July 26 Independence Celebration: Liberia’s True Freedom? (Guest Commentary)I happily turned to my daughter Chris and said, “Today is Liberia’s independence day”, to which she replied, “independence from which country?” That stopped me dead in my steps. Yes, independence from which country? Perhaps this day then should be called our National Day.
As a student of Professor J Pal Chadhuri, who taught Liberian history for many years at the University of Liberia, I am well aware that Liberia had to declare its independence in order to protect its borders from annexation by French and Britain. Yet if it was not a protectorate of the United States or any other major power of the time, surely effective occupation could have been the legitimate path to sovereignty? Be as it may, although independent, our dependence on help as a nation cannot be denied. Here I am not really speaking of other types of help–as all countries need assistance in one manner or another–but about the sense of accomplishment that looks to other countries for approval. Can a country then be free? Can a country be really free that depends on another country for its basic food supply? Its validation? Its benchmarks to progress? If a country is not going the way of madness or chaos as we have in many countries around the world, but is instead progressing steadily as Liberia is, does it need to have all of its efforts scrutinized and commented upon? Interestingly, my daughter brought home a document when her class was studying American history in 9th grade. As I read the document with her, I was struck by the rationale of the author. As he defended the US right to break away from England, Thomas Paine wrote “To know whether it be the interest of the continent to be independent, we need only ask this easy, simple question: Is it the interest of a man to be a boy all his life? The answer to one will be the answer to both… America, till now, could never be called a free country, because her legislation depended on the will of a man three thousand miles distant, whose interest was in opposition to ours, and who, by a single “no,” could forbid what law he pleased.” Of course he was speaking of King George and the American fight for independence, but the question can be applied to any country that finds itself in this predicament of being dependent “Is it the interest of a man to be a boy all his life? This beautifully worded argument for independence struck a chord as I read. Can we as Liberians be free in the truest sense if we continue to look to another country for validation? While it is true that countries depend on each other, Liberia’s dependence must be diminished. Our nation’s validation should come from within, not from outsiders with report cards and check marks to see if we have passed some kind of test. We must own our development agenda as well as our destiny. As the Liberian educator Edward Wilmot Blyden wrote “If you are not yourself, if you surrender your personality, you have nothing left to give the world. You have no pleasure, no use, nothing which will attract and charm me, for by the suppression of your individuality, you lose your distinctive character.” Or as I like to tell my daughters, “If you follow in other’s footsteps, you leave no footprints of your own.” True freedom lies in dependence on oneself and this as Liberians we must try to do. Our ancestors knew this and although a small country, Liberia fought for its right to survive and this we must never forget. Our freedom, whether it is symbolized in the words “independence” or “national” day, was won with blood, sweat, tears, and yes, deaths. This gives us a legitimacy that no power can question. To quote Franklin Roosevelt “In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.” And in this case, Liberians must stand for themselves. We must rise to the occasion, straighten our shoulders and get to work. We must always feel as Sir Walter Scott wrote in The Last Minstrel: “Breathes there the man with soul so dead / Who never to himself hath said, / This is my own, my native land! So let us start small, let us look within ourselves and find the strength to stand on our own two feet and then, bit by bit, our country also will rise and know the word freedom in its truest sense. Happy 26 to Liberians everywhere and may peace reign always in our beautiful homeland.
http://www.theliberianjournal.com/index.php?st=news&sbst=details&rid=1606
Editor’s Note: Jackie Sayegh is an University of Liberia. The views expressed in this piece are purely her own.
|
Truth throughout the ages
Africa and the International Criminal Court: Uneasy Lie the Heads
The International Criminal Court is a “permanent tribunal created to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.”Its jurisdiction covers the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole (Preamble 2) and in cases where national trials would not occur or would be ineffective (Preamble 3).
The nations of the world found it necessary to create the ICC as they were“ conscious that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage, and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time . .. Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished . . .Determined to these ends and for the sake of present and future generations, to establish an independent permanent International Criminal court in relationship with the United Nations system, with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.”
The ICC complements national criminal jurisdiction and does not replace it. The words in the Preamble make it clear that “it is the duty of every state to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes. . .”
The Court was also not created for “race hunting” as the Kenyan President recently alleged. While it is true that the majority of the cases before the ICC are Africans, it must be clear that these cases were referred to the Court by the African governments themselves.
What should be of concern is how many of the countries that refer cases lack functional, capable and transparent institutions and independent judiciaries and are African countries.
The ICC does not solicit cases despite what many may believe. It is actually the court of last resort. Cases are referred through State parties (that is member states who have signed on to the treaty)in accordance with Article 14of the Rome Statute or through referral by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the UN.
