REPEAT A LIE A THOUSAND TIMES AND IT BECOMES THE TRUTH

ON CHANCELLOR SERGIO CAO’S DENIAL OF PROF. SARAH RAYMUNDO’S APPEAL FOR TENURE

November 16, 2009

Download/view this statement in PDF by clicking this link: FINAL CONTEND STATEMENT ON SARAH NOV

SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR SARAH RAYMUNDO’S fight for justice and tenure is finally coming to a head. In a letter dated October 28, 2009, Chancellor Sergio Cao has ruled against granting her tenure. We cannot accept the justness of this decision and appeal to the University to set things right.

We can justify our opposition to this flawed decision by starting with two simple facts:

1) That the testimonies detailing alleged instances of Prof. Raymundo's "breach of professional ethics" or "dishonesty" are all personal opinions of a small group or of individuals coming from the Department of Sociology. These "facts" have neither been established by consensus nor adequately supported by any investigation or inquiries undertaken by the Department itself. In the minority report dated October 17, 2008 sent to Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (VCAA) Lorna Paredes, three tenured faculty members (Profs. Marcia Fernandez, Clarissa Rubio and Marie Arguillas) of the Sociology Department strongly opposed to Prof. Raymundo's tenure presented their own "facts" and a (contentious) "interpretation of a poem" which merely represented their own opinions and not that of the Department itself.

2) Prof. Raymundo, not having been formally provided with a copy of these allegations until the release of the Chancellor's decision itself, could not reply to these alleged "facts" continually being cited against her. Furthermore, none of the accusations regarding "dishonesty" or "breach of professional ethics" are discussed or substantiated in any of the official letters written on behalf of the Department itself which were sent to or coursed through Prof. Raymundo, the College Executive Board or the Chancellor.

It is therefore quite surprising how the Chancellor, in his latest decision, speaks of the "facts" (ultimately stemming from the minority report mentioned above) as if these had already been established on the basis of sufficient evidence.

The transformation of allegations and accusations into facts probably began with VCAA Paredes' June 20, 2008 letter wherein she requested an explanation from the majority of the Sociology Department regarding the case, "Perhaps the majority who were in favor can further explain how the academic qualifications and achievements far outweigh this instance of breach of professional ethics" (emphasis added). Her phrasing gives the impression that the so-called "breach of professional ethics" had been mentioned in the letter recommending the granting of tenure to Prof. Raymundo. This is actually not the case; the original letter of recommendation only mentions that there were a few concerns about Prof. Raymundo's "political commitment (vis-a-vis her academic responsibilities)." There was absolutely nothing mentioned in it about "weighing" ethical concerns against the other qualifications for tenure (Cf. Prof. Laura Samson's November 3, 2008 letter on behalf of the majority). The minority of three however gave an unsolicited response to VCAA Paredes' request to the effect that "it is not possible for academic performance to outweigh ethics" (October 17, 2008) as if, once again, it were an indubitable fact that Prof. Raymundo had indeed committed a "breach of professional ethics" which should be "weighed" against her other qualifications.

This sad train of assuming the truth of mere allegations and insinuations by force of repetition reaches its point of culmination in Chancellor Cao's October 28, 2009 letter, wherein he states that he "must also assess Professor Raymundo's academic qualifications and achievements vis-a-vis the other 'academic grounds' [professional ethics] being invoked to deny her tenure. What would tip the balance in Professor Raymundo's favour?" The metaphor of weighing is here once again repeated. But this assumes that the scale does have something on both sides to be weighed. How can the Chancellor assume that there is indeed some weight to the allegations regarding Prof. Raymundo's "breach of professional ethics"?

The Chancellor believes that, based on some occasions where Prof. Raymundo met with the Chair of her Department (June 2008), two subsequent meetings with tenured faculty members (July 2008 and March 2009), and his own meeting with her on August 25, 2009, that she has been "given sufficient opportunities by the tenured faculty to explain her side of the issues raised."

Why then is this sentiment not shared by many of Prof. Raymundo's colleagues belonging to the Sociology Department itself? Prof. Laura Samson wrote, "I believe that Sarah deserves all the opportunities to be heard, to properly defend herself, and if possible or necessary, to make amends" (November 3, 2008). As late as January 12, 2009, Prof. Lanuza wrote that, "I believe that Prof. Sarah Jane Raymundo deserves a fair hearing before the tenured faculty so that she can answer all serious allegations raised against her by some of our colleagues in the series of our deliberations." A similar point questioning the applicability of the charge of "breach of professional ethics" was raised by Prof. Filomin Gutierrez in a letter dated January 12, 2009. More emphatically, Prof. Walden Bello in his January 12, 2009 letter protested that, "The conflation of the tenure process with a disciplinary process - especially one that has not reached any conclusion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant - is wrong and constitutes a dangerous precedent that would destroy the academic objectivity that is central to the tenure process" (italics in the original).

Regardless of the number of times she met with the tenured faculty, the most important thing is that Prof. Raymundo has never been given the opportunity to answer the allegations against her. The specific allegations and the supposed evidences supporting these have never been formally presented to her by any accusing party. This flatly violates the right of Prof. Raymundo to due process. The reality of the matter is that the weighing scale on the side of allegations may well turn out to be empty or just full of air. Likewise, on the other side of the weighing scale containing the other "academic qualifications," the Chancellor's rather mechanical and misplaced judgment on Prof. Raymundo's academic qualifications starkly contrasts with the assessment of the majority of her peers within the Sociology Department who acknowledge her "excellent quality of mind," "expansive intellectual interest," "competence in current and emerging academic discourses (as) reflected in her teaching" and "capability to engage in sustained scholarship."

We believe that the Chancellor has erred on both sides of the scale. This matter is not a question of weighing Prof. Raymundo's excellent academic record against a pile of unsubstantiated and unconfirmed allegations; it is a matter of looking into the truth of the charges themselves and of setting in motion a process in which this can be ascertained with justice, due process and impartiality.

The quote, "repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth" came from the pen of the fascist Goebbels who expertly used the propagation and repetition of lies in the brutal campaign to crush dissent and rid Germany of leftwing thought. May this actually be the agenda of those using these nefarious means today, in our University, in the case of Prof. Raymundo?

We must ask ourselves the following questions: How is it possible, in a University that values inquiry and scientific thinking, that repeated allegations can so easily become mistaken for the truth? How can it be the case, in an institution that holds academic freedom sacred, that the defense of individual rights and due process can be so carelessly abbreviated?

CHANCELLOR CAO’S DECISION, FLAWED AND UNJUST!

NO TO RED-BAITING!

END POLITICAL PERSECUTION IN THE ACADEME!

JUSTICE AND TENURE FOR PROF. SARAH RAYMUNDO!

CONGRESS OF TEACHERS / EDUCATORS FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY

Chancellor Cao's Decision on Prof. Sarah Raymundo's Appeal for Tenure

A. On October 28, 2009, after a very long period of inaction, UP Diliman Chancellor Sergio Cao has decided AGAINST UP Diliman Sociology Prof. Sarah Raymundo's appeal for tenure. Read his memo here Chancellor cao memo on SR tenure (12 pages). To read Chancellor Cao's memo complete with attachments, click here COMPLETE Chancellor Cao memo (78 pages; will take some time to download). Attached to his memo are correspondences from Prof. Raymundo, the Socio Dept, CSSP Dean, VCAA Lorna Paredes, Chancellor Cao and other faculty members of CSSP.

