwoman, but it was blown out of proportion by rumours.
Being asked such a question by the editor of the Gleaner, I had the reputation of JC in the palm of my hands. I did my best in explaining exactly what happened and included a particular suggestive remark that the teacher had made to the boys. And I succeeded in keeping the incident out of the press. And by the way, the student so accused died of natural causes three years ago.
The solution to the problem of violence is to change the mindset of the young. And to do that there should be more live-in camps where they do not go back home to the sort of environment that breeds the violent behaviour which they exhibit. In the meantime, more men need to volunteer to talk to the male students of all schools. After all, if I give voluntary time to Jamaica College each week, why can't just about everyone else give even a few hours at some school or other?
Comment