Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

This article is more than 4 years old

South Africa

The battle for the soul of the South African Institute of Race Relations

The founder’s descendants are concerned about the institute’s ideological direction as the institute appears to be taking on the concerns and values of the American right wing, from opposing gun control to slamming Black Lives Matter.
The battle for the soul of the South African Institute of Race Relations

First published in the Daily Maverick 168 weekly newspaper.

In June 2021, a billboard appeared on the M1 South in Johannesburg. In white and red letters on a black background, it read, simply: “RACISM is NOT the problem.”

The billboard was erected by the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) – and to the descendants of the think-tank’s founder, Edgar Brookes, the controversial stunt epitomises the worrying direction that the body is taking.

Brookes founded the SAIRR in 1929.

“We have noted with concern [the SAIRR’s] slide into the opposite of everything they originally stood for,” Brookes’ granddaughter, Dr Heather Brookes, told DM168.

The public spat between the Brookes family and the SAIRR was sparked in late July by the publication of an op-ed on the Rational Standard website by SAIRR council member Martin van Staden.

He defended the institute against growing criticism by arguing that its current positions are consistent with the ideals of its founders – a claim Brookes’ grandchildren vehemently refute – and citing Edgar Brookes’ words to support his argument.

Brookes said that discussions had been happening within the Brookes family for some time as to whether they should issue a public statement on their concerns about the institute. “We know a lot about my grandfather’s views, because we grew up with him, and when they actually quoted him, that’s when we decided: No, we can’t keep quiet,” Brookes said.

In a response to Van Staden, Heather Brookes and her siblings, Kathy and David, wrote that the SAIRR had declined from “an important part of the broader anti-apartheid and human rights movements” to become today “an extremist libertarian misinformation machine”. They said that their grandfather would be horrified at some of the current positions of the SAIRR, including its focus on personal gun rights.

SAIRR spokesperson Michael Morris told DM168 that the think-tank was not concerned about the Brookes’ family criticism.

“The descendants are entitled to their views, which we do not share,” he said.

Brookes told DM168 that the family was also seriously concerned by the fact that the SAIRR “is publishing policy papers that deny the certainty of the science of human-induced climate change, as well as outright lies that contradict basic physics understood over 100 years ago”. As an example, she pointed to a paper published by the policy bulletin of the SAIRR, @Liberty, in November 2015, which claimed that CO2 “can never have an important effect on temperatures”.

Said Brookes: “The institute used to be a source of good, solid data on race and poverty and inequality. That is no longer the case.”

Brookes cited the contentious Johannesburg billboard as an example of the SAIRR’s misleading claims.

The statement that “Racism is not the problem” is based on the findings of a 2020 SAIRR survey, which asked fewer than 2,500 South Africans questions including what respondents regard as the two most pressing problems in the country today.

The majority of respondents listed unemployment, crime and corruption as the biggest South African problems, with just 3.3% mentioning racism or discrimination. From findings like these, the SAIRR concludes that “race relations remain generally positive – and far better than the ANC, the EFF, and many in the media commonly assert”.

Phila Msimang, a philosopher of race at the University of Stellenbosch, told DM168 that one of the major problems with such surveys was that “the methodology [used] is ludicrous”.

That getting a job may be more important to a survey respondent than solving racism at a certain point in time, said Msimang, could not be considered evidence that racism doesn’t matter. “The point is that this is not a mistake. It’s purposeful that [the SAIRR] design their surveys in this way, to produce certain outcomes which fit the types of policies they are trying to push.”

Such policies, Msimang charged, relied on “1960s race-blindness, which actually promotes racism by turning a blind eye to racial injustice. They have a lot to say about economic injustice, but conveniently speak about it in a way that doesn’t take into account how it happened.”

From the SAIRR’s perspective, its take on race today is perfectly consistent with its views throughout the decades.

“The IRR has throughout its history opposed race essentialism and polarisation and continues to do so today,” Morris told DM168.

He denied the claim that the SAIRR appeared to be intent on downplaying racism in South Africa.

“The IRR recognises that racism exists and opposes it. However, exaggerating the role of racism – something often done for political or commercial gain – divides South Africans and places concrete barriers in the way of meaningfully improving the living conditions of all South Africans,” Morris said. “The IRR opposes the exaggeration and instrumentalisation of racism.”

An objection the think-tank has increasingly faced in recent years is that the institute appears to be taking on the concerns and values of the American right wing: from opposing gun control to slamming Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theory, both of which have been the subjects of SAIRR reports over the past year.

There have been claims that the SAIRR is receiving funding from US groups such as the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think-tank that has historically provided many of the policy positions of the Republican Party. Morris denies any financial link between the two bodies, but former SAIRR CEO Frans Cronje gave an address to the Heritage Foundation in 2015 and the SAIRR frequently makes reference to the foundation’s research.

Morris dismisses the idea that the body is trading liberalism for libertarianism, saying: “Individual writers for the IRR’s news and opinion outlet, the Daily Friend, may hold diverging views, some being more libertarian and others leaning more towards traditional liberal democracy, but the Institute continues to advocate classical liberalism as it has done since its founding in 1929.”