B. Last Friday, November 6, 2009, concerned faculty members, REPS and administrative staff, the All UP Workers Union and the All UP Academic Employees Union met and formed the alliance RIGHTS OF UNTENURED FACULTY or R.U. U.P. Faculty. Prof. Raymundo's case is just one of the many cases of unfair labor practices committed against untenured faculty members of UP. In Diliman alone, aside from Prof. Raymundo's case, there are two more cases waiting for Chancellor Cao's decision.

C. In Chancellor Cao's memo, some observations were made:

1. There was no real consultation, transparency and due process, especially within the Sociology Department, regarding issues raised against Prof. Raymundo. Issues raised remained "departmental secrets" until Chancellor Cao attached to his memo a very long minority report from three Sociology tenured professors (Fernandez, Rubio and Arguillas). There was no real, formal and written correspondence addressed to Prof. Raymundo, and thus, she was never given the formal chance to defend herself. It also should be noted that in Chancellor Cao's decision, not one of the letters and statements sent by the All UP Academic Employees Union-Diliman chapter was put into account. An example of this is a striking statement by the union entitled "Criteria for Tenure Cannot Be Departmental Secrets."

2. The minority report, needless to say, is a blatant attack against the political right of Prof. Raymundo. The said minority report is nothing but red-tagging disguised as issues of professional ethics and academic integrity.

3. There is inconsistency as to the application of a 2/3 confidence majority vote as a departmental tenure rule/practice. If such a rule does exist, then it should have been enforced in the April 18, 2008 votation where Prof. Raymundo easily garnered the 2/3 majority vote. This enforcement of the 2/3 vote rule as a supposed Departmental practice in the last instance is indicative of malice and bad faith on the part of the Department. Note also that in Sociology Department Chair Randy David's letter to the Chancellor dated June 3, 2009, no mention of the 2/3 rule was made.

4. The issue of departmental autonomy is being used by the Sociology Department and by the Office of Chancellor Cao to justify political persecution. Departmental autonomy is not and should never be synonymous to abuse of authority.

5. Chancellor Cao skewed the whole issue by saying that Prof. Sarah Raymundo is not academically accomplished. The Chancellor applied the stricter tenure requirements of the College of Science (CS) to Prof. Raymundo who belongs to the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP). It is altogether malicious since CSSP adheres to the minimum academic requirements outlined in the Faculty Manual of UP Diliman. It seems that Chancellor Cao is undermining non-CS units such as CSSP!

We appeal for justice and the reversal of the non-tenure decision.

D. Please send support statements/letters for Prof. Sarah Raymundo. Online petition is still ongoing (links are on the right side of this blogsite). Prof. Raymundo will be writing an appeal letter to President Roman and the Board of Regents. We will also be making an omnibus statement, which will also serve as a petition, to be sent to President Roman and the BOR. Please help in gathering signatures for the said omnibus petition statement.

Thank you very much! Padayon sa ating lahat!

Tuloy ang laban!

Saga ni Sarah by Prof. Rolando Tolentino

from PinoyWeekly online July 13, 2009 http://pinoyweekly.org/new/saga-ni-sarah/

Walang nagsabi kay Sarah na aabutin ng siyam-siyam ang kanyang pagiging permanente sa pagtuturo. Pumapatak nang isang taon at kalahati ang proseso, at wala pang katiyakan kung kailan ito bababa. O kung aalukin o tatanggihan ang kanyang aplikasyon.

Ito ang tinatawag na interregnum ni Antonio Gramsci, na ang kanyang paliwanag ay hindi pa namamatay ang luma gayong hindi pa isinisilang ang bagong kaayusan. Mala-mala, kumbaga, na tulad ng mga palaisipan, wala rito, wala roon; o hindi tao, hindi hayop…

Na kung iisipin naman, lahat ng karanasan ay dinadanas sa yugto ng interregnum. Walang lubusang apropriasyon o subersyon sa kasalukuyang kaayusan, gayong hindi rin naman lahat ay negosasyon. Tanging sa lilim ng akademya ang mga radikal na kaisipan nagkakaroon ng ugat at sanga, dahil may pangako ang akademya ng ideolohikal na tunggalian—dahil sa lebel lang naman ng idea ito maaring umusbong, umunlad, magbunga at magmaterialisa.

At ito ang pangunahing “krimen” na ipinadanas kay Sarah: na tanggalin ang kondisyon ng posibilidad sa ideolohiya sa akademya. Matapos niyang mamuhay at ituring ang akademya bilang tahanan ng sampung taon, at hanggang sa mga araw na ito ay wala pa ring formal na pagpapaabot ng kadahilanan ng pagtanggi sa tenure, kundi man kung bakit hindi pa ito ipinagkakaloob, ay inibsan na ang kontraryong kamalayan sa poder na ito.

Hindi lamang halos ipinid na ang pinto ng akademya kay Sarah. Ang nauna nang ipinid ay ang pag-asa sa kontraryong kaisipan at pagkilos na maaring tanggapin ng postura ng UP, ang tinatawag na exemplaryo ng liberalismo sa tertiaryong edukasyon. Akademya na ang isinasarang pinto dahil kung i-deny ang tenure ni Sarah, wala itong malilipatang ibang kapantay na karanasang UP.

Hindi nga ba’t tatlo o apat lang naman ang institusyon ng higher learning, mali man, na binibigyan-turing ng lipunang Filipino? Ang alingasngas ng kawalan ng tenure kay Sarah ay hahabol sa anumang unibersidad na pag-aapplyan nito. Sino ang gustong kumuha ng professor na kahit akademikong kwalipikado ay may tanong sa di akademikong gawain nito, kahit hindi naman dapat?

Malapit ang turing ko kay Sarah. Ko-editor kami sa pinakapaborito kong librong nalathala, Akademics Against Political Killings. Na kahit tadtad ng typo ay hindi pa rin matatawaran ang napapanahong interbensyon ng progresibong kaguruan sa di pa ring tumutumal na politikal na pagpaslang at abduction sa mga aktibista. Si Sarah ang isa sa pinakaorihinal na manunulat at kritikong panlipunan na natunghayan ko.

Kasama ko siyang natuto sa running. Ang aming itinakdang petsa ng pagkatuto ay ang unang fun run, 5K sa UP noong Agosto 2007. Pareho kaming halos mamamatay bago pa man matapos ang takbong ito. Ngayon ay minamani na lang namin ang 5K. At dumadalas ang pagsasama namin, kabilang ang iba pang guro, sa mga fun run. Tunay na isa itong sanktuwaryong aktibidad. Na kahit mabigat ang pasanin sa trabaho, o sa kanyang kaso, ang nagigipitang bato sa interregnum, ay nariyan ang running, umambon man o umaraw.

Na bago magmukhang parangal at letter of recommendation itong kolum, nais ko na lamang banggitin ang isang aspekto ng buhay. May mga taong dumarating sa buhay, may mga taong nawawala, lumiliban at bumabalik kahit paminsan-minsan, o permanenteng lumiliban. Ibang bagay pa kung bakit sila pinatutuloy o sa gate lamang kinakausap, o iniiwasan na parang walang tao sa bahay. Na ang katok o door bell ay kasing tindi ng antisipasyon kung ano ang dapat gawin, kaya ang madalas piliing gawin ay wala na lamang gawin.

Si Sarah ay dumating at tila hindi na aalis sa buhay ng maraming tao. Hindi naman sa pag-aangkin dahil si Sarah pa ang huling taong gustong magpaangkin bilang karelasyon, katuwang, kasama at kaibigan. At madalas nga ay nababalitaan ko na lamang, tulad ng ibang pang maimbentong rason ng di pagsulpot o pag-text back, na mayroon itong reunion sa mga kaklase niya noong high school, college, at pati grade school.

