Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The "South African Quota" catch-all thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruce_ma gooshvili" data-source="post: 883815" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>Phew, that was some reading! I'll read the legal documents at a later time when I'll probably have to concentrate more, but thanks again for posting them (I will check them out).</p><p></p><p>In response to some of the links here are a few random thoughts.</p><p></p><p>- DDA is reportedly categorised as not "coloured" because he has a partially Hispanic bloodline. Mystery solved. Although any white South African who has gone outside seems fairly coloured to a peely-wally Scotsman.</p><p></p><p>- the player Dlulane who says he only selected because of government policy clearly supports transformation and states he believes he was good enough to be a Springbok, on merit. So in his mind he was selected on merit and he possibly appears to be having a dig at Jake White by saying White only selected him due to government policy (the unspoken assumption possibly being that Dlulane considered White to be reluctant to pick non-white players for whatever reason – I don't know if White has a reputation for that (like Heyneke Meyer did for some). It is not Dlulane saying he was an inferior player who did not merit a place who only got a crack because he wasn't white. But this player makes all kinds of allegations and I'm not sure of his credibility as an individual. I do think his words are possibly being intentionally misconstrued by the press to make it sound like he got a chance that he didn't merit. It's also still 13 years old!</p><p></p><p>- it is good you still have a judiciary where a union can challenge legislation and/or policy on matters of quotas – as is the case regarding the quotas around liquidators. But I'd note that one of the four criteria in those quotas is entirely non-racial. It is about ensuring there is female representation (regardless of ethnicity) in these roles. I'd therefore query why the union rep is painting this as a racial issue, rather than an equalities issue. Perhaps they consider it'd get more media coverage by doing so. And perhaps they'd be right in considering that. It's why I point out that the SARU Transformation documentation covers disability, gender and social background as well as simply race. Does that mean we should all agree with Transformation? Hell no. Does it reduce the chances that the object of Transformation is to embark on a race war? I'd like to think yes it does, others may think that disability, gender and social background are a fig leaf to try and make Transformation look less about race. If that's someone's opinion, then fair enough. Given some of the more fringe and hard line elements of the ANC I can see why some people might suspect that even if I don't agree with it. Still, like I say, judicial scrutiny of government policy = a good thing.</p><p></p><p>- if I take the media reports at face value, then there are quotas (not targets) in international cricket for the Proteas i.e. an average of X amount of players in the calendar year <em>must</em> be of colour and X amount <em>must</em> be black. That is a quota. One of the articles successfully differentiates between the quota for the Proteas and the targets for the Springboks. I've spoken on that at length and while some may view it as a technicality (particularly if there is a perception of a sports minister making threats regarding failure to make targets) the distinction is extremely important. Again, I would query the accuracy and motivation of any media outlet that doesn't make this distinction and just talks about quotas in relation to the Springboks. I'd argue they are doing that in the interests of making their stories more "clickbait" friendly. I welcome the targets for the proportion of black participation in football to actually fall. </p><p></p><p>As for the controversy over Philander's selection in a RWC semi-final, I don't know the specifics in terms of his medical status at the time. But his ability with both bat and ball means he's a man I'd be wanting in pretty much any international one day side if he was fit. At test level he is well known for his consistency of delivery and economy rate / strike rate with the ball and shows flashes with the bat. I'd also be tempted to gamble on a player of his quality if he was only 90% fit depending on the quality of the next player in line (I don't know the Abbot kid who was mentioned as being dropped for Philander so can't comment on that – if he is been proven to be a high quality player then I could see why he would feel aggrieved to be dropped for someone who wasn't fully fit – but that sort of thing happens in sports and the cricket quota didn't apply to every game, it applied to an average over games played over 12 months. So there might not have been specific pressure on the Proteas semi-final side to select Philander for racial reasons and the person quoted as saying this story is BS might have a point). </p><p></p><p>- Fee paying schools and having to pay fees to attend university are great personal bugbears of mine (as someone who could only attend university by getting a bursary and a grant and because at that time tuition fees weren't in place). In terms of "transformation" they massively impair social mobility. If parents choose to pay a fee for their child's school education they are doing that for a reason. They are not idiots burning money when free educational alternatives are available. The reason they are willing to pay is that they believe that by paying for their kid's education they'll get superior grades and superior life chances (either through superior life skills / education or the alleged nepotism that surrounds fee paying schools when it comes to getting a job opportunity). This means if you put money in to your child's upbringing you'll increase their chances of being similarly wealthy to their parents when they grow up. This keeps the bloodline purer in terms of what sections of society are running the country and gaining the most wealth. This is the same the world over where such educational divides are allowed (including in Scotland). </p><p></p><p>In countries like Italy where such a divide does not exist (i.e. there is no such thing as fee paying schools) we see comparable educational attainment but with the bonus of a whole lot more social mobility. Where a kid ends up in life is far more based on how they applied themselves at school and university, rather than how deep their parent's pockets were. I may not be appreciating the full details of the educational links that were supplied, but bursaries and scholarships and such like are not a South African thing. In Scotland bursaries are awarded to get increasing numbers of kids from less affluent backgrounds to enter fee paying schools (there is a big debate brewing about that now).