By 
The Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) was set up in 2002 and as stated on its website, it’s a non-political body established to promote ‘ethnic harmony and security’ in Guyana. It even lists 24 functions there, the first three are:
- Provide for equality of opportunity between persons of different ethnic groups and to promote harmony and good relations between such persons.
- Promote the elimination of all forms of discrimination on the basis of ethnicity.
- Discourage and prohibit persons, institutions, political parties and associates from indulging in, advocating or promoting discriminatory practices on the ground of ethnicity.
So, is the Ethnic Relations Commission biased or not? Well, people have their own opinions on that and some base these opinions on their personal experiences with this entity. Some see it as a beacon of fairness and a place to mediate and resolve disputes arising between persons where the issue of discrimination including racism is cited. Others believe the ERC itself is biased.
This post is about my experience with this entity. I was forced to complain to the Ethnic Relations Commission as a last resort about a workplace matter after officials from the Ministry of Education (MoE) refused to help me.
In fact, based on numerous experiences I can say that racism and other forms of discrimination are condoned due to the unwillingness of officials to get involved in matters between Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese, especially in instances where they and the person(s) who the complaint is against are of the same ethnicity.
Classism, racism, favouritism or just plain laziness?
A number of incidents occurred at my former workplace over a period of years where I felt I was targeted and unfairly treated because of my ethnicity (Indo-Guyanese) and although I complained to education officials such as the Secondary Officer (Ms Tiffany Harvey then Mr Loren Park) and Regional Education Officer, Ms Tiffany Harvey I was ignored and my complaints swept under the carpet. All I actually wanted from these so-called impartial people was to be listened to and treated fairly but like corruption, classism, nepotism and other ‘societal cancers’, partiality and discrimination join a long list of issues ingrained in Guyanese society that contribute to its underdevelopment and division.
And it’s not just on issues of discrimination, it’s like people with power and authority go to work and sit all day in a chair doing nothing productive or even what’s listed in their job description and they are more than content to be that way. And the issue doesn’t need to be complex, even insignificant everyday problems get blown out of proportion and become giant messes because of the lack of will to act, corruption, favouritism, classism and/or racism.
For instance, just to get my neighbour who has a rum shop (bar) to stop burning all the garbage from that business which was affecting my health on a daily basis I had to complain to the NDC, RDC, Local govt, EPA and Media and still it was a long process which took years. Only when I went to the media did my situation improve through exposure. One day, a worker from the NDC even came when the man was burning and tried to convince me that the smoke was travelling in a straight line upwards, that when garbage burns it completely disappears from the face of the earth and that breathing in smoke has no impact on one’s health!
The workplace issues
A particular situation prompted me to complain to the ERC. The headteacher of the school, Ms Cindy Cooper-Crandon was hindering my professional growth and the officials I approached at the Department of Education (Region 4) and Ministry of Education showed no interest in helping me. All that was required by them was to make a simple phone call to the headteacher who was their subordinate.
After being in the teaching profession for quite a number of years I decided to pursue a one-year course in the education faculty in my own time (weekend) and using my own funds. However, on completion, I would have been entitled to a status/designation ‘upgrade’ at my workplace because the programme is recognised by the MoE as a teachers’ professional improvement programme.
From the onset, the Headteacher (HM) was uncooperative in assisting me with very simple requests related to my training although it was her duty as administrator. She became emboldened to act unprofessionally continuously because the education officials condoned her behaviour despite numerous complaints that they refused to address.
Blatant discrimination on display
When I applied to do the course at the University of Guyana, I was asked to submit a letter from my workplace stating that I was stationed there as an educator. Normally, job letters would be procured from the personnel department at the RDC however, personal information such as salary scale and years employed were not needed by the university.
I asked the secretary of the school for the required letter and for almost 2 weeks she made excuses for not doing such a simple task, then she said the HM wanted to see me.
I was asked by the HM why I wanted the letter and I explained to her that the university required it for a programme I was interested in doing. The HM refused to give me the letter and made up some silly excuses. I was forced to visit the Ministry of Education on Brickdam, where I spoke with a female official who advised me to request the letter from the personnel dept. Although she was helpful, she failed to question the HM via a simple phone call about her unprofessional and biased behaviour (an Afro-Guyanese teacher, new to the profession had just completed the same programme without encountering problems from the HM, in fact, he was congratulated in a staff meeting) thereby condoning her actions and allowing her to continue with her despicable behaviour.