Hindi bumibitaw si Sarah, kaya hindi rin ako bibitaw. At ang iba pa niyang kasama. Sa edad ng interregnum, sa pinakalakas na kalabog ng isinasarang pinto o pinakatago—at kung gayon, pinakamalalim—na latay sa kalamnan, ang saga ng tenure at katarungan ni Sarah ay saga ng lahat ng guro at manggagawa sa edukasyon sa papakitid na siwang ng liberalismo sa edukasyon. Kung bakit tayo nandito at wala sa ibang lugar. Kung bakit ito ang pinili nating arena para makipagtunggali.

Isang pakiusap kay Randy David

ni Prop. Danilo A. Arao

mula sa http://pinoyweekly.org/new/isang-pakiusap-kay-randy-david/

Mabilis kumalat ang balita tungkol sa iyong planong pagtakbo sa darating na halalan, kasing-bilis ng paggamit ng midya sa katagang “David at Gloriath” para lalo pang kilitiin ang diwa ng mamamayan.

Sa wakas, may katapat na si Pangulong Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo kung sakaling totoo ang plano niyang tumakbo bilang kinatawan ng ikalawang distrito ng Pampanga sa House of Representatives. Tama ka, hindi na isyu kung malaki ba ang tsansa mong manalo laban kay “Gloriath” na inaasahang gagawin ang lahat para makakuha ng pinakamaraming boto.

Bilang propesor ng sosyolohiya, hindi mo kailangan ng “reality check” na sinabi ni Pampanga Rep. Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo na tatambad sa iyo oras na magdesisyon kang labanan ang kanyang ina (o kahit siya). Sa dami ng iyong naisulat sa mga dekadang nagdaan (bukod pa sa iyong trabaho sa akademya’t midya), sigurado akong mas marami kang alam tungkol sa realidad ng ating lipunan kumpara sa mag-inang iyan.

Alam mo ang realidad na lalabanan mo ang isang Pangulong makapangyarihan subalit hindi popular, isang kandidatong hindi mananalo sa malinis na paraan sa pambansang antas o sa labas ng kanyang balwarte sa Pampanga. At mas lalong alam mong hindi magiging patas ang laban, kaya malaki ang posibilidad ng iyong pagkapanalo sa botohan pero pagkatalo sa bilangan.

Sabi mo sa isang panayam sa midya, “Nakakahiya naman yata ang mga Kapampangan kung walang ni isang hahamon, tatayo at hahadlang sa kanyang mga balakin.” Malaking sakripisyo man ito sa iyo at sa iyong pamilyang ayaw kang patakbuhin, nakita mong ito ang hamon sa iyo ng panahon.

Kung gaano kabilis ang pagbuhos ng suporta mula sa oposisyon at iba pang indibidwal (kahit na hindi Kapampangan) ay kasing-bilis din ng pagbatikos sa iyo ng mga nasa pamahalaan. Kahit na wala pang bukas na pag-amin si Pangulong Arroyo tungkol sa kanyang plano sa 2010, nagbigay na ng prediksiyon si Cabinet Secretary Silvestre Bello III ng iyong pagkatalo. Isang “rude awakening” sa pulitika ang naghihintay sa iyo, ani Rep. Mikey Arroyo.

Mapanglait din ang pahayag ni House Speaker Prospero Nograles: “I got surprised that it’s only because he disliked PGMA and not the usual reason for running, which is public service. Anyway, the very big question is if at all he wins a seat, he will have first-hand experience in … Congress and may suddenly find that some of his public criticisms might not be correct or justified at all.”

Sa unang tingin, tila may katwiran si Nograles, gayundin ang iba pang opisyal, na punahin ang iyong intensiyon sa pagtakbo. Bakit ka nga naman magdedesisyong tumakbo dahil galit ka lang sa iyong katunggali? Hindi ba’t serbisyo publiko ang dapat na isaisip ng sinumang tatakbo?

Ang tanong sa puntong ito, ano ba ang intensiyon ni Pangulong Arroyo kung sakaling matuloy ang plano niyang tumakbo sa mas mababang posisyon sa 2010? Ayon mismo kay Presidential Legal Counsel Raul Gonzalez, “(T)here are so many threats against her…Every announced candidate said he will prosecute her…(T)hat’s a factor, of course.”

Madaling sabihing gusto lang ipagpatuloy ni Pangulong Arroyo ang pagsisilbi sa publiko kaya siya magpapakumbaba’t tatakbong muli. Pero dalawang tanong ang kailangang sagutin. Una, kung gusto niyang magkaroon ng impluwensiya sa pambansang antas, bakit hindi na lang siya tumakbo sa Senado? Ikalawa, kailangan ba ng isang taong manalo sa isang eleksiyon para makapagsilbi sa mamamayan?

Ilang beses nang nabanggit ang pangangailangang mapanatili sa puwesto si Pangulong Arroyo para maiwasan ang mga demandang ihahain laban sa kanya. At dahil patapos na ang kanyang termino bilang Pangulo, ang isang komplikadong paraan para maibalik siya sa puwesto ay ang pag-upo niya bilang miyembro ng House of Representatives sa 2010. At dahil kailangang mahalal siya bilang House Speaker, lubos ding kinakailangang ang mayorya ay alyado niya. Oras na mangyari ang dalawang bagay na ito, maaari nang ituloy ang balak na baguhin ang Saligang Batas para mabago sa parlamento ang sistema ng gobyerno. Inaasahan ang muling panunungkulan ni Arroyo bilang Punong Ministro, at sa puntong ito’y wala nang limitasyon sa haba ng kanyang panunungkulan.

Malinaw na hindi normal ang pulitikal na kalagayan ng ating bayan, at inaasahan ang mas madugo pang labanan para hadlangan ang binabalak ng mga nasa kapangyarihan. Ang sinumang nagnanais na labanan ang maitim na balak ni Pangulong Arroyo at ng mga alyado niya ay nagsisilbi sa interes ng nakararami. Tunay na nabubuhay tayo sa isang pambihirang pagkakataong ang pagmamahal sa bayan ay naipapakita sa ating pagkamuhi sa mga nanunungkulan.

Kaya alam mo, Propesor David, na ngayon pa lang ay nagsisilbi ka na hindi lang sa mga Kapampangan kundi sa lahat ng naghihirap na Pilipino. Hindi ako magugulat kung sa mga darating na buwan ay marami sa mga kapwa natin guro sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas (UP) ay mag-eendorso sa iyong kandidatura, pati na rin ang ating mga estudyante, alumni, kawani at residente.

Natatandaan mo pa bang magkasama tayo noong Pebrero 2002 sa isang pulong sa Malakanyang? Kasama ang iba pang taga-UP Diliman, sinabi natin kay Pangulong Arroyo ang marami nating hinaing, mula sa mga partikular na problema ng ating unibersidad hanggang sa mga pambansang isyu tulad ng Balikatan.

Makalipas ang apat na taon, idineklara ni Pangulong Arroyo ang state of national emergency noong Pebrero 2006. Inaresto ka sa isang kilos-protesta samantalang kinansela naman ang aking programa sa radyo. Dahil magkasama tayo sa isang komite ng konseho ng UP Diliman, nagtulungan tayo para maglabas ng malinaw na mensahe laban sa nangyayari sa ating bansa at ipanawagan ang pagbibitiw sa puwesto ni Arroyo. Tandang-tanda ko pa ang iyong pagpapakumbaba at ang pakiusap na huwag nang ikaw ang humarap sa midya hinggil sa naging desisyon ng UP Diliman. Sinabi mo sa aking ako na lang o ang iba pang kasamahan ang magharap ng pahayag sa publiko, isang bagay na iginalang ko.