The Office of the Prosecutor can also initiate an investigation upon complaints brought to it by individuals and organizations. The Office of the Prosecutor has conducted or is currently conducting investigation in Honduras, Georgia, Republic of Korea, Palestine, and Afghanistan in addition to several African countries.To date Uganda, Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic have referred situations occurring or have occurred in their countries to the ICC.
Those that accuse the Court of targeting Africa conveniently forget the composition of the ICC 18 judges which give testament to the global nature of the Court. Five of the judges are African as well as the vice president, Sanji Mmasenono Monageng, a Botswana national. The Court’s Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, is a citizen of Gambia.
Article 17 of the Rome Statute states that “the Court shall determine a case is admissible where the case is being investigated or presented by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution.” It is important to understand that while some African leaders are now vilifying the ICC, truly capable, functional, and transparent countries are not among them.
In his recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, Archbishop Tutu explains that “the African focus of the court should not be seen as an indictment of its neutrality but of the quality of leadership and democracy in many African countries.. . As Africa begins to find its voice in world affairs, it must strengthen its commitment to the rule of law, not undermine it. These principles are part of our global moral and legal responsibility, not items from a menu we can choose only when it suits us. . . .far from a fight between Africa and the West, this is a fight within Africa, for its soul.”
The Kenyan president recent outburst that the court is “race hunting . . . and performs on the cue of European and American government against the sovereignty of African states “ disregards and mocks the 1,000 lives lost and property destroyed by the Kenyan post-election violence. Is it the right of a sovereign country on any continent to give impunity to those who have brought destruction on its people? The ICC stepped in when Kenya, despite its promise and presidential announcement to create a special court to investigate the violence, refused to do so.September 30, 2007 (the deadline set by the ICC Prosecutor) passed with no action by the Kenyan government. Because of its complementary mandate to national jurisdiction, the ICC only intervenes when a State is unable and unwilling, which clearly Kenya has shown itself to be.
Some African leaders have conveniently forgotten that it was Kenya that referred the election violence to the ICC and not the European or American government.The United States is not a signatory to the ICC and cannot refer cases to it (although it is a member of the Security Council and can do so as a body). At the recent meeting of the African Union,some have decided to protect those who violate the trust of their own people by calling for withdrawal from the ICC. Instead of addressing fundamental issues that hamper the growth of the continent,their annual meet,greet and eat gala has on the forefront of their agenda ways to shield each other from prosecution.“Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown ”and our leaders’ heads are wobbly indeed.
Archbishop Tutu asks Africans to resist the call to withdraw from the ICC: “The continent has suffered the consequences of unaccountable governance for too long to disown the protections offered by the I.C.C.. . .Those leaders seeking to skirt the court are effectively looking for a license to . . .oppress their own people without consequence. They believe the interests of the people should not stand in the way of their ambitions of wealth . . .that being held to account by the I.C.C. interferes with their ability to achieve these ambitions. . . Africans must see the ICC as instrument of justice for all and not get caught in their leaders’ game of blaming everyone but themselves for the crimes they perpetrate on their own citizens.”
The International Criminal Court is the world’s court, mandated to mete out prosecution for “the dead cannot cry out for justice;it is the duty of the living to do so for them.” We must resist the urge to fall back on old excuses of colonialism and racism and strive for justice and human dignity.“It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered” writes Aristotle and this ordering must be our goal and this fight is one we must win.
Jackie Sayegh, Contributing Writer
jsb25@cornell.edu
Game, Set, Match: The Uncommon Courage of Albert Porte
by
Jackie Sayegh
Growing up in Liberia, the name of Albert Porte was whispered amongst older relatives with varying emotions: anger, admiration, resignation, frustration, but never with apathy or indifference. Many expressed frustration over his constant “buzzing” thereby upsetting the powers that be while others secretly admired his courage. Secretly being the operative word here. As a child, the name was not significant in my world. Childhood friends, play and school took precedence and life went on as life is meant to do.
Last month, while writing a paper on an entirely different subject, I came across a letter written by the late Albert Porte to then President Tubman on the occasion of the president purchase of a luxury yacht that Porte maintained would be a burden to the country not only because of the cost, but because of its annual maintenance of $125,000.00 (“Thinking about the Unthinkable things the Democratic Way”, Monrovia, 1967 pp. 22-23). Liberia, as a poor county, Porte pointed out, could ill afford the expense of a yacht much less the maintenance. President Tubman fired off a dismissive and patronizing response that accused Porte of being a “grumbler, . . .you make no contribution or make so little contribution to the resources of the country that you should be ashamed to talk about the public expenditure. How much taxes have you or any of the grumblers paid into the public treasury from 1944, . . . Your spirit appears to me to be anarchical. I remember during the last Administration, you were critical and censorious of it.”