So, I was admitted to the UG programme and placed in the subject area that is related to my undergraduate degree. Normally, for education programmes, teachers would have to at least be teaching one class the same subject they are doing at the postgraduate level to facilitate (practicum) visits by the lecturer. Again, the HM tried to sabotage my training by not allowing me to teach a particular subject(s) I had specialised in! In that department, apart from the Head of Department (HoD) the other teachers only had CSEC qualifications. Furthermore, the HoD’s wife was in his dept. and I was more qualified than her. The HM had no problem with the conflict of interest or the issue of hierarchy when it suited her.
Luckily for me, the lecturer was understanding and told me to just ‘borrow’ a class when I was scheduled for practicum evaluation. My studies continued uneventfully until near the end when I had to undertake my practicum, again the HM tried her very best to put up hurdles.
I asked a teacher to lend me her class for just a few periods one afternoon; I was going to teach the same topic she had scheduled with her class and she agreed, the HoD was also informed. Usually, when a lecturer visits the school for a practicum, teachers would assist their colleague in ensuring that her class is not disturbed by other classes and the area is comfortable. I asked to use a vacant room and the HM refused to facilitate me although other teachers would often take their students to that room when they wanted to minimise noise disturbance from other classes (open plan school).
I informed the HM of the lecturer’s visit that day in the morning. In the afternoon when the lecturer came, I was forced to do my practicum in the middle of the school surrounded by classes without teachers. The HM although present in the school did not send anyone to those classes nor try to keep the noise level down. The children I was teaching, however, were very attentive and my practicum was going well. The HM observed this and then proceeded to enter my class and engage in a ‘conversation’ with my lecturer. She was not supposed to do this and knew as an administrator that it was unprofessional.
Towards the end of my practicum, the lecturer became agitated and didn’t give me any feedback. Later she called and was quite annoyed; she was critical of the HM’s behaviour and wanted to report her to the education officer. She said the HM was criticising me and the noise from the other classes affected her. She further related that she wanted to give me a lower grade because of that but after a discussion with her HoD at the UG, she realised I had no control over these things so instead I would have to redo my practicum at another school since she refused to return to my workplace. About two weeks later (I believe) I was able to redo my practicum successfully at another school after meeting with the HM of that school. I was forced to use my personal leave.
The long road to getting my ‘mandatory letter’
Finally, after a full academic year (3 semesters) I completed the course and was now eligible to apply for an ‘upgrade’ in professional designation. I went to the personnel department at the Ministry of Education (Brickdam) and was told that for them ‘to process’ my upgrade I needed a letter from the HM stating that I did not attend classes when I was scheduled to teach at the school. I informed the personnel officers that my classes were held on Saturdays only and I was not required to work on weekends; my work schedule was Monday – Friday, 8:15 – 14:45. They said that they were aware that postgraduate programmes are taught on weekends however I still needed the letter from the HM!
In November 2019, I wrote to the HM requesting this official letter that the personnel dept. needed. I tried to give her the letter in her office but she refused to take it although I explained what I wanted and she even made a silly comment about not being my HM.
Again, I went to the personnel dept. and informed them that the HM refused to give me this letter. They said that it was her duty and I still had to produce the letter. I visited the office of the Chief Education Officer and spoke with the same technical officer I had approached when the HM refused to give me a job letter. She also knew that the programme was done on weekends and right there called a ‘VIP’ from MoE. She told me that the letter wasn’t necessary and my upgrade would be processed and like in the previous episode she failed to address the unprofessional and discriminatory behaviour of the HM.
Later that month, I returned to the personnel dept. with the expectation that my upgrade had been finalised. Lo and behold I was told once more that the letter from the HM was still needed regardless of what the ‘VIP’ said. Those people gave me the royal run around instead of simply calling the HM and instructing her to give me what I needed. I even wrote to the Regional Education Officer, Chief Education Officer and Teachers’ Union informing them of the issue however, I never received a response. Apart from an upgrade in designation, I was entitled to a small increase in salary.
After becoming very frustrated at not receiving any assistance from the relevant officials and the letter nowhere in sight, in July 2020 I informed the Head of Personnel that I was going to write to the Ethnic Relations Commission; he said nothing.
The Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC)
I called the ERC and spoke with an investigator who asked me to write a letter addressed to the Chairman outlining my issues. In July 2020 I visited the ERC and gave the investigator, Mr Smith (not the chairman) my letter. In his office, he still asked me to describe the issues again and while I spoke, he wrote my ‘statement’ on sheets of paper which he then read to me and asked me to sign. Copies of my letter that I took to the ERC were sent to the GTU, Ministry of Education (CEO), Regional Education Officer, Human Resource Manager (MoE) and the Headteacher whom the complaint was about. I never received a response from any of these parties.