Sa darating na Pebrero 2010 (ang tinatayang simula ng kampanya), maaasahan mo ang pagbuhos ng suporta mula sa iba’t ibang sektor ng lipunan. Kilala ka’t iginagalang, bagama’t hindi natin alam kung ang kasikatan mo’t panawagan para sa makabuluhang pagbabago ay magiging sapat para labanan ang makinarya ng administrasyon.

Kasama ba ako sa tutulong sa iyong kandidatura? Pasensiya na’t hindi ko pa sigurado.

Wala man tayong malalim na pinagsamahan at napakalaki ng agwat ng ating edad (sikat ka nang propesor nang maging estudyante ako sa UP Diliman noong kalagitnaan ng dekada 80), may maliit lang sana akong pakiusap na sana’y huwag mong masamain.

Hindi siguro alam ng maraming tao na ikaw ay kasalukuyang tagapangulo ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya ng UP Diliman. Para sa maraming estudyante’t gurong taga-UP, alam na alam nila ang kaso ni Prop. Sarah Raymundo, isang kasamahan mo sa departamento (at personal kong kaibigan) na pinagkaitan ng tenure kahit na nalampasan pa niya ang mga pangangailangan para dito.

Hanggang ngayon ay wala siyang pormal na sulat na nagsasaad kung ano ang kanyang naging pagkukulang, kung mayroon man. Ang tanging alam lang niya ay hindi niya nakuha ang boto ng 2/3 ng tenured faculty ng iyong departamento, kahit na mataas ang ebalwasyon sa kanya ng mga estudyante niya, nakuha niya sa itinakdang panahon ang kanyang master’s degree at nakapaglathala siya ng mga artikulo sa refereed journal.

Maaari mong ipagwalang-bahala ang isyung ito at sabihing ito ay internal sa inyong departamento. Pero kailangan mong malamang ito ay sumasagisag sa klase ng lideratong ikakampanya mo sa susunod na hinaharap at itataguyod mo kung sakaling manalo ka sa eleksiyon.

Kung ang isang kwalipikadong guro ay hindi mo mabigyan ng hustisya, paano pa kaya ang milyon-milyong pinagkaitan ng kasalukuyang rehimen? Nasaan ang panawagan mo para sa government transparency kung ang mismong departamento mo’y pinagkakaitan ng impormasyon si Prop. Raymundo kaya hindi niya masagot ang anumang paratang sa kanya? Bakit ang paninindigan ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya tungkol sa kaso ni Prop. Raymundo ay hindi naiiba sa nakabibinging katahimikang ipinapakita ng Pangulong nais mong kalabanin?

Hindi pa huli ang lahat, Propesor David, para bigyan ng hustisya ang iyong kasamahan bago ka seryosong sumabak sa maruming daigdig ng pulitika.

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com

CRITERIA FOR TENURE CANNOT BE DEPARTMENTAL SECRETS

An Open Letter from the All-UP Academic Employees Union – Diliman Chapter
June 24, 2009

The AUPAEU reiterates its grave expression of concern regarding the long-drawn out issue of Sociology Prof. Sarah Raymundo's tenure.
In a bewildering turn of events, confounding the principles of transparency and fairness and frustrating the most basic notions of academic freedom, Prof. Raymundo continues to be kept in the dark regarding the bases used by the Dept. of Sociology in its most recent decision against granting her tenure.

This issue has been dragging on for more than a year and a half. No explanations have been forthcoming from the said department regarding the basis or bases of its decision. The Union has indeed faced several similar cases from various departments and colleges but, in great contrast to the Dept. of Sociology, all of the offices concerned have been direct and forthright regarding the bases of their decisions. None of the departments or units concerned questioned the right of the individuals concerned to be informed of the reasons which led to the denial of their tenure. Their official communications contained their explanations in black and white with the proper documentation and proofs. None of them asserted that such criteria or bases were a private matter to be kept a secret from the rest of the University community and the individual concerned. Such an attitude would lead to arbitrariness, the subversion of due process and the decline of academic excellence. It would effectively deprive the concerned individual her legal right to appeal what may have been an unjust decision.

Her peers would attest that Prof. Raymundo is an outstanding academic and teacher in her field. On top of this, it bears repeating that she has fulfilled ALL the academic requirements necessary for successfully obtaining tenure in the University. University rules explicitly prohibit the use of non-academic criteria in deciding the matter of tenure. Doing so would amount to nothing less than a trespass against academic freedom. We also recognize that the Dept. of Sociology has been deeply divided by this issue which began many months ago with a subversion of a majority decision by a minority. Upholding the name of their honorable discipline, many members of this department continue to fight for Prof. Raymundo's basic rights.

The AUPAEU reiterates its position that the University and the Dept. of Sociology are duty-bound to present in clear terms the bases which were used in deciding against the granting of tenure to Prof. Raymundo.

Whatever these criteria may be, academic or non-academic, Prof. Raymundo has the right to be informed of these so that she may be able to respond or act accordingly.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS by Prof. Sarah Raymundo

Note: This chronology is appended in Prof. Sarah Raymundo's June 24, 2009 letter to UP Diliman Chancellor Sergio Cao.

Appendix A: CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

• On February of 2008, I submitted my application for tenure to the tenured faculty of the Sociology Department through our then-chairperson Dr. Clemen Aquino.

• By the second week of June 2008, on account of some information regarding my application through informal channels, I was informed by Dr. Clemen Aquino of the official result of the tenured faculty's deliberation on my tenure application. The voting that took place among the tenured faculty was to my favor at seven to three. I was also informed that the minority sent a separate minority report to the office of the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Subsequently, The OVCAA then wrote the Sociology Department asking the majority, who voted in my favor, to justify their position in light of the allegations cited in the said minority report. During this talk I was also assured that the back-and-forth between different levels of decision-making as well as the delay are only to be expected when one applies for tenure. I was also made aware of some issues that were discussed when the tenured faculty deliberated my application. These issues involved the Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan press conference. Lastly, the process that my application would undergo from then on was explained to me. The College Executive Board (CEB) would comment on the clarification requested by the OVCAA-APFC, after which the Dean would write a response to the OVCAA. However, months later, I would find out that the OVCAA’s request for my position on the tenured faculty’s hitherto undisclosed allegations was not mentioned in this discussion.

• Towards the end of July of the same year, the aforementioned department majority invited me to a discussion, which revolved around the most minute details relating to a press conference held in the previous year that called for the immediate release of Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan, two disappeared UP Students. In particular, I was asked about which faculty members I had invited, the means of communication.

• On November 6, 2008, Dr. Clemen Aquino informed m that the tenured faculty unanimously decided on non-recommendation. To this day, I am baffled by this sudden reversal. When I asked her about the grounds of this decision, I was told that the Chair was bound by the tenured faculty’s wish that she only be allowed to merely inform me of their decision. Furthermore, I was told not to show up for my classes the next day, until further notice. When I asked her if my contract until May 31, 2009 was aborted, the response was that this is being clarified with the administration.

• In January of this year, some members of the tenured faculty wrote your office questioning the prior decision of the tenured body for non-recommendation.

• By March, I was invited to a dialogue by the whole body of the department’s tenured faculty. I was again asked several questions regarding my involvement on the press conference on the disappeared students, some details on the poem I had written dedicated to Karen Empeño that I submitted to the Philippine Collegian, and my role in preparing a statement that was eventually adopted by the University Council calling for the immediate release of Karen and Sherlyn. I was also made to clarify some details that appeared in another statement signed by the University Student Council. Note that these are the same questions raised in August of 2007 (a meeting with Dr. Clemen Aquino and Dr. Cynthia Bautista on matters regarding the renewal of my contract and in July 2008 during a meeting with the tenured faculty “majority”). I was also made to explain my involvement in the statements released by the CONTEND and the Academic Union that questioned the process of my tenure application.