This was not the first time nor would it be the last that Porte bumped heads with the President. One that I found particularly fascinating centered on his constant dismissals and reinstatements as a school teacher.
Game
On January 1st, 1949, then Secretary of Education J W. Pearson sent Mr. Albert Porte a letter informing him that his position as a public school teacher had been terminated. No reason was given for the dismissal. Mr. Porte appealed his dismissal to which, three weeks later, Pearson responded that he would do his best, but he was “under authority and am not at liberty to do more than I am instructed to do.” From the letter’s tone, it was evident that while Secretary Pearson was in sympathy with Mr. Porte, his duty was to carry out the directive of the president. Whether or not Pearson played a part in advocating for Porte is unclear, but on February, 1949, Porte received a letter from Pearson informing him that “in keeping with the directive of His Excellency the President, I wish to advise that you are restored to your position as principal of the government school in Crozierville effective as of Feb., 1949.”
Set
The uneasy and uneven peace between the government and Mr. Porte continued on its bumpy path and reached a roadblock on July 2nd , 1955 when Mr. Porte was summoned to “kindly call at the Department of Public Instruction on Wednesday, the 6th instant, at 10am for a conference.” Three days after the “conference,” Mr. Porte became the recipient of another letter from the Secretary of Public Instruction E. J. Yancy, informing him that “having shown qualities of a man inherently an anarchist, by exposing the administration of Mr. King, Mr. Barclay, and now President Tubman; for organizing a committee to contribute to Mr. Tuan Wreh who viciously attacked the present administration and attempting to prevent the Registra of the poll of Crozierville on election day from performing her duties because she was a school teacher, I have been directed to terminate your services as a public school teacher as of today’s date because of the herein above outlined.” At least this time reasons were given for the dismissal.
Four days later, Mr. Porte responded with the demand that he be allowed the “opportunity to face the accusation and accusers in an impartial investigation and also that you reconsider the directive given.” His appeal proved futile. President Tubman, however, took time from his vacation in Totota to explain that:
Mr. Porte refuses to contribute one cent of his money that he is receiving from a
Whig administration to the success of the Whig party. But he was willing to contribute
to the support of the family of a man who to all intents and purposes has committed
criminal libel against the administration and had been convicted by the legislature and imprisoned.
Satisfied with the public reprimand, President Tubman instructed Secretary Yancy that Mr. Porte was to once again “assume his former position as principal of the government school within the township.” On December 8, 1955, Mr. Porte thanked the government for his reinstatement but brought up the issue of the back wages owed him. He was after all entitled to his back pay and reinstated or not, this was an important point to him. Secretary Yancy indignantly explained that as Mr. Porte was not “in service at the time because he was dismissed and not suspended, he had no claim to such wages.”
Match
To add insult to injury, not only did Mr. Porte not receive his back wages, the deduction to his salary resumed. Porte’s silence to this problem ended on May 7, 1966, when he wrote then Secretary of Education Augustus F. Caine requesting that “in view of the current speculations that members of the True Whig party are to contribute to the party fund at the end of the month and that salaries are to be cut therefore, I am earnestly requesting that you direct no such cut to be made from my salary cheque.” Porte’s reasons were direct, unflinching and clear:
I am not a member of the Whig Party and should not therefore be forced to contribute
to its funds. President Tubman in his recent visits abroad, made it clear that unlike Ghana,
ours is not a one-party state by law. While it is a fact that my salary was refunded to me in
the past when I raised the question of non-membership, I feel it is humiliating, despotic,
and tyrannical that such requests for a refund should have to be made amidst the circumstances
in the first place.
As expected, the government’s answer was swift and expected. Four days after his letter, Secretary of Education Augustus F. Caine informed Mr. Porte that he was “hereby relieved of your duties as public school teacher of Montserrado county effective today’s date, for administrative reasons.”
Game, again?
There is no other correspondence I found to show what happened after this but we can all infer from the courageous character of Mr. Porte that he did not take this latest dismissal without a fight. Committed as he was to the fight against injustice there is no doubt that the struggle continued, in another form, under another Liberian leader, at another time. It was rumored that he carried his toothbrush with him everywhere for he never knew where his nights would end: in prison, at another house, or on the streets.
