Pierre de Vos Sarkasties Oor Wit Swaarkry

7/30/2019 Pierre de Vos Sarkasties Oor Wit Swaarkry

1/7

Home

|

Sections

Wired World

South Africa

Africa

World

BusinessLife, etc

Sport

|

Opinionistas

|

iMaverick

|

Newsletter

|

Search

|About us

|

Contact Us

Loading

Mental floss for the discerning

11 November 2012 12:00 (South Africa)

Opinionista Pierre de Vos

Affirmative action: a decidedly middle-class problem

Pierre de Vos

Pierre de Vos

Pierre De Vos teaches Constitutional law at the University of Cape Town Law Faculty, where he serves

as deputy dean and as the Claude Leon Foundation Chair in Constitutional Governance. He writes aregular blog, entitled 'Constitutionally Speaking', in which he attempts to mix one part righteous anger,

one part cold legal reasoning and one part irreverence to help keep South Africans informed about

Constitutional and other legal developments related to the democracy.

7 November 2012 01:18 (South Africa)

Maverick - Affirmative action: a decidedly middle-class problem http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2012-11-07-affirmative-ac

11/11/12


2/7

For some middle-class South Africans, affirmative action is the single most pressing concern in their lives. It is

therefore a pity that a recent affirmative action judgment from the Labour Appeal Court fails to provide clear

guidance on the legal limits of affirmative action measures in the workplace. The judgment ignores the

Constitutional Courts affirmative action jurisprudence, and is disappointingly incoherent.

Forget about widespread hunger and unemployment; police brutality, torture and even murder; endemic

misogyny, homophobia, racism and xenophobia; an education system that condemns the majority of South

Africans to a life without any meaningful opportunities; or even ever-increasing corruption and abuse of power

by the rapacious political and business elite. Instead of focusing on these shocking problems, some middle-classSouth Africans (who are mostly, but not exclusively, white) focus obsessively on affirmative action, which they

seem to view as the greatest injustice perpetrated in modern day South Africa.

This group firmly believes that affirmative action punishes so-called innocent young whites, whose relative

privilege has absolutely nothing nothing, I tell you to do with Apartheid and the concomitant privileges their

parents or grandparents reaped at the expense of black South Africans. They would like us to believe that their

parents all worked very hard for their money (and some must have worked almost as hard as the black people

who dug up the gold, tilled the fields and built the roads at a pittance of the pay of their white bosses). They

tell us that their parents and grandparents were not advantaged in any way, despite the fact that they never had

to compete with the overwhelming majority of South Africans for access to educational opportunities, jobs and

property.

Most of us who do not leave comments on the News24 website (and mostly avoid reading those comments in

order to retain our sanity), know that this fantasy has nothing to do with reality. We know that it has everything

to do with a delusional and self-justificatory avoidance of reality, based on either a deeply sublimated sense of

guilt about the fact that all white people benefited from Apartheid and that most did little to overthrow the

regime that enforced it (voting for the PFP, donating old clothes to the women working in your house and once

helping out at a soup kitchen in a township do not really count), or a sense of entitlement that springs from the

deeply embedded but often unacknowledged sense of cultural and racial superiority.

It is therefore very difficult to have a sensible and nuanced discussion in South Africa about affirmative action

and its constitutionally mandated limits. But in my view it is important to have such a discussion. How else will

one be able to mount a plausible and necessary defence of race-based affirmative action while pointing out thatsupport for structured, principled, race-based affirmative action must not be confused with support for the

corrupt or nepotistic abuse of affirmative action by racial essentialists?

It is in this context that I wish to explore the potential weaknesses of the Labour Appeal Court judgment of

Judge Mlambo (Judges Davis and Jappie concurring) in South African Police Services v Solidarity.

The Labour Court had previously found that Mrs Barnard had been discriminated against in contravention of

section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act because on two occasions she was not promoted despite the fact

that she was recommended for the job and in both cases the post was not filled.

