The jaunt of the quixotic.

ABOUT

ENT RIES

TAGBOARD

LINK S

Music saves our souls

Congratulations! You have staggered upon this deleterious blog, and there's no way out.

Kidding. :) Teehee.

Welcome to the-archegonium.blogspot.com. This weblog is created to nest my Socio 10 journal entries. :) Readers are most encouraged to critique and comment.

All of the posts here are from my tortuous brain, unless otherwise stated.

Frisk and frolic through the navigations up there. .
About, Entries, Tagboard and Links

Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 1:28 AM

Third Post

On Academic Freedom

Students of the University of the Philippines are incessantly being stereotyped as activists –the people who urge rallies, spur campaigns, and fight for numerous advocacies. The grounds for this typecast, almost certainly, is that the UP is brought up as a free society. There is never a slur in religion, race, gender, cultural minority, or belief. Everyone is outwardly encouraged to voice out opinions, express own viewpoints, and battle for what is right.

One can ostensibly conclude that the university abides on the merit of academic freedom –the belief that the liberty of query and proposition of the faculty and students are of significance to the objective of the university. Being long considered as an unbound environment, it is quite easy to arrive at the assumption that it practices the virtue of the believed institutional autonomy. Yet, there are present arguments concerning the seeming desertion of the essence of the said belief.

Very recently, a forum was initiated to confer about issues involving the somewhat baffling ‘academic freedom’. “Striking a Balance: Excellence, Autonomy, and Freedom in the Academe” was held on July 9, 2009 at the Claro M. Recto Hall, in the Faculty Center building. The discussion embarked upon the topics of academic freedom and faculty tenure, focusing on the case of Professor Sarah Raymundo.

The said event was deliberately facilitated by credible speakers, and as I entered the forum venue, UP Faculty Ms. Judy Taguiwalo was the one addressing the issues. She emphasized on defining absolute academic freedom, and how this institutional autonomy influence the individual freedom of the faculty and students. She classified this liberty in the academe into two –the individual and group freedom. I conclude that this classification applies on students, as she stated concisely about how the academic freedom affects teachers –professors may teach what they want to teach.

Institutional autonomy, as per Ms. Taguiwalo, is the enjoyment of liberty with respect to human rights. Self-governance is a vital component on this academic form of independence. In connection, she also mentioned on how the professors and the student body are subjected to political pressure, and thus, being repressed of the academic freedom.

From her terse description, I was able to connect the issue to the present situation in the campus. I can perceive the individual freedom through the previous mentioned liberty in expressing oneself, in the same way, I can observe the group autonomy, as seen through the active involvement of cultural and academic organizations inside UP. I greatly concur to the contribution of political pressure in suppression of the said independence in the academe. The government system somewhat affects the freedom of the university; one way is through the implementation of laws concerning the higher educational system.

Ms. Judy Taguiwalo also discussed about the situation of a probationary faculty. She stated that a faculty is allotted a certain probation period so that the faculty board can assess his/her professional competence. The provision of the said period is also for the faculty’s maintenance of professional standards. During the probation stage, the provisional faculty is given the right to know the reasons of the probation, the privilege to appeal, and to obtain recommendations from the authoritative board. This allocation of time is, I perceive, an indispensable part in the process of giving tenure. However, I cannot at all comprehend the difference between a faculty without tenure, and a probationary faculty. I merely assume that the probationary period is a process or a transition stage in the furnishing of tenure.

In Ms. Taguiwalo’s address, she cited the situation of a certain Professor Salazar that ensued back in 2005. She stated that this Prof. Salazar pleaded for tenure, but was denied by the board due to “no sufficient reason to tenure”. Ms. Taguiwalo explained that the weight given to his/her collegiality and professionalism outweighed his/her academic credentials (Her academic credentials include: being sent to work abroad with pay, noticeable rising salary, and excellent recommendations from the senior). The denial of tenure was vindicated through his/her “unethical acts” in her stay.

After elucidating the condition of Professor Salazar as example, Professor Taguiwalo gave concise details on the procedure of handing a tenure to a faculty. She declared that a faculty should be given a notification for tenure. He/ She should be informed of the qualified basis for his/her tenure in a written notification in compliance to value criteria. The board that holds the pronouncement of the faculty’s tenure should observe rights and transparency while examining possible options for tenure. The decision is finally declared in a meeting between the board and the faculty member concerned.

By giving a concrete example similar to the concurrent issue, I was able to have a broader understanding of the process of bequeathing tenure. The only major setback for me was the seeming lack of extensive evidence in Prof. Salazar’s denial of tenure. Ms. Taguiwalo did not utterly reveal what “unethical acts” the professor committed. Also, I cannot give justice to how Prof. Salazar was deprived of tenure when, as Professor Judy Taguiwalo asserted, the board shall be of transparency (I perceived that the indicated “unethical acts” was not much of a big deal compared to the impressive credentials).

