There was a Schools’ Challenge Quiz match between Kingston College (KC) and Campion College in March 2016. I was not present at the TVJ studio when the match was taped, but several persons have told me that the final score in the match turned on the pronunciation of the name “Absalom”, as given by KC in the buzzer section.

ENTER ABSALOM

ENTER ABSALOM

So, when I watched the match on television a few days after it had been taped at the studio, I listened as keenly as I could for the pronunciation. Would it be “Absalam”, which would be a Jamaican English version of the Biblical name? Or, would the quizmaster hesitate upon hearing KC’s presentation of the name? Would the question be passed over publicly to the judges for their deliberation?

Well, my eyes widened and my jaws dropped, as my ears listened. KC pronounced “Absalom” in the correct, Queen’s English style. The quizmaster did not hesitate — even for a nanosecond — in acknowledging that the answer was correct. No judges were asked by the quizmaster to exercise their judgment on the clear answer. KC said “Absalom”.

This prompted further inquiries into what had happened at the studio. Did the judges watch the match with the competing school’s coaches, and, say: “There you go — we heard “Absalam”? No, they did not. I was told that at the end of the match, after addressing various queries with the coaches, the TVJ authorities (including the judges) watched the tape away from the coaches, drew their conclusions, and then reported that they heard KC say “Absalam”.

NATURAL JUSTICE

NATURAL JUSTICE

The sequence of events also prompted thoughts about natural justice. If the result was to be changed to KC’s detriment on the basis of the pronunciation of a word, the issue of the pronunciation should have been brought to KC’s attention before a decision was taken.

I was also struck by the fact that when the match was shown on TVJ, there was no explanation concerning the revision of the scores at the end of the buzzer section. The quizmaster said that there had been a “careful review” and so the score had changed. This was inconsistent with what I had seen TVJ do in many other matches in recent times, when the quizmaster would dutifully — sometimes even boringly — read out all corrections to the score, presumably for reasons of transparency and for the avoidance of doubt.

WHAT DID KC SAY?

WHAT DID KC SAY?

To make assurance double sure about the pronunciation of “Absalom”, I listened to the tape several times. And, just in case my hearing is filled with purple and white glue, I asked others to join in: what did they hear? So far, everyone has heard “Absalom”, though several have said, “even if KC had said “Absalam” it would have been acceptable.

I have not been weighed down by the “even if” argument, valid though it could be. My view is that we should watch the ball. My question one is simple: what, as a matter of fact, did KC say? This is a straightforward, verifiable issue. The tape is available. We should hear from TVJ about this, I believe.

ENTER THE COACH

ENTER THE COACH

One of the KC coaches who was present at the studio when TVJ heard “Absalam”, took to

Facebook to complain. He was critical of TVJ, and conveyed his understandable sense of disappointment, sadness and even anger.

In response, TVJ has suspended KC from the Schools’ Challenge Quiz competition for two years, maintaining that the KC coach has brought the quiz into disrepute. So, my question two is this: how can TVJ ban a school for having a coach who was critical of TVJ’s conduct of the quiz?

There are several problems with the TVJ approach. These include:

TVJ’s actions, it seems to me, have the effect of suppressing freedom of speech. No coach will be inclined to criticise TVJ in the future, if the result is suspension of her or his school. This is what some media managers denote as a “chilling effect”. Media houses are normally keen on freedom of speech, and — let’s see — Section 13(3)(c) of the Jamaican Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression. At the same time, Section 13(3)(d) says that we all have the right “to seek, receive, distribute or disseminate information, opinions and ideas through any media”.

FAIR COMMENT

FAIR COMMENT

TVJ’s actions tend, at least, to ignore the fact that the coach was making a comment on a matter properly within his jurisdiction as a coach. In the context of defamation, the coach’s arguments were at very least classifiable as ‘comment’, or ‘fair comment’ on matters of importance. The coach would also have the defence of truth available to him, if this were a defamation case.

