Last month, Professor Tshepo Madlingozi appeared on SMWX, a YouTube podcast hosted by Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh.^[1] Professor Madlingozi, who until recently was a legal academic at Wits University, is now a Commissioner at the South African Human Rights Commission (“SAHRC”) and leads its newly established division focussing on "Antiracism, Justice and Education".^[2]

Professor Madlingozi’s conversation with Mpofu-Walsh provides remarkable insight into how the ideology of Critical Race Theory has gained ascendancy in South Africa’s governing institutions. These institutions, once they have been infiltrated by proponents of Critical Race Theory, are leveraged to impose radical policies on the rest of society and, in particular, on South Africa’s schools and universities. The vision of the future espoused during Professor Madlingozi’s interview with Mpofu-Walsh should be profoundly disturbing for anyone involved in South African education.

“Anti-racism” as a Trojan Horse for virulent racism

At the centre of Professor Madlingozi’s worldview is the ideology of “anti-racism.” ^[3] The modern “anti-racism” movement claims to combat racism in the fight for a just and equitable society. However, whilst anti-racism sounds virtuous, in reality it perpetuates a hyper-focus on race, enforces collectivist thinking and undermines individual rights and freedoms. It achieves its destructive intention through two key tactics, both of which are prevalent in Professor Madlingozi’s work.

The first tactic is to focus on what is called “structural” or “institutional” racism. A key tenet of modern anti-racism ideology is the belief that racism is not merely an individual act of prejudice, but is ingrained in the very structures and institutions of society. People are categorised into racial groups that are constantly at odds with one another. “Oppressors” (typically white people but also men and heterosexual people) and the “oppressed” (people of colour, women and LGBT people) are locked in perpetual power struggles. The idea is that everything – from schools to the justice system to the economy – is systematically rigged to benefit one racial group (whites) while oppressing others (non-whites). Therefore, according to Critical Race Theorists, virtually every institution needs to be “decolonised” or “transformed”.

The second tactic of anti-racism is to advocate for “equity” rather than “equality”. While equality promotes the idea that everyone should have the same opportunities and should be treated the same under the law, equity calls for unequal treatment in order to achieve equal outcomes. In the context of South Africa, anti-racism activists reject incremental improvements and instead call for a major rupture – something akin to a revolution – that will allow equity to be established.

This commitment to fighting structural racism whilst promoting equity (rather than equality) leads anti-racists to reject colour-blindness explicitly whilst instead promoting racial essentialism. Anti-racism activists insist that race is the primary and most defining characteristic of an individual’s identity and contend that centring race is the only way to address inequality.

In his interview with Mpofu-Walsh, Professor Madlingozi states ominously that “individual human rights violations are symptoms of a larger issue: of the failure to resolve the National Question.”^[4] Accordingly, he claims that what is needed is a major systematic overhaul of South African society and institutions. Professor Madlingozi has called for a “National Dialogue” that will involve the “Three R’s of Decolonisation”: Restitution, Redress and Redistribution.^[5]

It seems to have been virtually forgotten that progressive policies can be designed in ways that favour poor people rather than members of racial groups. The best example of this lies in South Africa’s tax system. The South African Revenue Service (SARS) is one of the country’s few institutions which is genuinely colour-blind: the tax rates applied by SARS simply increase as a taxpayer’s income rises. SARS does not care about the race of the taxpayer. It cares only about the taxpayer’s income.

But Professor Madlingozi is dismissive towards the ideas of non-racism and non-racialism.^[6]

“Our main discourse [in South Africa] is Liberalism. Liberalism is a discourse which focuses more on the individual and formal equality. So, people said we have achieved formal equality… so let’s move on. Anti-racism says ‘no’. You have to focus on structural racism. You have to focus on institutional racism.^[7]… You can’t get [to a non-racist society] through colour-blindness. You can’t get there through non-racism. To eliminate race, you have to use race. So, anti-racism becomes very, very important.^[8]”

These words echo the views of one of the most prominent American proponents of Critical Race Theory, Ibram X Kendi, who frames it even more starkly:

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”^[9]

Anti-racism activists also typically practise censorship and control of dialogue. They achieve these insidious objectives by acting viciously towards anyone who contravenes one of their dogmas, using a combination of social media and mainstream media to bully their target into making an unwarranted apology, which is then used against the target as an admission of guilt. As I have detailed in several essays, South Africa’s schools and universities have seen no shortage of this over the past decade.

