A friend handed me a copy of The VOICE newspaper of 20th September 2025, which features a statement by Archbishop Gabriel Malzaire entitled “Lowering Standards is not the Way Forward for Our Schools.” It is presumed to be the official Church response to the Ministry of Education’s recently announced policy on student hair style.
In the statement, the archbishop argues that “what is being presented as progress, may, in fact, represent the lowering of standards…”
My friend was thoughtful to also furnish me with a later issue of The VOICE, dated 24th September, which carries a critique of the prelate’s pronouncements by eminent St. Lucian music artist and Goodwill Ambassador, His Excellency Taj Weekes.
For days after reading, and digesting the two articles, I was convinced the discussion merited a response from me; but I scarcely knew where or how to begin.
I do not know the archbishop very well, or personally—I have never met him though I have long postponed attempts to do so. But I have absolutely no doubt that the cleric is more than capable of speaking for himself and the Church, bearing in mind his training and experience and the fact that the Church has had years of involvement in educational administration in St. Lucia.
On the other hand, given Taj Weekes’ accolades, accomplishment and well-publicized commitment to advocacy and to advancing the cause of others, I certainly do not fancy engaging the ambassador in an expostulation over what he has written.
So, mulling over the prospect of a response, I picked up Anderson Reynolds’ book, They Called Him Brother George, last Sunday, and, as if led by Providence, I came to an essay by no other than the illustrious “Man of the Century”, Brother George Odlum (May he rest in peace) himself, titled, “The Impression of a First Communion—What is This Morality?” (p.203) In it, I found what I wanted to say, and much more.
But before fleshing out some of what I thought relevant takes from Bro. George, I wish to say what my initial thoughts , though somewhat nebulous, were VS Taj Weekes’ caustic comments:
1) The Church is not an entity dropped down from heaven, constituted of a leadership insulated against sin, the vicissitudes of flesh and blood, incapable of wrongdoing, pure and perfect for all seasons;
2) The Church has in several ways and at diverse times confessed its guilt and apologized for its misjudgment in those historic mistakes;
3) How long should the Church of today continue to carry the weight of the sins of its predecessors? How often have we complained of the Church’s silence on important national issues!
Do we really want to hear Her voice or not?
4) Is the discipline inculcated in Church-sponsored schools (like SMC, SJC and others) acceptable only when it produces results like Sir Derek Walcott and Sir Arthur Lewis, or even a Taj Weekes? Isn’t that being hypocritical as well?
In his remarks, ambassador Taj Weekes juxtaposes the two themes of discipline and morality, highlighting her record in such as slavery, colonialism, sex abuse, to question the Church’s authority and authenticity to offer advice, and rejects her “hollow sermons” on hair style, discipline and standards.
In referencing the Odlum article, I do not propose to burden the reader or the ambassador with all I consider a propos to this short response, but to cite here and there and invite readers and the ambassador to read the essay in toto, and be enlightened.
At parag. 3, Odlum writes: “Some see morality strictly in terms of the canon of behavior handed down by the Church to its followers according to the tenets of Christianity. Consequently, they lay blame for the collapse of morals squarely on the shoulders of the Church and its clergy…they ferret every clerical peccadillo (and the big ones too) to embarrass and demystify the Church…it is important (for the Church) to identify where it falls short, but we should not destroy the self-confidence and the intrinsic value of the Church as a custodian or moral authority in our anxiety to sensationalize its misdemeanors.”
In the subsequent section, Bro. George underscores the vital role of the Church to “inculcate in St. Lucan children a concept of what is right and what is wrong.” Significantly, he stresses that “the Church is not only the institution itself, comprising of a physical structure, its leader and band of clerics.” And a point which critics often seem to forget, or conveniently omit: “The Church is symbolized as much by its membership, its flock as by its shepherd…the Church is also heir to all the weaknesses and shortcomings of its members.”
So, if the Church erred in the past, or now, it is to admit that ERRARE EST HUMANUM—to err is human.
It has been highlighted earlier that the Church has at multiple times admitted guilt for historic miscalculations and offered public apologies to the world. (Of course, such apologies do not magically right years, decades, centuries of psychological and social damage; but to admit culpability is surely a good place to start.)
To constantly remind and harp at past offenses which in fairness, are not solely responsible for or present moral decline, indiscipline and crime, is to be un-progressive. Odlum’s prescriptions: Let the Church “cleanse itself by eschewing hypocrisy and cant. Be penitent for its peccadillos and assert its moral voice in unison with other elements of the society.”
The behavior of persons is not only a consequence of religious upbringing. Odlum notes, “The cultural influence is as dominant as the religious influence in shaping those norms.” (p. 205)
Needless to stress the intoxicating effect of cultural penetration by the television, cell phone, travel and frequent interaction with influencers from the North or Europe. And at risk of sounding too apologetic, I am swayed into positing that in our current mode of existence, we have more to fear or worry about in foreign influences dictating who we are/become than the age-old horrors of the Church.
In summary, Ambassador Taj Weekes’ reaction to what I consider not an unexpected assessment by the archbishop, is badly timed and is not helpful to the situation at hand. Crime is headachy; discipline is largely out of control; students exert “democratic rights” in the classroom as never before (sometimes to their own detriment); images of misconduct by counterparts in other jurisdictions are constantly in the face of locals via social media, teachers facing physical attack by 14-year-olds…
Liberalizing rules for hair style happens to be the topic of debate now. (Mind you, I am not opposed to the policy.) But when a Form 1 student blatantly refuses to produce “Home Work” on the grounds that “I just didn’t feel like doing it!” what recourse is there?
So I ask: are we to wait for the Church to come out AGAIN and issue a grand, universal apology for its misdemeanors of the past, instead of encouraging all hands to be on deck to confront head on what is before us?