Oprah's school in South Africa

Photos

Oprah

see larger image

uploaded by davi.tv

• 

  uploaded by davi.tv | add comment

• 

  uploaded by gn_almeida | add comment

Undoubtedly noble and generous, but maybe such misplaced luxury and elitism sends the wrong message?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16396343/site/newsweek/

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/02/oprah.school.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

“I’d like to think I have as much good sense as I have money, so that’s a lot of good sense.”

- Oprah Winfrey

Maybe
you’ve heard the news that Oprah Winfrey has spent years planning an
exclusive girl’s academy in South Africa to help underprivileged
students overcome setbacks from the legacy of Apartheid. Similar to the
conversation some of us have had about Bill Gates, no doubt Oprah’s
recent enterprise is very impressive and kind. She has tremendous
resources and influence at her disposal (hailed as the “greatest black
philanthropist” by BusinessWeek), and she has often used them
for the betterment of the less fortunate in the USA and abroad.
However, I have some concerns that this lavish school may send the
wrong message to Africans about American intentions, perceptions, and
generosity.

In
2006 we witnessed a glut of celebrity attention to African issues and
adoptions of cute African children. While this has generally been a
positive effort (Clooney bringing the Darfur violence to the
mainstream, Brangelina spreading awareness about poverty and AIDS),
it’s kind of sad that America needs movie stars to teach them about
world crises, rather than the educated experts who have devoted their
entire lives to the cause. They have been screaming at the top of their
lungs for years about these problems, but few have listened before the
celebrity spotlight hit. Madonna even paid a Malawi father to give up
his child to her. Surely the kid will live a more comfortable life and
have better opportunities with the “Material Girl”, but paying off the
blood father is troubling to me. This was a child who had a family that
loved him, despite being motherless. There were many more needy orphans
who could have used the kindness. Of course Madonna has the right to
adopt whomever she pleases within the law, so that is her prerogative.

http://cbs5.com/entertainment/local_story_278004235.html

Regarding
Oprah’s school, she has spent $40 million to build and launch the Oprah
Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls. Black girls ages 12-13 are the
only ones eligible, enrollment is free, and Oprah hand picked the
inaugural 150-girl class out of an applicant pool of thousands. So that
is roughly $266,000 per student, versus $16,000 per student in the
District of Columbia, America’s most spendthrift school district.
Probably in much of Africa, grade schools receive less than $100 in
funding per child. Oprah also hand picked much of the uniforms,
accents, and décor of this school that resembles Club Med more than Ivy
League. Think Hogwart’s with a Martha Stewart makeover. 200-thread
count sheets, a yoga studio, china tableware, beauty salon, multiple
theaters, fireplaces in every building (it rarely drops below freezing
in Johannesburg), high tech devices galore, and walls covered with art.
How those amenities contribute to the education of a youngster is not
very clear. Surely it’s easier for kids to learn when they are happy,
comfortable, and surrounded by positivity. But for $40 million, I
wonder how many thousands more African kids could have been given
decent or above average schools compared to a ridiculously “lavish and
elitist” (Newsweek terminology) academy for 150 girls? In much of the
Third World, schoolchildren try to study with few supplies (often 10
kids share one book or set of photocopies), under-trained faculty, and
overcrowded shoddy buildings that often have no solid walls or climate
control. Sometimes families must be persuaded to let their children
even attend class because their labor is so valuable for subsistence
farming. Imagine if a million poor families received a $40 subsidy
while their children were off learning.

Surely
South Africa doesn’t want to bite Oprah’s hand that’s feeding them, and
we should recognize her tremendous accomplishment. She doesn’t have the
“obligation” to dispense her resources efficiently or according to
critical needs. She can make a billion-dollar school for ten African
girls if she wants to. The South African government had intended to
partner with Oprah during the building process, but pulled out when
Oprah wouldn’t compromise over design considerations and much criticism
arose that the school was too exclusive and opulent for a fairly poor
nation with major wealth distribution issues. For a school that is
intended to help the victims of Apartheid and promote equality, it’s
troubling that enrollment seems a bit discriminatory. In all of South
Africa, there must be a few poor white or minority girls who could
become the next Marie Curie or Indira Gandhi with a little help.

In
response to the criticism, Oprah said, “These girls deserve to be
surrounded by beauty… these girls have never been treated with
kindness. They’ve never been told that they are pretty… I wanted to
hear those things as a child.” Apparently no one told Oprah she was
pretty growing up, so she thinks that poor girls around the world need
that to become rich like her and the next generation of leaders? Does
she know for sure that these girls have never been treated kindly by
anyone else, ever, until Saint Oprah came along? Her school is a
“Leadership Academy”; is beauty a prerequisite for leadership? With
rhetoric like that, Oprah sounds more like Michael Jackson at Neverland
Ranch rather than a global philanthropist. Charity is not just about
exercising demons in the donor’s past. What about emphasizing academic
achievement, cultural exchange, and public service? Is it about her
showing off, or addressing the actual needs of South African
youngsters? I’m sure Oprah asked for local input during the building
process, but the end result is still shocking.