The radicalisation of human rights and the dangers of institutional capture

The main objective of South Africa’s anti-racism agitators is to undo and overhaul the entire post-Apartheid settlement, and their favourite target is South Africa’s Constitution. Both Professor Madlingozi and Mpofu-Walsh view the Constitution as a compromised document – a watered-down settlement^[10] that betrayed the aspirations of the radical left. According to Mpofu-Walsh:

“Our Constitution comes out of one of the most horrifically racist systems of Apartheid. And yet, we have made a lot of progress on a number of issues, but racism has not really been at the centre of the project of litigation, of constitutionalism in many ways. Somehow, the key project has gone missing… Anti-racism has got relatively less attention.”^[11]

You don’t need to be an expert in constitutional law to know that this is nonsense. Far from being marginalised, issues of race dominate discussions in universities, media and in the courts in post-Apartheid South Africa. The South African Institute of Race Relations has determined that 117 race laws have been enacted since the advent of South Africa’s supposedly “non-racial” democracy in 1994.^[12] The Constitution and the Constitutional Court – despite supposedly being committed to non-racialism – did nothing to stop this trend.

Professor Madlingozi does not conceal his disdain for the South African Constitution. In a 2017 article, he claimed that “the calls for a supreme constitution with a bill of rights came overwhelmingly from amongst the ranks of the historical beneficiaries with the view of keeping the main edifice of the anti-black bifurcated polity intact.”^[13] He notes the old 1980s reference to the Bill of Rights as being a “Bill of Whites” and asserts that what emerged was ultimately a form of “Neo-Apartheid Constitutionalism”. According to Professor Madlingozi:

“Alas, the Constitution that was finally adopted in 1996… does not undo the settler-created house; it posits a social justice framework while hindering an extensive scheme of reparation and restitution; and it is a supreme deity that blocks revolutionary being-becoming.”^[14]

Professor Madlingozi was criticised by several Democratic Alliance Members of Parliament during his interview for a role at the SAHRC. Werner Horn MP asked Professor Madlingozi whether, considering his stated views on the South African Constitution, he was the appropriate candidate to serve as a Commissioner of the SAHRC. Horn asked:

“If I understand your academic writing correctly, you are part of a group in academia which deems our current Constitution to be what you call ‘a new Apartheid Constitution’. In 2017, you wrote something along the lines that this concept of transformative Constitutionalism is actually preventing people from obtaining what you deem to be true freedom. In another publication you were fairly scathing about the Constitution as a Euro-centric liberal document which is not serving the people well. So, if that is your stance about the Constitution, will you be able to still, in performing your duties as a Human Rights Commissioner, apply it as it stands rather than trying to motivate for a change in the Constitution?”^[15]

Janho Engelbrecht MP noted another paper^[16] which Professor Madlingozi wrote in which he stated that “the South African Constitution perpetuates colonisation”.^[17] Engelbrecht concluded that Professor Madlingozi “is not a fan of the South African Constitution”.^[18] He asked how this would have an impact on his ability to remain unbiased when discharging his duties as a Human Rights Commissioner, particularly in matters where there was conflict between white and black individuals.^[19]

But perhaps most revealing of all were the remarks of Busisiwe Mkhwebane MP, the disgraced former Public Protector who, until her resignation last week, had been reincarnated as a Member of Parliament representing the Economic Freedom Fighters. Following on after Horn, Engelbrecht and Advocate Glynnis Breytenbach MP, Mkhwebane opened her remarks with fulsome praise of Professor Madlingozi’s critique of the Constitution.^[20]

Ultimately, despite the protests and reservations of the Democratic Alliance, the African National Congress used it majority to vote in favour of Professor Madlingozi being appointed to the SAHRC.

The Marxist roots of Professor Madlingozi’s radicalism

Professor Madlingozi’s worldview is undoubtedly shaped by his personal history. The son of a nurse and a mineworker, he grew up in Welkom in the Free State during the height of the injustices of Apartheid. His academic journey took him from the University of Pretoria, where he earned a Bachelor of Laws degree with distinction, to Cameroon where he completed a Masters degree. It was there that he fell under the influence of Critical Race Theory, with the topic of his thesis concerning Critical Race Theory and its application in Africa.^[21] He later studied a degree in sociology, which appears to have further influenced his approach to race and society.

