Roedean rumpus no storm in a tennis court

The furore around the King David versus Roedean girls’ tennis match revealed so much about the nature of modern antisemitism, our experience of it, and our responsibilities as community members, leaders, parents, and students to tackle and confront it. 

King David has endured a painful history of overt antisemitism. Hitler salutes. Swastikas. Our students have faced these acts of intimidation and bigotry repeatedly during sports events over the years. So, what made this incident different? 

The answer lies in who the perpetrator was. 

In previous cases, the offenders were isolated individual students acting against the stated values of their schools. However reprehensible, these incidents could be attributed to an overzealous rugby player or an ill-informed teenager who was subsequently disciplined by a school. These moments, awful as they were, created opportunities for engagement and restorative justice. King David has worked alongside other schools to guide young offenders toward understanding and accountability. 

This situation is fundamentally different. This time, the offender is the institution itself. 

From public conversation between the two schools’ principals, one thing was unmistakably clear: the scheduled tennis fixture didn’t fall away because of prior school commitments or academic workshops. It fell away because, in the words of Roedean’s principal, “It’s presenting itself as a Jewish day school issue.” 

When a school, not a rogue student, refuses to play a tennis match against a Jewish school, there’s no explaining it away as anything other than institutional antisemitism. Roedean refused to play King David because it’s a Jewish school. That’s discrimination based on religion. 

What followed was even more troubling. Rather than acknowledge the incident, Roedean doubled down, asserting that the story was false. The implication was clear: the Jews were lying. This prompted a wave of online accusations that we were falsifying facts and “crying antisemitism”. 

The shameful justification that the boycott was supported because it was opposed to Zionism shows either malice or ignorance. Zionism is defined as the right of Jews to a homeland, based on legal, religious, and historical foundations. A right taken for granted by all other nation states including most of the Arab world. Further, there’s absolutely no call to humiliate South African children based on conflict happening thousands of miles away. 

A small number of media personalities were among those criticising our community and denying the very possibility that we could be discriminated against. It’s also noteworthy that a group of Jewish anti-Zionists jumped on the bandwagon, once again proving that they themselves have no concept of the difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. 

But here’s what needs to be said: Jewish students were excluded from a sporting event because they attend a Jewish school. Parents objected to their daughters competing against Jewish girls. The school administration facilitated that exclusion. These are documented facts. Calling this antisemitic isn’t hyperbole. It’s accuracy. 

Yet amid this darkness, we have witnessed remarkable support. Voices from across South African society: educators; community leaders; Roedean alumni; parents; and concerned citizens from within our community and outside, have stood with us, recognising that what happened crosses a line that our history has taught us never to cross again. This solidarity reminds us that we aren’t alone in defending the principles our Constitution guarantees: equality and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion, belief, or culture.