http://www.tvgasm.com/archives/miscellaneous_tv/002237.php

What
she considers to be kind gestures (by her wealthy American standards)
may not necessarily translate to South African culture (i.e. do poor
12-year-olds really need yoga?). After all, Oprah was the person who
gave ridiculous, individually tailored jewelry to her awestruck lady
friends during her Legend’s Ball (BTW, many of her guests could have
easily afforded the gifts themselves). She allowed the event to be
shamelessly publicized on TV, which cheapened her “generosity” into
what seemed to be a shallow Hollywood stunt. It’s like the old lady who
spoils her grandkids with equestrian lessons, Luis Vuitton, and PS3 for
Christmas, when what they really needed/wanted might be just a new pair
of jeans or a puppy. But these South African girls aren’t Mariah or
Angela Bassett. As many middle class suburban American families have
experienced, money can’t “buy” or substitute for real parenting and
education. Spoiling causes negative repercussions too. Maybe the kids
start behaving arrogantly with their peers because “Oprah picked them”,
value beauty over substance, or they shun their African traditions in
favor of American materialism (see the film “Spanglish”). In response
to the observation that the dorm closets are huge yet many of the girls
have few clothes, Oprah said, “It’s because they will have
something. We plan to give them a chance to earn money and buy things.
That’s the only way to teach them how to appreciate things.” Is that
what leadership is to her: the power to buy and appreciate things? Is
she merely making a school of little Oprahs? Is it more about publicity
than philanthropy?

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/tv/articles/0307oprah0308.html

All
girls can’t grow up to be Oprah (maybe 10% of the inaugural class might
become politicians, professors, or business executives if they’re
lucky), and there’s a reason why she’s a once-in-a-millennium figure. I
think girls and boys in any country should have the chance to pursue
their dreams without barriers, but we don’t live in a dream world.
There are harsh realities in South Africa that Oprah’s school won’t
solve, and maybe her emphasis on luxury and acquisition of “things”
makes matters worse. South African girls shouldn’t dress like Oprah,
talk like Oprah, think like Oprah, or live like Oprah. South Africans
should act like themselves, unless Oprah thinks that her way is
superior. She is a role model to them, but she is no Mandela or Tutu.
South Africa has its own specific issues that South Africans need to
learn to address, with America’s help (and not imposition). Oprah is
sending the message that celebrity Americans like her only care to
adopt cute black babies, teach others to follow our consumerist ways,
and maybe if you’re lucky, your daughter can attend an opulent school.
Is it still generosity when you give people stuff they don’t need/want,
stuff that is maybe even harmful/unhealthy to them? Well, I’m not sure
if a former beauty pageant queen and Tennessee State University
communications major should be expected to know much about Third World
education policy anyway. Maybe someone without a family of her own
shouldn’t delve into the daunting task of raising poor girls abroad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578521/Winfrey_Oprah.html

At
least the Gates Foundation is a funding conduit, and Bill Gates isn’t
so pretentious to think he knows how to solve problems single handedly
for the world’s poor. He funds the experts and organizations with great
ideas to effectively address those problems. He empowers the people who
can do the most good. He listens to the input of reputable sources and
doesn’t just do it his narrow way. And he seems to take great care to
make sure that the Foundation’s efforts do not cause harm or send the
wrong message along the way.

I
don’t know about Oprah though. For some wealthy people, it’s boring to
compete with each other for who has the grandest
yacht/estate/jewelry/car collection or who throws the most impressive
parties/weddings. It’s shallow, ostentatious, and offensive to the rest
of us who could really just use a little help with the rent. But they
have the money and they can spend it any way they like within the law.
Maybe now the celebrity trend is to see who can outdo the other on
“charity”. I hope they do it because they feel for the less fortunate
and want to make their lives better, and not just for good PR, ego, and
“buying” their way to Heaven. Some generous acts are more meaningful
than others, and raw cost is not necessarily the best measuring stick.
Roberto Clemente died while trying to help his native Puerto Rico
ravaged by natural disaster. Jerry Lewis has devoted more of his life
helping MDA kids than acting. Britney did a great service to the world
by divorcing K-Fed and limiting their progeny to two!

Ted
Turner may have wasted his billion given to the UN, but Warren Buffet’s
fortune is probably in very good hands at the Gates Foundation. All of
Oprah’s free car giveaways and opulent schools will serve to better the
lives of others less fortunate than she, but I think we get more “bang
for our buck” from Doctors without Borders or some religious outreach
organizations. And Oprah wouldn’t be so obscenely rich if it wasn’t for
the droves of stay at home American women who worship her and devotedly
peruse her media. For all of Bill Gates’ faults, he contributed
products to the world that improve our lives (he’s ruined some
lives/competitors too, but the pros probably outweigh the cons), and
his company’s growth has helped millions prosper (mostly people who
were already rich, but whatever). He has also used much of his massive
personal wealth for the betterment of others. Oprah has brought us her
weight issues, female drama every afternoon, shopping after hours at
Hermès Paris, James Frey’s lies, and insane Tom Cruise. But despite all
that, at least she’s much more generous than the Waltons.

It’s
true that Oprah has led a charmed life and overcame major suffering and
adversity to get where she is. Her story is awesome, but as any
brokerage house will tell you, past performance is no guarantee of
future returns. She has had major successes in her life, but this
school may not work out as well as she would hope. She says she doesn’t
care about the criticism and enjoys going overboard for the girls. But
this is a lot more than her pet project in decadence. She is playing
with the lives of hundreds of poor people in a fragile, developing
culture, just to fulfill a personal desire and play “mother” to poor
children. Her actions send messages and have consequences. Only
ignorance and foolish American hubris prevent us from acting more
responsibly with our power and resources. However, I’d rather have a
world with a giving Oprah in it than without. Though I wonder how much
better off Africa would be if Oprah’s billions were more strategically
redistributed to help the needy.

From Newsweek: [One girl] whispered in Oprah’s ear: “We are your daughters now.” Winfrey smiled.

What celebrity can compete with the adoption of 150 South African girls?