(My official complaint to the ERC. Copies to the relevant officials/entities were either hand delivered or sent via registered mail.)
The investigator informed me that he would write to the HM. So, weeks went by and I was told that she hadn’t responded as yet to my allegations. At one point he even requested my lecturer’s number which I gave him. He spoke with her but I do not know what transpired. Then in September 2020 I was asked to visit the ERC again. There I was shown a letter that the HM sent. It was the long-requested letter I needed to upgrade my status.
I felt that I was expected to be thankful but what was there to be thankful for? As the Headteacher of the school where I worked, it was her duty to provide me with the requested letter. Even at the Ministry of Education or Department of Education that caters to so many teachers country/region-wide a request for a job letter would take at most a few days or even the same day to be granted. I had to wait 10 months, in addition, to wasting my time and money visiting various places and enduring emotional trauma from not getting assistance from the MoE and being openly discriminated against.
I pointed out to the investigator that I had requested the letter in writing since November 2019. He asked to see proof and I showed him; the HM had refused to accept my letter. He asked to keep it and I declined because it was the original letter however, I told him he can make a copy which he did. Furthermore, the HM apparently never visited the ERC nor responded in writing to the allegations I made against her.
Is the Ethnic Relations Commission biased?
That same month, the investigator called me and requested that I visit the Ethnic Relations Commission as soon as possible; I was not told why my presence was needed. When I arrived he informed me that the HM sent a (very thick) file with numerous allegations against me; I was not allowed to touch nor read these. Then, without missing a beat this man proceeded to read the documents and asked me to respond to the allegations. He wrote down my response on sheets of paper.
These people are experts at manipulation. First of all, he did not inform me of the reasons why I had to see him so I was unprepared. Then as soon as I got to the building I was told to sit and asked right there to respond to some allegations which the investigator immediately recorded. I was not given even a few minutes to really process what was going on or examine the documents he had and I was never sent copies. A similar scenario occurred years ago at The Ministry of Public Service.
The allegations this man demanded that I respond to had absolutely nothing to do with the Ethnic Relations Commission or discrimination and they weren’t the HM’s response to my allegations against her in my letter to the ERC for which she received a copy via registered mail.
For instance, he read a document which alleged that in 2013 I did not stay for a meeting at the school (another person was the HM at the time). After, he read two other documents and while getting out the ‘fourth complaint’ a fumigation team entered the office and informed us that we had to vacate the premises immediately.
When I got home and really thought about what had happened, I realised that the entire scenario made no sense and I’d been easily manipulated by Mr Smith. Apart from the absurdity of it all, non-relevance to the ERC and the breaches which occurred there exist logical explanations for these ‘allegations’. If I missed a meeting it could have been because the meeting was after school hours which sometimes happens and maybe I had something already scheduled that I needed to attend to.
Within a few days, Mr Smith called me and requested that I return to the ERC to respond to the allegations against me. I had already concluded that the situation was illogical. I told him it made no sense and I would not visit him for that. I can’t remember what were his exact words but he said something to the effect that if I did not respond to the allegations, he would take further steps in the matter which would be to my detriment. I informed him that I had some reservations about this new situation and that I’d write personally to the Commissioners of the Ethnic Relations Commission.
The major issues with this new circus were whether the ERC had the right to be in possession of my employment file and did the HM of the school receive permission from the Ministry/Department of Education to hand it over. On top of that, there are procedures that needed to be followed. For instance, copies of my letters to the ERC were sent personally by me to the HM, union, MoE etc., but I never received any copies of what the HM sent to the ERC. Also, my file was stored in the HM’s office and I never saw the contents.
If the HM made a written complaint against me or placed any document in my file then she was required to give me a copy and allow a written response/defence which would have been placed in my file. Due to the fact, that the HM had full control of my file I believe she stuffed it with fictitious allegations against me. I’d never received copies of the three documents that were read by Mr Smith. And although I requested in writing to view my file from the relevant education officials I never received a response.
My reservations
I wrote to the Commissioners of the Ethnic Relations Commission on 30th September 2020, and copies of this letter were sent or personally delivered to the Headteacher, Regional Education Officer, ACEO (Ministry of Education) and the Guyana Teachers’ Union.