The power play and vendetta of three Liberian presidents against a single citizen and the silence of the Liberian community gave clear evidence of how lonely the fight against injustice can be. Twain points out that “in the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.“ So what makes one man stand tall and speak out against injustice while others cower and shrink? What makes a person, with civility, dignity, and a clear perception of the rights of the individual present reasoned arguments to defend his or her position while others resort to offensive behavior and rude speech? What makes a person practice Gandhi’s maxim that “a ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.” I guess the question in its truest form is what makes a man, a man (or a woman for that matter). There is no doubt it was a lonely fight, but Albert Porte did not shrink from demanding his full menu of rights. His pickings at the buffet table might have been slim, but the selection was his, his decision whether to partake or not, always on his own terms.
His terms.
God, give us men! A time like this demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will;
Men who have honor; men who will not lie; – Josiah Gilbert Holland –
Outsourcing Liberia’s Educational Future, Lock, Stock and Barrel
by
Jackie Sayegh
Education is a public good and an investment in the future of the country and should be a national policy. That is a given, unless you are the Minister of Education in Liberia and decide otherwise
Barely a full year in office (and with numerous educational conferences under his belt”) Mr. Werner has decided to abandon his core mandate of creating effective policies to educate Liberia’s children and its future. Instead, he has decided to turn the ENTIRE educational system, lock stock and barrel to an outside FOR PROFIT firm. One that has as its main mode of instruction, the mobile phone.
As Diane Ravitch explains it “Under the Bridge Academies project, the notes and other lectures materials are stored on an android mobile phone and the teachers use the phones to teach, a method where the teacher does not have to be sophisticated to teach.”
Bridge Academy website touts that ‘All of our curriculum is developed and then scripted in-house by the world’s leading education experts . . . our scripted curriculum includes step-by-step instructions explaining what teachers should do and say during any given moment of a class.”
Imagine that! Every moment in the classroom scripted from thousands of miles away by so-called “experts” totally divorced from the realities in country. Will the smart phones and imported curricula alleviate the hunger our children face while learning? Will it miraculously provide electricity for them to power the phones or for the teachers to download the lesson plans? As these “educational experts” hop on the subway or get into their cars equipped with every modern convenience, will they consider how the Liberian child gets to school? On the most basic level, will this mobile learning provide toilet facilities, chairs, pencils or even a window to shelter our kids from the torrential rains? Will it resolve the situation that Time magazine reported a few days ago where a study in 2014 found that almost one in five students in Liberia has been abused by teachers or school staff (Time, April 5, 2016)? How many minutes, I wonder, do these “experts” allow for students’ questions or for a teacher’s innovation? Do these “world leading education experts” also tell teachers how to teach our history, our norms and values?
According to the Mail and Guardian, Bridge’s model is “school in a box” – a highly structured, technology-driven model that relies on teachers reading standardized lessons from hand-held tablet computers. Bridge hires education experts to script the lessons, but the teacher’s role is to deliver that content to the class. This allows Bridge to hold down costs because it can hire teachers who don’t have college degrees – a teacher is only required to go through a five-week training program on how to read and deliver the script. To keep tuition costs low – about $6 a term – Bridge depends on large class sizes. An ideal class size is 40 to 50 pupils, but the classes can get to 60 students. The physical infrastructure is modest too – often just simple building made of sheet metal and timber, which can be constructed in a few days” (Mail and Guardian, March 31, 2015).
Can Liberia insist that those that teach must possess a college degree? Is there room for changes to be made?
While it is true that Bridge Academy operates in Uganda and Kenya and other countries, it is not the ONLY mode of instruction in these countries. What Mr. Werner proposes is that our ENTIRE educational system be placed in the hands of a FOR PROFIT organization. He is abdicating his responsibility, turning over the most critical component of our future into the hands of foreign “experts” attached to a mobile phone.
While Mr. Werner and his underlings continue to tout the advantages of Bridge Academy, others with more discernment have begun to see the chinks in the armor. The UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Kishore Singh, last week described it as “unprecedented at the scale currently being proposed and violates Liberia’s legal and moral obligations.” The UN official and human rights expert noted that provision of public education of good quality is a core function of the State. “Abandoning this to the commercial benefit of a private company constitutes a gross violation of the right to education,”
Groups such as ActionAid, Education for All (EFA) movement, Federation of Women Lawyers (Fida Kenya) and the Kenya National Union of Teachers (Knut) have petitioned the World Bank to stop promoting the model used by Bridge International Academies and other fee-charging, private schools, and publicly re-commit the World Bank to universal, free and compulsory basic education,” reads the groups’ protest letter addressed to the bank’s president Jim Yong Kim. “If the World Bank is serious about improving education in Kenya and Uganda, it should support our government to expand and improve our public education systems, provide quality education to all children free-of-charge, and address other financial barriers to access.”