Professor Madlingozi’s activism began in 2005 when he became a spokesperson for the Khulumani Support Group, a body supporting victims of Apartheid. ^[22] He played a role in litigation in New York in which Khulumani sued 27 multinational companies for allegedly aiding and abetting the Apartheid regime. During this period, he became a prominent figure advocating for structural change, aligning himself with radical socio-economic policies.

Dr Willem Gravett is a law lecturer at Akademia who previously worked in the University of Pretoria’s Law Faculty. He explains that the ideology promoted by the likes of Professor Madlingozi is fundamentally Marxist in nature:

“The problem with Azanian Critical Theory is that they view capitalism really as white racist capitalism. That is how they refer to it. So, in Azania [note: ‘Azania’ is the term used by some Africanists for ‘South Africa’], there will be no free market. They pretend to have this original, new African philosophy that is nothing more than American Critical Race Theory. But their solution for this problem is stunningly unoriginal. It is old-fashioned socialism. So, what the Azanian Critical Theorists want is to abolish the Constitution which they see as a compromised, racist document. And, of course, if the Constitution falls in South Africa the Rule of Law would fall. What then follows would be anarchy, violence, socialist revolution. And then the new Azanian Critical Theorist commissars would be in charge and it would be Marxism all over again.”^[23]

I have to say that there is something refreshing about the candour with which Professor Madlingozi presents himself. Often, supporters of Critical Race Theory (aware of the negative publicity that their ideology has recently attracted) attempt to disguise their true agenda by using euphemisms such as “transformation” or “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” or, in the context of education, “Social and Emotional Learning”. Such deviousness forces opponents to play tedious and complicated games in which we argue over the true meaning of words.

But Professor Madlingozi does none of this. He does not pretend to be anything other than a promoter of Critical Race Theory in its purest form, and he is clear about his intention to use the principles of Critical Race Theory to reform education radically.

The implications for South Africa’s schools

What does this all mean in practice for South Africa’s schools?

More Woke witch-hunts

The first thing we can predict with confidence is that we have not seen the last of racism investigations that are based on the principles of Critical Race Theory. To understand what I mean by this, I suggest that you read The Trouble with Roedean’s Woke Anti-Discrimination Policy^[24] and The Woke Witch-Hunt at St Mary’s Waverley^[25] or, indeed, the series of five articles^[26] which I have published concerning Pretoria High School for Girls. In these essays I set out in detail how the concept of “micro-aggressions” has been used to expand the definition of racism drastically, leading to perfectly good and decent teachers being hounded out of their jobs.

In fairness, to date the SAHRC has found in favour of accused individuals when facts and evidence did not support the allegations of racism:

- Following the Laerskool Schweizer-Reneke incident that occurred in January 2019, the SAHRC published a 59-page report which found that “the allegation that the school unfairly discriminated against learners was not substantiated.” It also found that “the public disclosure of [the teacher’s] name by the MEC of Education constituted a violation of her right to privacy and prejudiced her human rights.”^[27]

- In 2022, the SAHRC cleared Brackenfell High School in Cape Town of racism allegations after a group of Matric pupils in 2020 held a private farewell which allegedly excluded black pupils.^[28]

-  Furthermore, in 2020, the SAHRC played an important role in facilitating an apology by Fallist activist, Mcebo Dlamini, to the South African Jewish Board of Deputies after Dlamini had expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and promoted stereotypical Anti-Semitic tropes about Jews.^[29]

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the outcome of these reports, the key point is that the SAHRC’s work in this area has been relatively rigorous and serious. The reports are well-referenced documents that are based on original investigative work. This even-handed and fact-driven approach is at risk of being displaced by one that is deeply ideological and activist in nature.

Already, we have seen signs of what this might entail. On 24 August 2024, Professor Madlingozi co-authored an article which appeared in News 24 entitled “Urgent steps needed to curb school racism”.^[30] In this article he stated that the alleged racism incident at Pretoria High School for Girls was still being assessed and investigated. This was false, as the findings of the disciplinary hearing had been released more than three weeks earlier. In other words, Professor Madlingozi indicated that, when it comes to a school racism investigation, he will not always accept an outcome which does not conform to his prejudices.