• A few weeks later, I was called on by Dr. Arguillas in her capacity as OIC and Dr. Gutierrez as member of the tenured body to inform me that the tenured faculty voted, with five in my favor, four against, one abstain, and one in favor of waiving the discussion for a year. They added that since the vote was “deeply divided,” the tenured body decided to defer their decision and thus left it to your esteemed office to decide on granting my tenure, after which, my tenure application and the department vote were discussed by the CEB.

• On June 2, 2009, after waiting more than two months after aforementioned meeting, without a word as to the status of my tenure application, I decided to talk to Prof. Randy David, who was then acting as the Department’s Officer-in-Charge. During our discussion, I learned that some members of the CEB questioned the exercise and officially sent you a letter a few days after the CEB voted in my favor.

• Moreover, I learned that on May 19, 2009, Dr. Aquino and Dean Zossimo Lee received a letter from you asking for my basic papers to be prepared for “the tenure process to commence” and that the tenured faculty, yet again, met to discuss this on May 25, 2009. It was mentioned that members of the tenured faculty found your letter ‘vague’ as to whether or not you had decided to grant my application for tenure as “the tenure process” commenced when I applied for tenure in February of 2007. I was also told that the tenured faculty were of the position that for my basic papers to be processed, a vote amounting to a simple majority is required. It was also made known to me that a letter to your office to clarify whether or not the tenured faculty was correct in their interpretation of the requirement of a simple majority for processing of basic papers for tenure.

• Lastly, I was informed that, as far as my contract is concerned, I am technically no longer a faculty member of the Department of Sociology despite my open case for tenure, and that given this, I am no longer entitled to teach any courses from the same department. When I mentioned the 60-day rule on the termination of contracts, I was told that that “the former Chair was emphatic in her position that it was the Dean’s responsibility to inform me about the end of my contract.”

• On June 15, I finally got the chance to discuss the matter with Dean Lee. On my status, it was clarified that it was the Dean's responsibility to enlighten me on the matter. When I inquired as to what he would have told me, however, I was told that there was no clear answer since my case was still being discussed between the OVCAA and your office when the 60-day notice should have been given. The results of the CEB meeting on my case was also revealed. The same body voted 7 to 1, in my favor. Furthermore, I was apprised of the fact that the OVCAA studied my case, upon your authority, and that the same office wrote you a letter stating that there should be no obstacle to my tenure based on my records. I was also informed that your office sent the Dean and the Department a letter asking for my basic papers to be prepared. Lastly, I was made aware that a meeting between Dean Lee, your office, Dr. Aquino, Prof.. David, and Vice-Chancellor Lorna Paredes was to be held on June 16 to discuss the issues surrounding my tenure, and that the Dean would inform me of the proceedings of that meeting.

SA AKADEMYA

(Para kay Sarah Raymundo, red-baiting survivor)

ni Joi Barrios, CONTEND at BAYAN

larawan mula sa  http://www.lovelab.id.ucsb.edu/images/joe.jpg

Nagmumulto si Senador McCarthy.
Gumagala-gala ang kanyang espiritu
sa mga pasilyo ng akademya.

Nalalanghap ng lahat
ang masangsang na bulaklak
ng tsampaka,
Naririnig ang kalansing
ng tanikalang nagbibigay babala:

Manginig, manginig!
Damhin ang malamig
na simoy ng hangin
na bumubulong-bulong
ng pangamba sa diwa
ng mga guro.

Nagmumulto si Senador McCarthy
at nagwiwika:
May pulahan sa ating pagitan!
Ang pula ay kulay na mapanganib!
Naghahasik ito ng punla,
naghihikayat ng pagkilos at paglaban,
Nagbabandila ng katwiran.

Mga kapatid sa akademya,
ang natatakot sa pula,
ay taong kaawa-awa,
pagkat walang sariling pag-iisip,
pagkat sakmal ng multo ang dibdib.

Hayaan na nating malibing sa kanyang hukay
si Senador McCarthy.
Ating angkinin ang kulay na pula
bilang kulay ng duguang rosas
na mahalimuyak,
kulay ng kasiyahan at galak,
kulay ng pusong matapang,
at pusong matatag.

Rally Against Political Repression in the Academe, Justice and Tenure for Sarah Raymundo, Feb. 6, 2009, AS Lobby

Tinimbang Ka Ngunit Kulang: Political Repression in the Academe, Feb. 3, 2009, CM Recto Hall, UP-Diliman

A statement delivered by Prof. Sarah Raymundo* in the forum "Tinimbang Ka Ngunit Kulang: Political Repression in the Academe," on February 3, 2009 at the Claro M. Recto Hall, Faculty Center, University of the Philippines, Diliman.

I would like to begin with an argument which I deem as very urgent in making sense of this tenure battle in which I find myself in the middle of. "One cannot get an accurate picture of the educational institution without completely transforming the image it manages to project of itself through the logic of its operation or, more precisely, through the symbolic violence it commits insofar as it is able to impose the misrecognition of its true logic upon those who participate in it (Bourdieu, 1999:116)." We are those participants.

The school system is mainly that institution which is manifestly engaged in the distribution of knowledge. This function involves the sanctioning of technical competences required in the division of labor in society. The school system, therefore, plays a crucial role in the reproduction of competences which in turn are reproductive of the dominant social relations that make up hierarchies in society. By calling your attention to this undeniable fact, I am also urging you to recognize the entanglements between the school system and the reproduction of class divisions. This condition places the academe in the unsettling dynamics of the class war. This is the war between those who labor to reinforce the prevalent mode of living and relating to other people, and those who work in order to expose that another mode of living and relating is not only possible but is, in fact, necessary. I count myself as one among the many who believe that the latter is the way to go.

But of course, the dynamics of the class war is masked by the "magical action of consecration (Bourdieu, 99:116)." These are the mechanisms in and through which our actions and dispositions are measured against so-called legitimate standards crafted and implemented by those who have the recognized capacity in exercising such power. This situation in itself is not necessarily and essentially bad or questionable. It is rather an inevitable condition of any given field that is engined by an uneven distribution of power. No field is exempt from this condition on account of a larger system that is based on ownership and dispossession.

Tenure in the academic field is a product of the "authority of consecration (Bourdieu)." It is that process which establishes a boundary that separates those who are chosen by "great academic trials (Bourdieu)." In other words, it institutes an academic elite. I do not want to dwell on the fact that where academic requirements are concerned, my qualifications as a member of this institution by no means fall short. It must be noted, however, that a wager for an engaged pedagogy can combat the exclusionary tendencies of academic elitism. This is the reason why I find my department's non-recommendation of my tenure application questionable.

More appalling is the fact that in the beginning of this semester, I was verbally instructed not to meet my classes for reasons that have yet to be explained to me. As my students would know, I have been attending my classes as I have a contract until May 31 of this year. Pending my department's explanation for not recommending my tenure, which is to say that it has not exercised transparency and due process in its decision, my prospects for teaching in this University after doing so for nearly a decade, remains uncertain.

Security of tenure is not an issue that is unique to my experience. It is definitely an issue that often collides with the most precious value of academic freedom. In making a public statement about my case, I do not intend to target or to assault anyone who had a hand in deciding on the non-recommendation of my application for tenure. In demanding transparency and due process, I seek to understand the circumstances that have brought me in this exhausting condition of uncertainty. I believe this to be very unnecessary in an academic community that values the egalitarian exchange of ideas.

