More than grandiose vision papers and long lists of achievements, the Diliman chancellor must be weighed according to his/her principles and track record, not as the supposed ruler of the Diliman republic, but as the humble servant of his/her constituents.

The university during the past decades has been administered through sheer complicity to iniquitous state agendas. In Diliman, particularly, UP’s constituents, composed of the students and faculty as well as members of the community, have been gradually alienated because of various policies implemented in line with the said prescriptions. Administrators, as such, instead of reaffirming the role of UP as the university of the people, merely serve as conduits to the realignment of UP from a state to a private institution.

Dr. Sergio Cao’s term did not result in any tangible measures that would assert the welfare of the UP community. It is disheartening to note that his vision paper – revolving around the thrust towards an “excellent” university – student rights and welfare appeared merely as a footnote with motherhood prescriptions. Excellence, indeed, is an ideal that must be constantly recalled. The question that must be addressed, however, is towards what end and to whose benefit? And through what measures shall we pursue such ideal?

A glimpse of Cao’s term will reveal his failures in working as a servant of the UP community. During the campaign for the tuition increase, he merely served as the mouthpiece of the Roman administration, unmindful of the opposition from the ranks of the students and faculty. It was as if he was Diliman’s sovereign, adopting any policy that rendered expedient the agenda to commercialize UP education.

Cao’s term as chancellor also oversaw the displacement of UP communities, which he even regarded as an achievement in the paper he submitted during his campaign for another term. During the course of his chancellorship, around 200 janitors lost their jobs due to the hiring of a private agency. During the campaign for the tuition increase, meanwhile, the Collegian itself experienced its longest hiatus because of skewed provisions in a new procurement law. Cao did not defend the publication, but instead emerged as the vanguard of twisted interpretations of the said law. It was during his term, moreover, that the “no ID, no entry” policy as well as the 10 pm curfew was adopted.

Diliman, during Cao’s term, has indeed undergone major changes. These changes, however, prove to be mere masks concealing the regression of Diliman into an enclosed campus, alienating the community and the people the unversity is purported to serve.

The alternative to Cao, however, is equally subservient to lopsided government agendas. Dr. Maria Serena Diokno, another candidate for the chancellorship, was behind the implementation of the Revitalized General Education Program which transformed the university’s curriculum to simulate the dynamics of the market, pushing core subjects such as Philippine history to the peripheries of the students’ imagination.
She, however, would be the least likely to become the next chancellor after submitting a counter proposal to the Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program adopted by the Roman administration. Diokno, as such, only has one advantage: the benefit of the doubt.

The selection of the next Diliman chancellor is certainly not in our hands right now because of the elitist structure of the administration. It will be up to the Board of Regents to decide next week. But let us define our position. We do not need an apologist of the state as Diliman chancellor. What we need is someone subservient only to one principle – service to the people. It is under such principle that we must attune the capacity of the university towards excellence and integrity.

Marked Silence
The renewed calls for Gloria Arroyo’s resignation has possibly reached the most intense volume. UP, however, has remained silent.

Universities such as La Salle, Ateneo, and Miriam have already drawn the line in light of Jun Lozada’s exposes on the ZTE scandal. Civil society groups and Church institutions have also bannered the call. Everytime, when we tune in on the news, we always half expect UP as an institution to engage the tumult.

Thus, this is a challenge posed to the Roman administration.

We call on the administration to define its stand. Students and various institutions in the university such as the College of Law have already registered their disgust and condemnation. The call for Arroyo to vacate the presidency have already spanned years in the avenues of the university. If anything, we should be leading the call. Our clamor should be the loudest of all.

We must not be limited to the festivities surrounding the UP centennial celebration. UP’s relevance is based on its fearless forays into issues of national significance. Currently, however, history seems to be unfolding and we are not part of it.

This is a call for engagement. UP must come up with its collective stand. Only then shall we affirm the illustrious history of the university. It is not through silence or compliance that we have defined it. It is in the constant engagements that have changed the country which rendered the history of UP as the history of the Filipino people. # Philippine Collegian

<< back to home