TVJ’s actions appear to ignore the fact that reasonable persons legitimately have concerns about the way TVJ conducted the KC-Campion match. The pronunciation of “Absalom” constituted the foundation of my concerns about the match, but the coach may have had other concerns as well. He was present at the studio and was entitled, as a citizen of Jamaica, as a coach, and as a person, to form and express a view on how TVJ conducted the match.

JUDGES’ REPORT?

JUDGES’ REPORT?

Still with respect to Absalom, TVJ may have taken the view that the judges’ decision, whether wrong or right, was final. But TVJ also said in a letter to KC that the Judges’ Report on the match was attached. No such report was attached. So, how should we interpret TVJ’s action? Not to put too fine a point on the issue, this is the type of thing that could well bring a competition into disrepute. It begs the questions: what did the Judges’ Report say, and why has this not been shown to KC? Of course, it should also be shown to Campion, as a matter of fairness. Then both schools can compare what they have on tape with what the judges heard.

Quaco’s shirt

Quaco’s shirt

Even if, by some misconceived approach, we assume that the coach was wrong to criticise TVJ, the punishment meted out has gone in the wrong direction. It is misdirected because it does not apply to the coach. Rather, it applies to the KC schoolboys who would like to take part in the quiz this year. They have done nothing wrong, and are paying the price for something about which they know precious little. The

Facebook posts were not sent by any school students.

The misdirection of the punishment has the flavour of ‘catching Quaco’s shirt’ in lieu of the owner thereof. The coach has done something that TVJ incorrectly perceives to have brought the competition into disrepute. They punish the school’s team. Why?

DISPROPORTIONALITY

DISPROPORTIONALITY

Not only does the punishment seem misdirected, it also appears to be disproportionate. Assume, again only for the sake of argument, that the coach has done something wrong in criticising TVJ. By what calculation does a critique of TVJ give rise to two years’ suspension? What are the sentencing guidelines which prompted a two-year suspension for “

Facebook posts”? Elementary principles of law should tell TVJ that there must be some relationship between the problem and the punishment. And if not law, then Gilbert and Sullivan: “My object all sublime… To let the punishment fit the crime” (The Mikado).

VAGUE LANGUAGE

VAGUE LANGUAGE

In its defence, TVJ may say that the Schools’ Challenge Quiz rules talk about punishing persons for bringing the quiz into disrepute. This, however, is rather vague language; vague to the point that the coach could not reasonably have realised that, by making his views known to his

Facebook friends, he would have set in train the suspension of the school.

TVJ, it seems, has not entered into an exchange with the coach about what he meant in his

Facebook posts. Nor have they given him the opportunity to justify his position. So, from all appearances, he has not been granted natural justice rights. He has reason to feel aggrieved by this treatment, for there are people who will ‘blame’ him for the suspension when, in fact, he has not been allowed to defend himself before TVJ.

TVJ, it seems, suspended KC without allowing KC to have an appointed lawyer represent the school at a hearing. On the face of things, this also has an appearance of arbitrariness.

UNFAIR, UNFAIR

UNFAIR, UNFAIR

On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I have reached the conclusion that TVJ has treated Kingston College unfairly. I call on TVJ, once again, to do the right thing.

They need to indicate that they were in error when they maintained that KC said “Absalam” instead of “Absalom”, and they need to reinstate Kingston College to the quiz competition without any suspension.

I take this position not because I am a KC Old Boy, nor because I am seeking to project any KC sense of special entitlement or exceptionalism. My position is simply that TVJ must know when it is in the wrong, and it must acknowledge that this is one such instance.

Finally, in a recent radio programme, someone asked, why would this matter to a person in Timbuktu? In part, the answer given was that this is a question of justice, and that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

I share this view. I would add that if someone says “Absalom” was mispronounced as “Absalam” and that a school is told that it was wrong when it was right, we should all be concerned about this — whether or not we are in Timbuktu.

Stephen Vasciannie CD is professor of international law at the University of the West Indies, and a former Jamaican ambassador to the USA and the OAS. He recalls watching the JBC Schools’ Challenge Quiz in 1969.