I also want to use this occasion to thank the members of the academic community who have expressed their concern and unwavering support. I am certain that they do so because the stakes in this issue go beyond personal gains. I am thankful that despite this very exhausting and painful process, we are given this chance to reflect upon academic practices and their implications. We reflect not only for the lives of the members of the academic community, but more importantly for what our lives may mean for the larger society.

Many have asked me whether I would still be willing to teach in my department in case of a reversal of its non-recommendation. "Of course" has almost always been my response, for the simple reason that a department or any institution is everybody's and nobody's. Some voices in any given field may be more dominant, creating what Bourdieu rightfully calls as the dominators in the field. But that does not warrant an attempt to exclude the voices that do not carry the same tune. The dominated may be marginalized in many ways, but by no means can practices of forced extinction be justified. But even more than that, I belong to the discipline of Sociology, a discipline that continues to capture minds, young and old, because it invariably seeks to understand. And anyone who seeks to understand would be open to continued engagement. I am glad that certain members of the tenured faculty in the department share this view.

Do my comrades from CONTEND feel revulsion over this issue? Yes, simply because the most liberal of sensibilities have been offended. But have we gained personal enemies over this issue? The answer is resounding No. We cannot afford personal enemies for we already have too powerful class enemies to contend with.

And lastly, does this occasion mark a big day for me personally? No, I think it is just another day in the struggle. But I know fully well that we must give it the same degree of militancy, resolve and hopefulness. Just like those who have stood up against tyrants, those who have toppled down dictatorships and those who continue to form the ranks of a decades-old struggle for social revolution.

Reference:

Bourdieu, Pierre, (1999). The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Standford, California: Stanford University Press.

Loretta Capeheart of Northeastern Illinois University and Sarah Raymundo

Prof. Sarah Raymundo's case is not an isolated one. Read below the case of Northeastern Illinois University Professor Loretta Capeheart:

Loretta Capeheart is under attack at Northeastern Illinois University for her labor union activism, support for minority hiring on campus, and antiwar activism. See the statement below describing the situation and the petition (below the statement) directed to the NEIU administration. To record your support for the petition send an email to
L.Capeheart@gmail.com L.Capeheart@ gmail.com>.

* * * *

JUSTICE FOR PROFESSOR LORETTA CAPEHEART!

A TEST CASE FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND WORKERS' RIGHTS

Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU) Justice Studies professor Loretta Capeheart has been targeted by her administration for her outspokenness for workers' rights, against the Iraq war, and for increased representation of minority scholars at NEIU. In 2007 she was elected to chair her department by a 2/3 majority of her colleagues, yet the University refused to appoint her to that post and even went so far as to put the department into receivership and install a representative of the administration as chair. Capeheart was also denied merited awards
during this time.

What were Capeheart's "crimes"? An activist in her union (UniversityProfessionals of Illinois-AFT/ IFT), Capeheart was a leader in the 2004 faculty strike. In 2006, she testified in the state legislature on the need to recruit greater numbers of Latino/a faculty, contradicting and infuriating Provost Lawrence Frank, who was in attendance. In February 2007, she defended students in the anti-war movement who were arrested during a protest of a CIA recruitment event on campus. This controversy led NEIU President Sharon Hahs to propose a campus events policy (subsequently withdrawn) imposing draconian and unconstitutional
restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly on the campus.

When Capeheart spoke up at a faculty council meeting to question the treatment of the students, NEIU Vice President Melvin Terrell lashed out at her, stating that Capeheart was a "person of interest" to the police and that a student had filed charges of stalking against Capeheart.
These defamatory statements were absolutely unfounded. But the threatagainst Capeheart—that if she continued to speak out, she and her career would be targets for retribution—remains very real. "Stalking is a criminal offense," she said. "I lived in continual fear that someone would come to arrest me in my class and that I would lose my job. The message was that if I continued to speak they would come after me." To date, Terrell has not retracted his accusations.

Capeheart is suing Terrell for defamation, alongside Hahs and Provost Lawrence Frank for violation of her constitutional right to free speech and retaliation against her. She seeks an injunction against further violations, her rightful appointment as chair, and from Terrell,
monetary damages for harms resulting from his defamation of her. Incredibly, the administrators' response argues that Capeheart, as a state employee, may not sue the University or its officials, contravenetheir positions, question their conduct, or speak as a faculty member on matters of public concern. Their motion to dismiss the case states that "clothed in her authority as a faculty member," Capeheart criticized University policy, "even going so far as to disagree with the stated positions of the Provost." "It is very middle ages," Capehart said, "like the lord vs. the serf." The case is pending hearing in Federal Court.

We cannot allow NEIU administrators to get away with these attacks on academic freedom and workers' rights. Their actions should be chilling to all workers, activists, and scholars. Her case is a perfect example of the stakes of the ongoing struggle for academic freedom—for labor, for inclusion and equality of minorities, and for the right to protest against war and injustice. We stand with her.


(short petition version)

JUSTICE FOR PROFESSOR LORETTA CAPEHEART!

A TEST CASE FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND WORKERS' RIGHTS

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, support Northestearn Illinois University professor Loretta Capeheart in her suit against NEIU's president, vice-president, and provost for violation of her free speech rights and retaliation against her for exercising these rights in defense of labor, minorities, and academic freedom.

After playing a leading role in her union (University Professionals of Illinois-AFT) during a strike, defending students arrested for protest of a CIA recruitment event, and contradicting her provost on the matter of recruitment and retention of Latino/a faculty, Professor Capeheart was

--denied appointment to her duly elected post as department chair,

--denied merited awards, and

--defamed in a faculty council meeting by NEIU's vice president, who maliciously charged her without basis with stalking a student.

We are outraged at these serious and malicious attempts to silence one of our fellow academics, unionists, and anti-war activists. We cannot allow NEIU administrators to get away with these attacks on academic freedom and workers' rights. Their actions should be chilling to all
workers, activists, and scholars. Her case is a perfect example of the stakes of the ongoing struggle for academic freedom—for labor, for inclusion and equality of minorities, and for the right to protest war and injustice on our campuses.

Capeheart seeks an injunction against further violations, for her rightful appointment as chair, and for monetary damages for defamation.

We stand with her.

Signed,

MS
Founding Director, Undergraduate College of Global Studies
Professor of Sociology
University at Stony Brook
Stony Brook NY 11794

Bakit Isyung Pulitikal ang Di Paggawad ng Tenyur kay Prop. Sarah Raymundo* ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya?

Pahayag ng Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND) - University of the Philippines

Pebrero 6, 2009

Pangalanan na ang di inilalantad ni Dr. Clemen Aquino, tagapangulo ng Sociology Department ng U.P.—politikal na panunupil. Itinatago ni Dr. Aquino ang rason ng di pagbibigay ng tenure ng departamento sa balatkayo ng “proseso,” na ang proseso ay hindi pa nakukumpleto gayong ipinabatid na ni Dr. Aquino kay Prof. Sarah Raymundo ang desisyong ito ng departamento. Malinaw ang desisyon gayong di malinaw ang paliwanag.