In the lower court, it was established that where a post could not be filled owing to the paucity of suitablecandidates from an underrepresented category, promotion to a post should not ordinarily and in the absence of

a clear and satisfactory explanation be denied to a suitably qualified candidate from another group. This

finding was based on a reading of section 6(2) of the Act (which confirms that it would not be discriminatory to

take affirmative action measures in the workplace), read with section 15(3) of the Act (which states that

affirmative action measures could include preferential treatment and numerical goals, but had to exclude the

imposition of rigid quotas).

The lower court ruling did notprohibit an institution from implementing affirmative action measures which

reserved targeted posts for designated groups (as Woolworths had done recently). Neither did it prohibit an

employer from ever leaving a post open instead of appointing a white candidate. It did find that in the absence


11/11/12


3/7

of a good explanation to justify its decision, a blanket refusal to promote a white candidate even where no

suitably qualified black candidates were available for appointment would not comply with the Employment

Equity Act, read with the right to equality in the Constitution.

The lower courts flexible pro-affirmative action stance seems about right.

Nevertheless, the Labour Appeal Court seemed to have rejected this general approach, perhaps because it

second-guessed the appointments panel and the National Commissioner who had all decided not to appoint

anyone to the position. Because the court turned a factual disagreement into a legal one, it made bad law. Thatis perhaps why the re-interpretation of the facts led the court to a rather absolutist view on affirmative action

which cannot easily be squared with the Constitutional Court jurisprudence on the matter.

The Labour Appeal Court correctly emphasised the fact that affirmative action was not an exception to

equality but a requirement for its achievement, stating that:

our Constitution, and in particular section 9 thereof, read as a whole, embraces for good reason a

substantive conception of equality inclusive of measures to redress existing inequality. Absent a positive

commitment progressively to eradicate socially constructed barriers to equality and to root out systematic or

institutionalised under-privilege, the constitutional promise of equality before the law and its equal

protection and benefit must, in the context of our country, ring hollow.

However, disappointingly, the Labour Appeal Court took a rather stark and simplistic view of the limits of

affirmative action by arguing that the implementation of restitutionary measures cannot be made subject to an

individuals right to equality as this would defeat the very purpose of having restitutionary measures in the

first place. It seemed to suggest quite wrongly, in my view that if a court demonstrated any concern for

those excluded from the benefits of affirmative action measures, a court would always have to find that those

measures fall short of the demands of non-discrimination, due to the reality that there will always be

adverse effects on persons from non-designated groups and would have to nullify the affirmative action

measures.

The judgment criticised the lower court because Mlambo mischaracterised that courts decision as one in which

the prohibition on non-discrimination would always trump the need for structured affirmative action measures.But this is not what the lower court actually held. Instead the lower court had held in line with the

Constitutional Court jurisprudence that a balance must always be struck between the various interests at stake

in affirmative action cases.

On the one hand, one could not have too strict a test for affirmative action as this would derail well-devised and

targeted affirmative action measures aimed at transforming the workplace. On the other hand, affirmative

action measures which in effect placed an absolute bar on the appointment or promotion of all white candidates

in the workplace would diminish the human dignity of white applicants and would not be constitutionally

permissible.

The Constitutional Court struck this balance by developing a specific test for valid affirmative actionprogrammes. This test developed by the Constitutional Court does not completely ignore the interests of those

who were not benefiting from an affirmative action programme. Yet the Labour Appeal Court ignored this

jurisprudence and suggested that a court must choose: either it must always invalidate affirmative action

measures because these would be found to be discriminatory, or such measures must always be deemed legal

no matter how harsh and permanent the effect of the measures on the previously advantaged might be.

For the Appeal Court there seemed to be no middle ground. But this approach cannot be squared with the

Constitutional Courts jurisprudence on affirmative action and I would not be surprised if that court overturns

this decision.


11/11/12


4/7

The Constitutional Court has stated on several occasions that when one is dealing with a structured affirmative

action programme, one would first ask whether such a programme constituted an abuse of power or imposed

such substantial and undue harm on those excluded from its benefits that our long-term constitutional goal

would be threatened. To impose rigid quotas would do exactly that. This test strikes the balance between

recognising the need for targeted affirmative action measures while also recognising that the measures could

not permanently exclude white people from advancement in the workplace.