. . “Bridge continues to get criticisms from the Governments of both Kenya and Uganda for its method of using Android mobile phones to teach students where most of the teachers used only what is placed on the phone as Bridge resulted to using teachers who are not qualified to teach since the teaching materials are placed on a phone and the teacher only needs to teach what is available. The entity teaching method is seen in the two countries as discouraging the employment of qualified teachers who will interact with the students while teaching instead of using fixed materials downloaded on a mobile phone.”
Business Day reports that Kenya is launching “a rigorous, independent impact evaluation of the Bridge International Academies program which will be the first large-scale, randomized, controlled trial of fee-paying schools in sub-Saharan Africa. (Business day, Nov. 9, 2015).
But who in Liberia will conduct such an evaluation? How will an evaluate Bridge’s performance and deliverables be made? Is there a trial period or are we stuck with this behemoth even if it turns out to be ineffective?
Werner may have an MSW degree in Social Work, but his work as “Clinician Therapist” for AVS – Allegheny Valley School – under a licensed Clinician Therapist supervision hardly makes him eligible for such a task. The Allegheny Valley School “provide quality programs and facilities to help the individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.” That is a far cry from being qualified to craft an educational system for an entire country. Or is Aaron F. Tingaba (Deputy Minister of Administration) who last served as the Chief Accountant of the LPRC now the voice of the Ministry of Education?
Signing on to this collaboration means that the Ministry of Education is abdicating its responsibility to create policies to enable an effective educational system. The realities on the ground need attention not mobile phones. In Nimba, the percentage of primary schools without access to water is 49%, without toilet facilities – 34%, and without electricity – 97%. In Lofa, the percentage of primary schools with no access to water is 60%, no access to toilet facilities -25% and no electricity, 97%. The percentage of primary schools without a library in Nimba is 92.6% and in Lofa 90.5%. (Liberia Education Statistics).
“The problem with Liberia is not that it is poor, but that it is poorly managed” writes Robtel Pailey and that is precisely right. Officials ill equipped for positions are given carte blanche to move our country backwards as they collect salaries they could only dream about a few years ago.
The National Legislature budget of 2013/2014 has transportation reimbursement as $1,104,900. Under the term “special allowance” there is $3,204,000 allotted and foreign travel has as its budget $308,758 along with the foreign travel incidental allowance of $372,679 which should not be mistaken with foreign travel daily subsistence allowance of $595,164.
This amount is more than the allotment for the basic salaries of educators at the Zorzor Rural Teacher Training Institute -$200,000 or the allotment to Bong Community College – $219, 767. It is more than the MCSS gets “to renovate all MCSS Schools and computer systems from 2012-2015 ($250,000) (Liberia National Budget 2013/2014).
Now, is it possible for our children, or anyone, to learn in this environment, where mobile phones will be everywhere but students just have to find a functional lavatory or get enough in their bellies to see them through the day? And how will these mobile phones be charged and who will pay for them? And why are teachers the last rung on this ladder of schievement?
The old system of teaching in many African countries, introduced by colonists, was to learn by rote memorization. Amazingly, Bridge Academy does the same. Their ability to “monitor lesson pacing in addition to providing the scripts themselves, recording attendance, and tracking assessments in real-time. . . Combined, this makes for a very engaging experience for pupils – a far cry from the rote learning that happens in most of the other schools found in our communities.”
But this is exactly what it is, rote learning. As the Mail and Guardian explains “Teachers are robots that just read scripts off hand-held tablets, and that’s not the best way for children to learn – it discourages student interaction both with the teacher and with each other, suppresses critical thinking, and encourages rote learning. Teacher unions in the region have come out hard against the company, arguing that it will discourage the employment of qualified teachers.”
“Children must be taught how to think, not what to think.” We need transformative learning where our children can ask questions, delve into the answers, and create sustainable paths to sustained peace and development. We need our students to be able to READ and QUESTION and INNOVATE not swallow and vomit what is rote taught them by teachers who like robots take instructions from ‘experts’ across the ocean who have no idea of how things are on the ground. Rwanda (72% literacy rate), Namibia (87%literacy rate) and many other countries in Africa have made education their number one priority with no help from Bridge or other “experts” from outside. Werner wants to wash his hands from his duties while at the same time collecting a paycheck.
Bridge Academy has investors that need to see their bottom line increase, hence the phrase FOR PROFIT. The World Bank, International Finance Corporation, OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), NEA (One of the world’s largest and most active venture capital firms) are all very impressive, but their goal is maximizing profits, not educating our children.