A section of it is below with my queries. I never received any response from the mentioned parties except the ERC; their response was a very short letter from the investigator stating that he would investigate my concerns. This was also the final communication from the ERC.
Ms Crandon did not send a letter to the ERC. She offered no explanation for denying me the requested letter or defended her behaviour towards me but chose to breach the trust placed in her by sending confidential documents from my file which has nothing to do with the complaint at the ERC.
I need clarification on the following concerns:
- Did the Ethnic Relations Commission request in writing documents of a disciplinary nature from my school file?
- Did the headteacher, Ms. Crandon receive authorization from the relevant education officials to share personal and confidential documents from my file which deals with school matters with a commission that is not under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education?
- What is the Ministry of Education policy regarding teachers’ confidential information placed in the care of school administrators?
- What disciplinary action will the relevant education officials take against Ms. Crandon for abusing her power and authority by sharing confidential documents placed in her care?
The ethnic makeup of the Ethnic Relations Commission investigative team
Anyone who lives in Guyana, is Guyanese or is familiar with issues affecting Guyana would be aware of the fact that the racial tensions in the country are primarily between the two largest ethnic groups, Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese.
We have a commission that was set up to address complaints of discrimination and at the same time promote racial unity and harmony however, it opens up itself to claims of bias whether perceived or real. On all occasions when I visited the ERC the investigators, I saw were of one ethnicity, Afro-Guyanese.
The Ethnic Relations Commission’s verdict
My original complaint is almost two years old. I don’t know if the ERC deems it concluded or it’s still ongoing. The last letter I received from them was in October 2020 and it stated that the breach of confidentiality by the Headteacher would be looked into.
Everything I have outlined is what I experienced. I don’t know what the conclusions of the ERC are or if the HM ever wrote them personally apart from sending this entity my personnel file that was stored in her office at the school.
The Ministry of Education
To begin with, the Ministry of Education to the best of my knowledge did absolutely nothing to address the unprofessional and biased behaviour of the headteacher. I believe that a simple phone call from an education official to the headteacher would have solved the problem from the inception. What was so hard there?
Due to the MoE officers’ inability to exercise their authority over a subordinate I was forced to seek the assistance of the Ethnic Relations Commission as a last resort. Also, the headteacher’s unprofessional and discriminatory behaviour was encouraged and condoned because the education officials failed to address these simple matters that were brought to their attention. Their failure to address the concerns of a junior employee could even be construed as bias or classist behaviour.
Barriers to becoming a trained teacher
The Ministry of Education and other related entities would often mention teachers’ training and professional development programmes as if any teacher can undertake these and there are no barriers in the workplace.
I spent years in the profession and just to become a trained teacher I faced so many hurdles at the workplace and with the Ministry of Education as outlined in this post that the last resort for me was to complain to the Ethnic Relations Commission!
Discrimination in the workplace is very real and serves as a deterrent to teachers remaining in the profession. Although I obtained a degree since 2007, I spent many pointless and stagnant years in the teaching profession. I had no motivation to seek professional development, there were barriers to seeking professional development and due to the unwillingness of education officials to address my concerns of constant discrimination and emotional abuse in the workplace, I very often thought of leaving the job and never felt settled in the profession.
Was it all in my head?
Being in a toxic work environment for a long period and not having your concerns addressed by those in authority can make you question your own reality and reaction; and have you doubting yourself about whether you or they are really the problem. Some people are so skilled at manipulation and gaslighting others that they may not even be conscious that they are doing it and worse yet when their behaviour is condoned.
My University of Guyana lecturer, who was totally unknown to me before I commenced her course was an outsider to the ‘school situation’. After her only visit to the school to assess my practicum, she was very upset and there was more to that than just her wanting to report the headteacher’s behaviour to the education officer. The next time I had classes at the UG, she came to the door and called me out of my psychology class. She had me seated in her office for almost 2 hours and encouraged me to resign from my job if I couldn’t get a transfer because according to her she couldn’t work in such an environment and I needed to take care of my mental health. She was livid about the entire situation and considered the workplace too toxic plus she vowed never to return from just spending a few hours at that school; I spent years. She even told me a story about a relative who had a very good job as a bank manager and then one day just quit and took up a job as a security guard in another country. She said all the relatives thought this woman was crazy but she has been at the same job for many years and apparently really enjoys it.
So, it was not all in my head and I have a lot of proof by way of letters which I sent to education officials including the union over the years highlighting my issues yet never getting a fair hearing.