The problem with the judgment of the Labour Appeal Court is that it failed to deal with this jurisprudence.

Instead it questioned the decision of the authorities not to appoint any of the black applicants who were by allaccounts appointable. It found that the black candidates had an unquestionable claim to be appointed over

Barnard in keeping with the Employment Equity Plan.

It cannot be argued on the facts of this matter that the appellants Employment Equity Plan seeks the

appointment of only black employees irrespective of other criteria. One of the criteria set out in the plan is the

suitability of candidates. That to me suggests that should a black candidate be unsuitable, that candidate will

not be appointed. This is also defined in National Instruction 1. Clearly, as was aptly argued by counsel for the

amicus, the Employment Equity Plan does not sanction mediocrity or incompetence. Manifestly this was not

the case with the two black candidates in this case.

I would guess that the Labour Appeal Courts re-interpretation of the facts stood in the way of a legally sound

judgment, forcing it to develop affirmative action jurisprudence that cannot be squared with the affirmative

action jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court.

It must be said that if the Labour Appeal Courts view of the facts are correct and if one or more of the black

applicants were indeed appointable and should indeed have been appointed, then Mrs Barnard would not have

a legal leg to stand on. This is because where a black candidate is appointable and when that appointment

would advance the numerical goals of an affirmative action policy, then there could not be any legal problem

with an employer selecting the appointable black candidate over the white candidate who might have better

qualifications on paper.

A problem will only arise when the employer refuses to appoint a white candidate in the absence of any

appointable black candidates and where the employer has no valid justification for this refusal to appoint thesuitably qualified applicant.

The problem in this case was that for reasons that are unclear, no one wanted to appoint the black applicants to

the post for which Barnard applied. The original interviewing panel stated that to appoint the black candidates

would compromise service delivery. They left the position open, instead of appointing Barnard. The Labour

Appeals Court obviously disagreed with this assessment, but it is unclear on what basis they did so. To get

around the problem, it second-guessed the Police Commissioner and developed affirmative action jurisprudence

that cannot be squared with the more nuanced approach taken by the Constitutional Court. DM

Read next

Body language: Freedom confronts respect in Body Worlds human forms

Pierre de Vos


11/11/12


5/7

Tweet

Pierre de Vos

Pierre De Vos teaches Constitutional law at the University of Cape Town Law Faculty, where he serves

as deputy dean and as the Claude Leon Foundation Chair in Constitutional Governance. He writes a

regular blog, entitled 'Constitutionally Speaking', in which he attempts to mix one part righteous anger,one part cold legal reasoning and one part irreverence to help keep South Africans informed about

Constitutional and other legal developments related to the democracy.

Pierre De Vos teaches Constitutional law at the University of Cape Town Law Faculty, where he serves as

deputy dean and as the Claude Leon Foundation Chair in Constitutional Governance. He writes a regular blog,

entitled 'Constitutionally Speaking', in which he attempts to mix one part righteous anger, one part cold legal

reasoning and one part irreverence to help keep South Africans informed about Constitutional and other legal


11/11/12


6/7

developments related to the democracy.

More By Pierre de Vos

Running the Gauntlett: Why the struggle for appointment?

Affirmative action: a decidedly middle-class problem

Hate crime: there is no such thing as an excuse - ever

Mfeketo and Zuma: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours?

Ramaphosa: Where does corruption begin and end?The Zuma recordings: SA is the crayfish, corruption the boiling water

No safety in numbers: Why a bigger opposition isn't a stronger opposition

Specs, lies and audiotape - the hidden Zuma recordings

The ANC on school closures: can they win?

Thuli Madonsela: The difference between 'unpopularity' and 'misconduct'

Click for More

Comments

About Us

|

Contact Us

|

Reader Covenant

|

Legal

|

Privacy Policy

|

Comments Policy

|

RSS


11/11/12


7/7


Documents

Pierre de Vos Sarkasties Oor Wit Swaarkry