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 883815, member: 74121"] Phew, that was some reading! I’ll read the legal documents at a later time when I’ll probably have to concentrate more, but thanks again for posting them (I will check them out). In response to some of the links here are a few random thoughts. - DDA is reportedly categorised as not “coloured” because he has a partially Hispanic bloodline. Mystery solved. Although any white South African who has gone outside seems fairly coloured to a peely-wally Scotsman. - the player Dlulane who says he only selected because of government policy clearly supports transformation and states he believes he was good enough to be a Springbok, on merit. So in his mind he was selected on merit and he possibly appears to be having a dig at Jake White by saying White only selected him due to government policy (the unspoken assumption possibly being that Dlulane considered White to be reluctant to pick non-white players for whatever reason – I don’t know if White has a reputation for that (like Heyneke Meyer did for some). It is not Dlulane saying he was an inferior player who did not merit a place who only got a crack because he wasn’t white. But this player makes all kinds of allegations and I’m not sure of his credibility as an individual. I do think his words are possibly being intentionally misconstrued by the press to make it sound like he got a chance that he didn’t merit. It’s also still 13 years old! - it is good you still have a judiciary where a union can challenge legislation and/or policy on matters of quotas – as is the case regarding the quotas around liquidators. But I’d note that one of the four criteria in those quotas is entirely non-racial. It is about ensuring there is female representation (regardless of ethnicity) in these roles. I’d therefore query why the union rep is painting this as a racial issue, rather than an equalities issue. Perhaps they consider it’d get more media coverage by doing so. And perhaps they’d be right in considering that. It’s why I point out that the SARU Transformation documentation covers disability, gender and social background as well as simply race. Does that mean we should all agree with Transformation? Hell no. Does it reduce the chances that the object of Transformation is to embark on a race war? I’d like to think yes it does, others may think that disability, gender and social background are a fig leaf to try and make Transformation look less about race. If that’s someone’s opinion, then fair enough. Given some of the more fringe and hard line elements of the ANC I can see why some people might suspect that even if I don’t agree with it. Still, like I say, judicial scrutiny of government policy = a good thing. - if I take the media reports at face value, then there are quotas (not targets) in international cricket for the Proteas i.e. an average of X amount of players in the calendar year [I]must[/I] be of colour and X amount [I]must[/I] be black. That is a quota. One of the articles successfully differentiates between the quota for the Proteas and the targets for the Springboks. I’ve spoken on that at length and while some may view it as a technicality (particularly if there is a perception of a sports minister making threats regarding failure to make targets) the distinction is extremely important. Again, I would query the accuracy and motivation of any media outlet that doesn’t make this distinction and just talks about quotas in relation to the Springboks. I’d argue they are doing that in the interests of making their stories more “clickbait” friendly. I welcome the targets for the proportion of black participation in football to actually fall. As for the controversy over Philander’s selection in a RWC semi-final, I don’t know the specifics in terms of his medical status at the time. But his ability with both bat and ball means he’s a man I’d be wanting in pretty much any international one day side if he was fit. At test level he is well known for his consistency of delivery and economy rate / strike rate with the ball and shows flashes with the bat. I’d also be tempted to gamble on a player of his quality if he was only 90% fit depending on the quality of the next player in line (I don’t know the Abbot kid who was mentioned as being dropped for Philander so can’t comment on that – if he is been proven to be a high quality player then I could see why he would feel aggrieved to be dropped for someone who wasn’t fully fit – but that sort of thing happens in sports and the cricket quota didn’t apply to every game, it applied to an average over games played over 12 months. So there might not have been specific pressure on the Proteas semi-final side to select Philander for racial reasons and the person quoted as saying this story is BS might have a point). - Fee paying schools and having to pay fees to attend university are great personal bugbears of mine (as someone who could only attend university by getting a bursary and a grant and because at that time tuition fees weren’t in place). In terms of “transformation” they massively impair social mobility. If parents choose to pay a fee for their child’s school education they are doing that for a reason. They are not idiots burning money when free educational alternatives are available. The reason they are willing to pay is that they believe that by paying for their kid’s education they’ll get superior grades and superior life chances (either through superior life skills / education or the alleged nepotism that surrounds fee paying schools when it comes to getting a job opportunity). This means if you put money in to your child’s upbringing you’ll increase their chances of being similarly wealthy to their parents when they grow up. This keeps the bloodline purer in terms of what sections of society are running the country and gaining the most wealth. This is the same the world over where such educational divides are allowed (including in Scotland). In countries like Italy where such a divide does not exist (i.e. there is no such thing as fee paying schools) we see comparable educational attainment but with the bonus of a whole lot more social mobility. Where a kid ends up in life is far more based on how they applied themselves at school and university, rather than how deep their parent’s pockets were. I may not be appreciating the full details of the educational links that were supplied, but bursaries and scholarships and such like are not a South African thing. In Scotland bursaries are awarded to get increasing numbers of kids from less affluent backgrounds to enter fee paying schools (there is a big debate brewing about that now). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The "South African Quota" catch-all thread
Top