Politikal na panunupil ito sa dalawang dahilan. Una, tinangka ni Dr. Aquino at ilang faculti ng Sociology Department na gamitin ang pagbibigay-suporta ni Prof. Raymundo sa press conference para mailitaw ang mga dinukot na estudyanteng sina Sherlyn Cadapan at Karen Empeño noong 2006 laban sa aplikasyon niya para sa tenure. Hindi kailanman ginamit ni Prof. Raymundo ang pangalan ng departamento sa pagtulong sa panawagang ilitaw ang dalawang nawawalang estudyante. Kinausap din si Prof. Raymundo mahigit isang taon matapos ang presscon upang usisain kung siya ba ang nagrecruit kay Karen Empeno sa aktibistang organisasyon nito at kung siya ba ay nagrerecruit ng mga estudyante niya sa progresibong kilusan. Maituturing bang inosente at nangangalap lamang ng datos ang ganitong linya ng pagtatanong?

Karaniwan bang tinatanong ang mga ganitong tanong sa lahat ng miyembro ng kaguruan? O hindi nga ba dahil may nauna nang baluktot na paghusga sa pulitika ni Prof. Raymundo kaya siya naging bulnerable sa ganitong malisyosong imbestigasyon?

Sa unang botohan para sa tenure ni Prop. Raymundo noong unang bahagi ng 2008, hindi kinatigan ng mayorya ng tenured faculty ng departamento ang ganitong mga akusasyon, at inirekomenda nila ang tenure ni Prop. Raymundo. Ngunit bininbin ang pagsapinal sa desisyong ito.

Ikalawa, noong Oktubre 2008, muling pinatawag si Prof. Raymundo upang kausapin hinggil sa dipagbalik ng estudyanteng si Julian, na estudyante ni Prop. Raymundo sa isang kurso, mula sa isang di umano’y paglahok nito sa isang immersion. Gumawa na naman ng fantabulsong koneksyon si Dr. Aquino at ilang faculty ng departamento sa “pagkawala” ni Julian at si Prop. Raymundo ang tinuturo bilang promotor ng desisyon ng estudyante na di na bumalik sa unibersidad.

Walang katotohanan ni patunay hinggil sa pilit na ikinokonektang akusasyon kay Prof. Raymundo. Sa kabila nito, ito ang lumalabas na naging basehan ng pagpaling ng inisyal na suporta ng mayorya ng faculty ng departamento tungo sa di-pagrekomenda ng tenure kay Prof. Raymundo sa pagtatapos ng unang semestre. Dinagdag ito sa nauna na nilang mga bintang na may kinalaman sa estudyanteng si Karen Empeño. Ano ang pruwebang iniharap ni Dr. Aquino gayong mabibigat ang mga akusasyong di naman pormal na inihain kay Prof. Raymundo para makapagpaliwanag ng kanyang panig?

Dagdag pa, noon mismong Nobyembre 6, sinabihan ni Dr. Aquino si Prop. Raymundo na hindi muna pumunta sa kanyang klase sa susunod na araw hanggang siya ay abisuhan. Hanggang ngayon ay hindi pa binawi ang ganitong direktiba. Gayunpaman, patuloy na nagtuturo si Prop. Raymundo. Sa liham ni Aquino noong Nobyembre 20, 2008, “ang mabigyan ng kaukulang pagsasaalang alang ang kapakanan ng mga mag-aaral at ni Prop. Raymundo” ang dahilan kung bakit kagyat siyang kumunsulta sa Office of the Vice President for Legal Affairs noong Nobyembre 7. Anong kapangyarihan ang mayroon ang isang Tagapangulo ng Departamento na hindi papasukin ang isang faculty sa kanyang mga klase nang walang legal na batayan?

At ano ang nagawang kasalanan ni Prop. Raymundo na kailangang ikonsulta sa legal office ng unibersidad?

Nagkukubli si Dr. Aquino sa kanyang pormal na interpretasyon ng proseso kaya hindi nagpapaliwanag. Alam niya na sa karaniwang praktika sa unibersidad, ang rekomendasyon ng mga departamento kaugnay ng tenure ay sinasangayunan ng nakakataas na mga opisina kaugnay ng prinsipyo ng pagrespeto sa disciplinal autonomy. Kung gayon, ang desisyon ng departamento na di paggawad ng tenure kay Prop. Raymundo ay prosesong kumpleto na sa antas ng departamento. At ang kanyang pagpapaabot nito kay Prop. Raymundo ay bahagi ng proseso na ayaw niyang kumpletuhin sa pagbibigay ng dahilan ng desisyon. Nagkukubli naman ang ilang kasapi ng departamento sa umano’y progresibong politikal na track record kaya hindi lubos na maunawaan ng mga nakakaengkwentro sa kaso ni Prof. Raymundo na hindi akademiko at sa totoo ay politikal ang batayan para sa desisyong di pagkakaloob ng tenure sa kanya. Natupad ni Prof. Raymundo ang academic requirements para sa tenure, bakit hindi siya pinagkalooban nito?

Kinakailangang magpaliwanag si Dr. Aquino at ang ilang tenured fakulti ng departamento hinggil sa kanilang mga akusasyon at desisyon ng di paggawad ng tenure kay Prop. Raymundo. Huwag gamitin ang proseso at ang umano’y progresibong politikal track record para itago ang mga di napapatunayang akusasyon sa likod ng proseso. Ipagtanggol ang karapatan ng gurong may progresibong paniniwala. Panagutin si Dr. Aquino at ang departamento sa kanilang desisyon.

Pinagyaman ng mahabang kasaysayan ng progresibong kaisipan at pagkilos sa U.P. ang kalakarang transparency, accountability, due process, debate ng mga idea at ang pagtindig laban sa witch-hunting at red-baiting. Ipagtanggol ang mga kalakarang ito, lalo pa sa gitna ng umiigting na komersyalisasyon at politikal na panunupil sa kampus, sa sektor ng edukasyon, at sa bansa.

Itigil ang witch-hunting at red-baiting!

Dr. Clemen Aquino, tagapangulo ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya, magpaliwanag ka!

Sociology Department, uphold academic freedom!

Itigil ang politikal na panunupil sa kampus!

Katarungan at tenure para kay Prof. Sarah Raymundo!

The Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy or CONTEND is a progressive organization of academics based in the University of the Philippines- Diliman.

Pulitikal na Represyon sa Nagbabagong Mukha ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas

Rommel Rodriguez*

Kapag babagtasin ang kahabaan ng university avenue, makikita pa rin ang nakadipang katawan ng oblation bilang simbolo ng pagiging bukas ng unibersidad sa tradisyon nitong pagsilbihan ang mamamayan. Subalit ngayon, sa pamamagitan ng mga biswal na pagbabago na nagaganap sa pamantasan, unti-unti nang niyayakap ng oblation ang kanyang sarili kahit gawa sa kongkreto ang buo nitong katawan.

Marahil, hindi na lingid sa kaalaman ng karamihan ang nakikitang proyekto ng administrasyon na pagandahin ang biswal na katangian ng unibersidad. Nariyan ang pagpapalit ng daanan sa paligid ng academic oval. Sa mga labasan at pasukan ng mga sasakyan, nilagyan na ng tarangkahan ang mga ito bukod sa pagtatalaga ng mga guwardiya bilang pahiwatig ng pagpapahigpit ng seguridad. Sunod-sunod ang pagpapapintura ng mga kolehiyo at muling pinatingkad ang matamlay na kulay ng mga ito upang magmistulang bago ang mga nabubulok ng edipisyo. Idagdag pa ang pagpapalit ng mga karatulang pinalaki, bukod sa nagsulputang ng mga regulasyong nagbabawal sa mga maliliit at itinuturing na ilegal na transaksyon sa loob ng unibersidad. Nahihilo ang mga motorista sa pagsunod sa mga batas trapiko kapag nakapasok ng pamantasan ang kanilang sasakyan. Makikita na rin ang paggawa ng mga kalsadang sumusuyod sa kalooban ng pamantasan.