Imported solutions forced upon us without understanding the context will not educate our children. Mass privatization of the education system is wrong on all fronts. A primary function of a nation is to provide education as an essential public service. Outsourcing education violates the right to education. Liberia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Articles 13 and 14 of the ICESCR which set out detailed formulations of the right to education. Article 13 specifically stipulates that primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all. The UNESCO Convention stipulates that states parties must undertake to formulate, develop and apply a national policy which will tend to promote equality of opportunity and treatment, and, in particular, to make primary education free and compulsory. It also recognizes parents’ right to freely choose their children’s educational institutions and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
We are not willing to sacrifice our kids’ education to a bandaid solution because those entrusted with their care are not up to the task. Civil societies, parent groups, and teacher unions should reject this system being forced upon our children as the government has conveniently become mute on this subject. Reject, or live with the consequences. The choice is ours.
*Jackie Sayegh is an alum of the University of Liberia. She can be reached at jsb25@cornell.edu.
References
Budget, Republic of Liberia 2013/2014
Alan Smith, UNESCO Chair, University of Ulster. Education and Conflict.
Pailey, Robtel Neajai. Liberia’s education system should take its cue from Robin Hood. The Guardian
Liberia Cuts Deal to Outsource Education
http://avs.nhsonline.org/organization/about-avs.html
Game, Set, Match: The Uncommon Courage of Albert Porte
Growing up in Liberia, the name of Albert Porte was whispered amongst older relatives with varying emotions: anger, admiration, resignation, frustration, but never with apathy or indifference. Many expressed frustration over his constant “buzzing” thereby upsetting the powers that be while others secretly admired his courage. Secretly being the operative word here. As a child, the name was not significant in my world. Childhood friends, play and school took precedence and life went on as life is meant to do.
Last month, while writing a paper on an entirely different subject, I came across a letter written by the late Albert Porte to then President Tubman on the occasion of the president purchase of a luxury yacht that Porte maintained would be a burden to the country not only because of the cost, but because of its annual maintenance of $125,000.00 (“Thinking about the Unthinkable things the Democratic Way”, Monrovia, 1967 pp. 22-23). Liberia, as a poor county, Porte pointed out, could ill afford the expense of a yacht much less the maintenance. President Tubman fired off a dismissive and patronizing response that accused Porte of being a “grumbler, . . .you make no contribution or make so little contribution to the resources of the country that you should be ashamed to talk about the public expenditure. How much taxes have you or any of the grumblers paid into the public treasury from 1944, . . . Your spirit appears to me to be anarchical. I remember during the last Administration, you were critical and censorious of it.”
This was not the first time nor would it be the last that Porte bumped heads with the President. One that I found particularly fascinating centered on his constant dismissals and reinstatements as a school teacher.
Game
On January 1st, 1949, then Secretary of Education J W. Pearson sent Mr. Albert Porte a letter informing him that his position as a public school teacher had been terminated. No reason was given for the dismissal. Mr. Porte appealed his dismissal to which, three weeks later, Pearson responded that he would do his best, but he was “under authority and am not at liberty to do more than I am instructed to do.” From the letter’s tone, it was evident that while Secretary Pearson was in sympathy with Mr. Porte, his duty was to carry out the directive of the president. Whether or not Pearson played a part in advocating for Porte is unclear, but on February, 1949, Porte received a letter from Pearson informing him that “in keeping with the directive of His Excellency the President, I wish to advise that you are restored to your position as principal of the government school in Crozierville effective as of Feb., 1949.”
Set
The uneasy and uneven peace between the government and Mr. Porte continued on its bumpy path and reached a roadblock on July 2nd , 1955 when Mr. Porte was summoned to “kindly call at the Department of Public Instruction on Wednesday, the 6th instant, at 10am for a conference.” Three days after the “conference,” Mr. Porte became the recipient of another letter from the Secretary of Public Instruction E. J. Yancy, informing him that “having shown qualities of a man inherently an anarchist, by exposing the administration of Mr. King, Mr. Barclay, and now President Tubman; for organizing a committee to contribute to Mr. Tuan Wreh who viciously attacked the present administration and attempting to prevent the Registra of the poll of Crozierville on election day from performing her duties because she was a school teacher, I have been directed to terminate your services as a public school teacher as of today’s date because of the herein above outlined.” At least this time reasons were given for the dismissal.
Four days later, Mr. Porte responded with the demand that he be allowed the “opportunity to face the accusation and accusers in an impartial investigation and also that you reconsider the directive given.” His appeal proved futile. President Tubman, however, took time from his vacation in Totota to explain that:
Mr. Porte refuses to contribute one cent of his money that he is receiving from a
Whig administration to the success of the Whig party. But he was willing to contribute
to the support of the family of a man who to all intents and purposes has committed
criminal libel against the administration and had been convicted by the legislature and imprisoned.
