Readers of our print copy would have been spared the online debate among bloggers arising from what we had thought to be a fairly innocuous but useful historical piece on the houses of Queen’s College appearing in our Sunday edition of March 7. It will be recalled that in the article, historian David Granger, in explaining the origins of the ten houses of QC, was able to shed light on not only historical aspects and the traditions rooted in colonial times of Guyana’s oldest secondary school but also on the history of the colony itself.
If the majority of the ensuing blogs are to be taken as a reflection of the general feelings elicited by Mr Granger’s research, then it would seem that nostalgia for happy days past and pride in their school are the dominant sentiments among most QC old students. Indeed, all this was very much in evidence during the grand reunion of QC alumni last October.
Nothing much wrong with any of that; most people have fond memories of their schooldays, the friendships made and the generally jolly, carefree days of their youth, and they should be rightfully proud of their academic and extra-curricular achievements regardless of which school they attended. Unfortunately, one anonymous blogger – perhaps an old student, perhaps not – saw fit to proclaim that “there should be a constitutional amendment that requires one to have gone to QC to be qualified to be either Prime Minister, President or Head of the Presidential Secretariat. Only the best and brightest can go or have gone to QC. Everyone else is second class.” A follow-up comment by the same blogger ruled out the possibility that this could have been postulated with tongue firmly in cheek. Fortunately, this unbecoming view was shared by few others in our online forum and we expect that it will be dismissed as unworthy by our wider readership.
What is worth remembering, first of all, is that QC has given Guyana four premiers or prime ministers: Messrs Jagan, Burnham, Green and Hinds; three executive presidents: Messrs Burnham, Jagan and Hinds, even if the latter was accidentally and temporarily one; at least three heads of the presidential secretariat: Errol Lee, Dr Tyrone Ferguson and Dr Roger Luncheon; and countless other politicians, ministers of government and senior public servants. Without cutting too fine a point about it, they, along with those who have served without the benefit of a QC education, must share the responsibility for where we are as a nation today, whether one is harshly critical or whether one is wont, like the West Indies team in their less redeeming moments, to look for the positives in our collective performance.
Regarding the suitability of QC’s products for leadership, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine, in his speech to the QC reunion in October offered an insightful comment on the pre-Independence generation of QC boys, supposedly groomed for high office: “The extent to which we would be able to retain, build on and deepen the best of the learned values while jettisoning what was oppressive and backward looking was to be the supreme test of my own generation. Sad to say, it was not a test that many who went on to assume positions of leadership in the society managed to pass. On the contrary, too many were seduced by the habits of authoritarianism and hierarchical privilege, blinkered in their lack of concern for the poor and the powerless.”
As for the second part of the above-mentioned blog, it really should not be dignified with further comment, so patently ill-considered it is. But rather than be ourselves accused of intellectual arrogance, let us state clearly that there can be no doubt that the best and brightest of our nation, whether they still reside here or are abroad, have gone to all manner of schools in Guyana and have come from all backgrounds and from all social and economic strata.
Going to a good school alone does not, should not, automatically make a person believe that he or she is a member of an elite club. As another blogger, Josh Ragnauth, a self-identified QC old boy wrote, “to make extravagant claims serves no useful purpose.” We could not agree more. Perhaps QC old students are entitled to consider their educational experience special or even unique. But why should others be disqualified from thinking the same of their own experiences? And if one wishes to consider oneself unique, then one should at the same time recognise that unique status brings with it unique responsibilities.
In this regard, all QC students would do well to remember the meaning of their school’s Latin motto quoted by Mr Granger, ‘Fideles Ubique Utiles’ – ‘Faithful and useful everywhere.’ A QC education must be judged by the end product and the ongoing contribution of individuals to the betterment of their family, community and nation. Accomplishments should only really be judged according to their value to others. Rather than self-serving proclamations, one would expect of those privileged to have passed through QC’s hallowed halls, an enduring sense of service and humility.
Dr Roopnaraine put it all into context in his October speech, when he turned to Nelson Mandela for inspiration: “It is universally recognized that the central fact of Mandela’s life is his extraordinary humanity. In South Africa they call this ‘ubuntu,’ a sense that one’s uniqueness on earth is the quality of humanity one extends to others.” It is a lesson we should all heed.