Professor Judy Taguiwalo ended her commencing address mentioning how to attain Institutional Balance, in its institution sense and individual sense, by theory and practice in the university. She stressed that the forum (Striking a Balance) depicted how the Institutional Balance is not achieved in University of the Philippines (evidently in connection with the forum’s issues).

The next speaker was Professor Ramon Guillermo, the president of All UP Academic Employees Union. He discussed the responsibility of the union with regards to the issue. He pronounced that the union has the duty to construct discussions concerning issues in transparency, academic freedom, and the due process for tenure. He distinguished between an excellent department and a lousy department, with referral to the tenure matter. A set of faculty that has “no tenure” is considered lousy, as per Dr. Guillermo, considering that this department’s faculty doesn’t formally abide in any rules concerning tenure. He quoted that many of the rules or guidelines are already “on paper”, and the current predicament just revolves on the implementations of these regulations relating to the tenure process.

Dr. Ramon Guillermo highlighted the grievance committee/procedure in correlation with the process of tenure. He explained that grievances are essential as they are the faculty’s means of expressing discontentment with their work. He noted two kinds of grievances –the economic and non-economic grievance. The aspect of tenure, which falls under the non-economic type, gives all the employees the right to submit grievances or complaints. The individual concerned may submit his/her objection either by himself or through an authorized representative.

Professor Guillermo stated that members of the academe, together with the union, must fight for justice and peace inside the academe. The statement seemed slightly perfunctory and overrated, but I primarily supposed that mentioning the union’s stand in support of the issue is a very crucial thing. I commend on how he described the departments with the notable distinction of a lousy and an excellent department involving tenure. His highlight on the grievance procedure is also an eye-opening declaration in my opinion as I was not previously aware that employees and faculty are given this said right. His talk about the grievances somewhat influenced my view towards the academic freedom inside UP. My outlook on the faculty’s freedom became lighter to some extent as I was made conscious that there exists a certain right reserved for the faculty’s negative concerns.

After Dr. Guillermo’s stirring discourse, the forum then converged on the focal apprehension of the students and faculty –the justice and tenure issue concerning Professor Sarah Raymundo. The first thing that can be manifested when entering the C.M. Recto hall was the huge streamers (“Tenyur para kay Prof. Raymundo”) prepared by CONTEND-UP (Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy) . Through these streamers, one can immediately perceive that the fretful educators were really pugnacious towards the matter. I was not personally in attendance when Prof. Raymundo delivered her controversial stand on the problem. Nevertheless, I am more than willing to impart my views and rants based on my research on her state of affairs.

Professor Sarah Raymundo, after nine tedious years as faculty in the Department of Sociology, applied for tenure last February 2008. Because of her laudable academic credentials (which includes publishing articles and researches to her name, being invited to address and partake in certain colloquia locally and internationally, working towards the actualization of academic excellence and social responsibility as an educator, and more) Ms. Raymundo, her colleagues, and her beloved students felt assured of the conceding of her tenure. However, they were stunned in awe as on November of the same year, she was verbally informed the denial for her application for tenure. She was then advised to abstain from meeting her classes until a given notice.

Prof. Raymundo’s active commitment and association as General Secretary of the Congress in CONTEND-UP, together with her dynamic involvement in AUPAEU and in Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT), were the commonly regarded bases for the denial of her tenure. CONTEND-UP’s view scrutinizes the lack of transparency in the tenure process and the taking part of political repression and suppression of democratic rights.

If I may say so, I was first blinded by her academic achievements as I have found them very praiseworthy. I ought to believe that she, as an educator, correctly portrayed the values inherent to the university from the fact that she exerted efforts towards building a foundation of academic excellence and depicting awareness of social responsibility. This is quite inevitable after almost a decade of teaching in the academe, but still, her credentials are of deserving acclaim.

I feel that there shall be no consequence along with the denial of tenure (as the denial is bad enough). In Professor Raymundo’s case, aside from the non-granting of the essential right, she was also requested to refrain from teaching in her classes. I perceive no logical reason on the act as it was easy to presume that she is a fine professor (through her students’ and colleagues’ recommendations, and her outstanding qualifications).

My final and key concern about Ms. Raymundo’s instance is indeed, the lack of transparency in the decision. The Department of Sociology never formally declared their reasons for the denial since they only notified the professor verbally. I strongly believe that the generally regarded bases (being a member of CONTEND-UP, AUPAEU, and ACT) are the actual grounds for the refusal. I recognize that her department might have been timorous and worried that she, with her connections in the repellent faculty organizations, will sooner or later establish a revolt or an alliance towards the department. Otherwise, I sense that her case might have been of biased influences within the faculty board.

Whatever may perhaps the reasons be, the matter still gyrates on the absence of transparency. Hence, Professor Sarah Raymundo’s case can be deemed upon as a rebuttal of the “academic freedom” gist in the university. Her situation merely portrays the stand of political influence and the suppression of democratic revolt. For now, I yearn that they reconsider Ms. Raymundo’s plead without putting greater weight on her affiliations.

TOTAL NUMBER OF WORDS: 1, 886

The Quixotic

The Lair