Satisfied with the public reprimand, President Tubman instructed Secretary Yancy that Mr. Porte was to once again “assume his former position as principal of the government school within the township.” On December 8, 1955, Mr. Porte thanked the government for his reinstatement but brought up the issue of the back wages owed him. He was after all entitled to his back pay and reinstated or not, this was an important point to him. Secretary Yancy indignantly explained that as Mr. Porte was not “in service at the time because he was dismissed and not suspended, he had no claim to such wages.”
Match
To add insult to injury, not only did Mr. Porte not receive his back wages, the deduction to his salary resumed. Porte’s silence to this problem ended on May 7, 1966, when he wrote then Secretary of Education Augustus F. Caine requesting that “in view of the current speculations that members of the True Whig party are to contribute to the party fund at the end of the month and that salaries are to be cut therefore, I am earnestly requesting that you direct no such cut to be made from my salary cheque.” Porte’s reasons were direct, unflinching and clear:
I am not a member of the Whig Party and should not therefore be forced to contribute
to its funds. President Tubman in his recent visits abroad, made it clear that unlike Ghana,
ours is not a one-party state by law. While it is a fact that my salary was refunded to me in
the past when I raised the question of non-membership, I feel it is humiliating, despotic,
and tyrannical that such requests for a refund should have to be made amidst the circumstances
in the first place.
As expected, the government’s answer was swift and expected. Four days after his letter, Secretary of Education Augustus F. Caine informed Mr. Porte that he was “hereby relieved of your duties as public school teacher of Montserrado county effective today’s date, for administrative reasons.”
Game, again?
There is no other correspondence I found to show what happened after this but we can all infer from the courageous character of Mr. Porte that he did not take this latest dismissal without a fight. Committed as he was to the fight against injustice there is no doubt that the struggle continued, in another form, under another Liberian leader, at another time. It was rumored that he carried his toothbrush with him everywhere for he never knew where his nights would end: in prison, at another house, or on the streets.
The power play and vendetta of three Liberian presidents against a single citizen and the silence of the Liberian community gave clear evidence of how lonely the fight against injustice can be. Twain points out that “in the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.“ So what makes one man stand tall and speak out against injustice while others cower and shrink? What makes a person, with civility, dignity, and a clear perception of the rights of the individual present reasoned arguments to defend his or her position while others resort to offensive behavior and rude speech? What makes a person practice Gandhi’s maxim that “a ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.” I guess the question in its truest form is what makes a man, a man (or a woman for that matter). There is no doubt it was a lonely fight, but Albert Porte did not shrink from demanding his full menu of rights. His pickings at the buffet table might have been slim, but the selection was his, his decision whether to partake or not, always on his own terms.
His terms.
God, give us men! A time like this demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will;
Men who have honor; men who will not lie; – Josiah Gilbert Holland –
by Jackie Sayegh
When the Boughs Break: Liberia’s Educational Crisis
Thu, 12/12/2013 – 00:54admin
By:
Jackie N. Sayegh (Jsb25@cornell.edu)
That the government of Liberia, and by default the Ministry of Education, has abdicated its responsibility to educate our children is an understatement. Every church, cult, quasi agency and organization now operate a school in the country and subject our children to “learning” a term I use as loosely as possible. There are schools everywhere, but more schools mean nothing on its own. Inexperienced, underpaid, overworked teachers are forced to tackle overcrowded classrooms (thanks to free primary education) with few resources and even fewer support systems.
The recent travel abroad of 17 educators to study early childhood educational systems is an exercise in futility. No tour, curriculum, or workshop will hide what our children and their parents face on a daily basis in their desire for an education or the education of their children. Given the 2012 report of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) that measures 15-year-old students’ reading, mathematics, cross-curricular competencies and science literacy, it would seem that Liberia would have been better served had the educators visited East Asia instead. Of the students that took the PISA tests, those from China, Korea, Finland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Canada performed the best. The US ranked 17.
The stark reality is that our education system is in freefall and we need to examine and address the causes that underlie this crisis. Sen writes that “in a society where so much depends on the written medium, being illiterate is like being imprisoned, and school education opens a door thorough which people can escape incarceration.” We need to demand that the MOE turns the key to open the door.