Other critics say that the SAIRR should simply be ignored by those who don’t share its views. But to Msimang, the SAIRR is a genuine threat to free and fair public discourse – because “they have money which they use to lobby damaging positions, they claim to represent the opinions of general South Africans which they actually misrepresent, and they are arguing for evidence-based positions with invalid data that doesn't support the claims that they're making. They are essentially misleading the public on matters about race”. DM168

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper which is available for R25 at Pick n Pay, Exclusive Books and airport bookstores. For your nearest stockist, please click here.

Comments (7)

Dave Martin Aug 28, 2021, 10:05 AM

The problem with the IRR survey was detailed in an earlier article by Phila Msimang: When respondents are asked what their biggest problems are, apparently only their top 2 answers are accepted. An analogy. If you ask South African women the following survey question: What are your biggest fears as a South African woman (select 2 of the following options): 1. Murder 2. Rape 3. Assault It makes sense that the vast majority would respond with options 1 and 2. This doesn’t mean that option 3 is not a major concern, it is just less of a concern than the other 2 options. What Msimang is implying is that the SAIRR is effectively doing the above survey and then putting up a billboard saying “South African women do NOT fear assault!!” Which is blatant misinformation. We need to know how big a problem racism is in our society and what form it takes. I used to regard the SAIRR survey as one of the most important sources of objective information on this issue. I no longer trust it unless it can clearly answer Msimang’s criticism.

Johan Aug 18, 2021, 06:14 PM

In the age of post-truth and unreality (i.e. putting the optics of withdrawal by 9/11/2021 before facts on the ground in Afghanistan) evidence based voices are not popular. These voices are often answered not by facts but by ideological reasoning, aspersions and guilty by association.

JP van der Merwe Aug 18, 2021, 07:03 AM

The term racism has unfortunately been contaminated by the BLM, radical left, wokeness, cancel culture and the like, but that does not mean that racism is still racism and is still around, alive and well. It will not be easy, if not virtually impossible for DM’s editor to respond to the anti’s of all of the above, but I am sure those who want to understand, will know that assuming that DM supports the anti’s, is simply not listening.

District Six Aug 16, 2021, 09:30 PM

A very balanced piece, Ms Davis. You gave the SAIRR equal space and Morris had an opportunity just as Phila Msimang was able to offer considered critique. The SAIRR has definitely shifted base and it doesn't look pretty. If the comment section here is any indication of where they are positioning then it's a slam-dunk. The right offers bogeymen - BLM, CRT, BBEE, gun ownership, and "cadre deployment" - it's all like waving a red flag at a bull that results in a lot of snorting and huffing. So when Donald Trump appoints Republican Jeff Sessions or Republican William Barr as A-G, does one consider that as a cadre deployment? If Barack Obama appoints Democrat Eric Holder as A-G, or California appoints Democrat Kamala Harris as State A-G, are these considered cadre deployments? When Boris Johnson appoints the PM's Chief of Staff, Tory, Dan Rosenfield, may it be considered as a cadre appointment? It seems to me that global best-practice is for each successive administration to appoint its own political cadres, without it being an issue for the SAIRR, and that the hysteria around this is unwarranted.

Karl Sittlinger Aug 17, 2021, 08:28 AM

So speaking out against cadre deployment, which the president admitted to, is right-wing? Oh dear...

Alex Wood Aug 16, 2021, 11:12 AM

Any possession of a fire arm requires a degree of state control. However anybody who supports "Black lives matter" are 100% racist!...... It must be one of the worst and most damaging organizations in the world right now!

Karl Sittlinger Aug 16, 2021, 10:46 AM

"An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. " We are definitely losing the ability to have a discussion without immediately resorting to association fallacies and very heavy accusations. Just because someone supports gun ownership in a violent under policed country like SA, doesn't mean that that person is a right winger. If someone feels there is a case for border control doesn't mean they support abortion. It is possible to support social programs while still being a centrist...

Michelle Kuttel Aug 16, 2021, 12:19 PM

This is my concern as well. We are in a sad situation where adults feel the need to label someone they disagree with an epithet, and so dismiss them (or claim to be offended), rather than engaging with the argument. AS with everything in SA, it's complicated. Importing attitudes and opinions from the States is just lazy thinking - and highly divisive. The SAIRR has the moral courage to uphold liberal values, ask the difficult questions and fight the difficult fights in the teeth of this kind of puerile name-calling and the prevalent cancel-culture - and that is why I respect them.

Greg Z Aug 16, 2021, 09:56 AM

Maverick has a history of good journalism, but now seems to be biased towards a populist left-wing ideological agenda. With such one-sided reporting, Rebecca Davis perpetuates and deepens the racist divide in this country rather than healing it. This article portrays the SAIRR as a tool of the US right and obscures the fundamental issues that this country is facing, such as the right to employment and personal safety. It reads like Bell Pottinger and sounds like David Mahlobos' narrative on foreign powers' involvement in South Africa. I think I will be cancelling my subscriptions to the Daily Maverick.