A radical agenda for schools

The second development that is highly likely to occur is that sensational allegations of racism will be used as a battering ram by Woke activists to take control of the governance structures of schools. Professor Madlingozi is clear that alleged incidents of racism give rise to the need to drive major structural reforms within schools:

“What is it about the culture and the environment at these schools that has led to these brazen incidents of racism? … So, we look at the enabling environment of the school and we put measures [in place] that will dismantle those causes. And then, lastly, we look at the policies – the national policies. Do we have national policies that will go to the root of these issues…^[31]”

Professor Madlingozi is critical of what he views as the Euro-centric nature of many of South Africa’s schools and universities.^[32]

“If we are to change fundamentally, we need to attend not to the legacies of colonialism but to the ongoing manifestation – the afterlife – of colonisation and colonialism. So, colonialism has left but the indexes of colonisation continue to be there.”^[33]

This inevitable result will be decolonisation:

“When we do monitoring at schools, and when we get complaints of racism at schools, it becomes very clear that most of our schools – the so-called multiracial schools – have not become truly post-colonial schools. They have not really become truly schools that have overcome their colonial progeny (sic).”^[34]

Interestingly, some of the strongest opponents of decolonisation are, in fact, black parents. Professor Madlingozi told Mpofu-Walsh that a number of black parents have said to him that “they want to take their children to that school because their traditions are good. They maintain their traditions.”^[35] “But,” responds Professor Madlingozi in an exasperated tone, “their traditions are colonial. Their traditions are very patriarchal.”

As ever, Marxist intellectuals are left surprised and disappointed when they discover that the vast majority of the South African population – both black and white – hold relatively moderate views. Whether it is purchasing a private medical aid or a private security subscription, watching cable television or choosing a school for their children, people generally just want what is best for their families and have very little interest in being revolutionary activists.

Support for the BELA Act

Importantly, Professor Madlingozi speaks approvingly of the highly controversial Basic Education Laws Amendment Act (“the BELA Act”) and is transparent about how the BELA Act should be used to achieve ideological objectives:

“Now we have the BELA Act which we hope the President will sign as soon as possible because that BELA Act goes really to the structural issues. [The BELA Act] is an anti-racism move. It is not a liberal, non-racism move where you just focus on an individual complaint.”^[36]

It is not difficult to imagine how an academic such as Professor Madlingozi and an ANC politician like Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi will work together, hand-in-glove, to take over schools and fundamentally dismantle everything that currently makes them centres of academic excellence.

Conclusion

When a school faces a public racism scandal (such as the scandal that erupted recently at Pretoria High School for Girls), it quickly comes under attack from multiple directions. Alongside the SAHRC, critical voices include diversity and transformation consultants, university professors, unscrupulous lawyers, prominent foundations and think tanks, school associations, political parties, the provincial education department, print journalists, radio broadcasters and so on.

One of the key objectives of my writing has been to demonstrate that these seemingly independent actors are all tied together by a common element. That element – the common thread that runs through our institutions – is the ideology of Critical Race Theory. Ultimately, it is crucial to understand that the SAHRC’s turn toward Critical Race Theory is not an isolated instance but is, in fact, part of a broader project aimed at the ideological capture of key state institutions so that they can be used to discredit and delegitimise the entire post-Apartheid settlement – and ultimately to abolish key tenets of classical liberalism that have underpinned the most successful societies in human history. This includes free speech, free enterprise, property rights and the Rule of Law – including concepts such as equality before the law and the right to due process.

The vision of “decolonisation” promoted by Professor Madlingozi will do little to advance human development. On the contrary, it will do a great deal to erode the Rule of Law itself and, with it, any hope of South Africa becoming an open, free and prosperous society. That is why the influence of Critical Race Theory on our institutions must be exposed and resisted at every opportunity.

But it is also why those of us who are opposed to Critical Race Theory need to articulate a compelling alternative vision for the future of this country: a vision that is positive and uplifting, one that emphasises policies that are colour-blind, pro-poor and pro-growth so that we build a future that is genuinely diverse and inclusive. We need to develop an ideological framework that appeals to the best – rather than the worst – of our human instincts. That is the project that we urgently need to address.

This article first appeared on the School Capture website.