Let us start with some basics: Nimba County has the highest amount of registered primary school (grades 1-6) students in the nation – 55,605, Lofa has 31,082. It would seem the student to teacher ratio is more than adequate- Nimba has 2,309 teachers (21.8 student- to -teacher ratio) and Lofa has 1,446 teachers (23.3 student-to-teacher ratio). All things being equal, this would seem an ideal environment for the education of our kids. (Liberia Education Statistics)
But to hope is to expect, and all things are never equal. In Nimba, the percentage of primary schools without access to water is 49%, without toilet facilities – 34%, and without electricity – 97%. In Lofa, the percentage of primary schools with no access to water is 60%, no access to toilet facilities -25% and no electricity, 97%. The percentage of primary schools without a library in Nimba is 92.6% and in Lofa 90.5%. (Liberia Education Statistics).
Now, is it possible for our children, or anyone, to learn in this environment, an environment where there exists easy access to mobile phones but not to clean and functional toilets? The MOE site touts that that “- This Ministry is the first government entity to have a multi-language website (English, French and Spanish).” Well, that is great, but could we start with toilet facilities first? Are there standard hours for a school day? How does one go about operating a school? What kinds of structures qualify for the designation of a school? Is just having a roof and walls to shield our children from the torrential rains and the scorching sun adequate enough to be called a school? Who teaches our children and what are they teaching them?
The inadequacies are not present at all schools. There are some schools (mostly in Montserrado county) that possess all the necessary bells and whistles to be fully functional and to turn out stellar students. But these schools do not make up a large percentage of all schools and we need to have our children (of all income levels) educated to be able to take on the challenges of development and nation building. Education is not the cause of war but it does have the possibility either to intensify or to alleviate the conditions that contribute to war.
Alan Smith, UNESCO Chair in Education at the University of Ulster Northern Ireland explains that we “need to focus on education because unequal access to education is often one of the most powerful ways in which dominant groups maintain unequal access to power and wealth between groups within conflict-affected societies – often reproduced from one generation to the next”
The old system of teaching in many African countries, introduced by colonists, was to learn by rote, memorization to become proper civil servants, not to question orders but to get the job done the way one was taught. The PISA report states that in the countries that led the ranking, students reproduced what they had learned in various situations. “ The world economy will pay an ever-rising premium on excellence, and that today’s economy no longer rewards people simply for what they know — Google already knows everything– but for what they can do with what they know.” We need transformative learning where our children can ask questions, delve into the answers, and create sustainable paths to sustained peace, so we need our students to be able to READ!
“The problem with Liberia is not that it is poor, but that it is poorly managed” writes Robtel Pailey and that is true. Priority areas are not given priority. One only has to look at the nation’s budget to get a partial glimpse of the problem. The National Legislature budget of 2013/2014 touts transportation reimbursement as $1,104,900 and then “other specialized materials and services” which accounts for $ 1,366,113. The “special allowance” for the National Legislature is a pork filled barrel of unspecified goodies. Under the term “special allowance” we have $3,204,000 allotted and let us not forget their foreign travel which has as its budget $308,758 along with the foreign travel incidental allowance of $372,679 which should not be mistaken with foreign travel daily subsistence allowance of $595,164. That amount is more than the allotment for the basic salaries of educators at the Zorzor Rural Teacher Training Institute -$200,000 or the allotment to Bong Community College – $219, 767. It is more than the MCSS gets “to renovate all MCSS Schools and computer systems from 2012-2015 ($250,000) (Liberia National Budget 2013/2014).
Of course arguably more funding on education would not automatically translate into better performance, but it is worth a try. Education must be at a premium in Liberia. If we want a transformed country, one that values law and order, one that is civil in its dissent and courageous enough to take a stand, our kids must become educated. Increase the salaries of teachers, train the teachers, build facilities for our children, enable them to learn in a nurturing environment and then see what happens. “Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another” writes Chesterton and we need to give the children a healthy soul to inhabit. Let there be a concerted effort from the relevant ministries and other agencies of government to educate and empower teachers, to make learning an experience that can happen within and outside the classroom and to let the class room be a place without fear and intimidation for our children. The government must direct resources for safe, sanitary and sustainable environment where all our kids can learn and feel that they are valued. Either that or sit back and reap the consequences of our inaction.
References:
CNN Opinion “What Asian Students can teach the rest of the World” Andreas Schleicher, Dec. 3, 2013
Liberian Educational Statistics
Budget, Republic of Liberia 2013/2014
Drèze, Jean, and Amartya Sen. 2013. An uncertain glory: India and its contradictions.
Alan Smith, UNESCO Chair, University of Ulster. Education and Conflict.
Pailey, Robtel Neajai. Liberia’s education system should take its cue from Robin Hood. The Guardian
Even if Your Voice Shakes 