Sa unang malas, mistulang seryoso ang administrasyon sa hangarin nitong maging isang world-class university ang U.P. Sa pamamagitan ng biswal na pagpapaganda, hangad nitong umangat ang ranggo ng pamantasan kapag inihanay na sa mga unibersidad sa ibang bansa, kahit man lamang sa timog silangang asya. Dahil katatapos lang ng sentenaryo, mukhang makatarungan nga na ayusin ang sira-sira at nabubulok na imahe ng pamantasan. Gayunman, dahil sa pagpapanibagong hubog nito, mas halata ang mga nais nitong itago. Sa pagbabago ng arkitektura ng U.P., mas natitiyak na may nais itong burahing tradiksyon at kamalayan.

Sa katapat na lupain sa Commonwealth Avenue, mabilis na naitayo ang U.P.-Ayalaland techno hub na dating tinutulan ng mga aktibista noong dekada nubenta. May pangako pa noon ang administrasyon na kapag ipinarenta ang mga buhag-buhag na lupain, hindi tataas ang tuition. Sa halip, mas magkakaroon pa raw ng sariling pondo ang pamantasan upang masuportahan nito ang pinansyal na pangangailangan sa pamamagitan ng pagpapatayo ng mga komersyal na establisyimento. Epekto ito ng galaw ng kapitalismo. Ang paglalagay ng techno hub malapit sa unibersidad ay senyales ng pagpapalawak nito ng teritoryo dahil sa unti-unti na itong bumabagsak at naghihingalo. Kaya, ang lakas-paggawa ng mga mag-aaral ang nakikita nitong pangunahing maaaring pagkunan ng tubo na itinatago sa likod ng pinasyal na tulong na iniaalok nito sa unibersidad.

Bakit nga ba lumalapit ang mga lokal at dayuhang kapitalista sa mga unibersidad? Sapagkat nakikita nila ang malawak na lakas-paggawa na makukuha nila sa mga estudyanteng inililibre nila ng sakay ng dyip tuwing Martes. Ang mga mag-aaral ng U.P. ang magta-trabaho sa mga call center na lilikha ng malaking kita habang sila rin naman ang ginagatasan ng mga lokal na kapitalistang nagtayo ng iba’t ibang negosyong nakapaloob sa techno hub tulad ng kainan, bookstore at kapihan. Ibig sabihin, ang mga mag-aaral ang lumilikha ng kita at sila pa rin ang nakikitang maaaring pagkakitaan. Kaya ano ang epekto? Taktikal na naitatago ang sistema ng edukasyon na unti-unting nabubulok at bumababa ang kuwalidad. Nawawala ang esensiya ng pamantasan bilang pugad ng akademikong kagalingan sapagkat nagiging isa na itong kapitalistang inilalako ang kanyang nasasakupang lupa at mga mag-aaral, na sa halip na ituon ang panahon at oras sa pag-aaral ay napipilitang magtrabaho.

Tulad nang inaasahan, hindi bumaba ang tuition. Libu-libo ang itinaas nito. Ang mga nakapasang mag-aaral na hindi kinaya ang mataas na bayarin ay mistulang tinalikuran ng oblation. Namimili na ngayon ang unibersidad ng mga mag-aaral batay sa yaman at hindi sa talino. Ang pangako ng pag-unlad ng pamantasan at akademikong kagalingan ay napalitan ng isang komersyal na pamantayan. Kung kaya’t ang pag-unlad ay makikita lamang sa temporal na pagbabago ng arkitektura ng unibersidad, sa halip na pagpapaunlad ng akademiko nitong kakanyahan.

Maraming itinatago mula sa mga tagalabas ang mga pagbabagong ng pisikal na representasyon ng unibersidad. Ang pagpapahigpit ng seguridad ay senyales lamang na hindi ligtas ang nasasakupan nito sa mga krimen. Ilang bangkay na rin ba ang itinapon sa kampus? At nito lamang nakaraang taon, naibalita ang panloloob ng isa sa mga bangko sa unibersidad. Gayunman, ang hindi nakikitang krimen ay ang pagpaslang sa tradisyon ng unibersidad bilang pugad ng intelektuwal na mga usapin. Tinatalikuran nito ang radikal at progresibong kamalayan ng U.P. Habang nagaganap ang pagpapaganda ng biswal na representasyon ng pamantasan, sinisikil at pinapaslang naman nito ang mga tumututol sa mga mapang-api at tiwaling sistema ng edukasyon.

Sa kasalukuyan, nagaganap ang iba’t ibang uri ng represyong pulitikal sa kampus. May mga gurong nais nitong tanggalin kapag nagpahiwatig ng kontra-diskursong ideolohiya sa pinapangalaan ng mga administrador na sistema ng edukasyong anti-mamamayan at yumuyukod sa burgis na pamantayan. Maging ang usapin ng mga mag-aaral hinggil sa kanilang karapatan na magkaroon ng epektibong representasyon ay pilit na binabago upang umayon sa proyekto ng neo-liberal na edukasyon at komersyalisasyon.

Noon, maaaring lumabas-masok ang mga estudyante sa mga kolehiyo na walang suot-suot na i.d. Subalit ngayon, maraming mga mag-aaral ang nagsusuot nito na para bang iwinawasiwas ang pagiging estudyante ng U.P. Tulad ng pamantasan, naapektuhan na rin ang pagbabago ng itsura ng mga mag-aaral nito. Marahil, sasabihin ng iba na walang masamang layunin ang pagsuot ng i.d. Subalit marapat tandaan na hindi ito ang tunay na tatak ng pagiging iskolar ng bayan, kundi ang pagkakaroon ng kritikal na pag-iisip at pagsasapraktika ng kamalayang mapagpalaya.

Sa lahat ng ito, patuloy sa pagkilos ang mga guro at estudyanteng tumutunggali sa mga nagaganap na represyon sa pamantasan tulad ng pagtaas ng iba’t ibang bayarin at walang kasiguraduhan sa trabaho. Sa pamamagitan ng ganitong mga gawain, naipapaalala sa lahat na hindi nagbabago ang sistema ng edukasyon, itago man ito sa patung-patung na kulay at imahe ng kagandahan.


* Si Rommel Rodriguez ay kasalukuyang guro sa U.P. Departamento ng Filipino at Panitikan ng Pilipinas, Kolehiyo ng Arte at Literatura. Kasapi siya ng CONTEND-UP at Palanca awardee sa maikling kuwento.

February 3, 2009 Forum on Political Repression in the Academe

Dear Friends and Supporters,

We would like to invite you to a forum "Tinimbang Ka Ngunit Kulang: Political Repression in the Academe" with speakers Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo, Alliance of Concerned Teachers Chair Tonchi Tinio, All UP Academic Union President-Diliman Chapter Ramon Guillermo, Student Regent Shan Abdul-Wahid, and under seige UP Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo. Former UP Faculty Arni Trinidad will also comment on the issue of the tenure process.

Speakers will be discussing the militarization of the campus, counter-insurgency role of the Civil Military Operations Batallion, lack of transparency in the tenure process that paves the way for political persecution, and other forms of political repression in all branches of the education sector, among others.

This event will be held at the UP Recto Hall, Feb 3, Tuesday, 1-4 pm.

Please pass on to friends and supporters. We also invite members of the press to provide media coverage. Let us be vigilant of our rights.

The event is sponsored by the Congress of Teachers and Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND-UP) , in full support of the campaign for Justice and Tenure for Prof. Sarah Raymundo.

There will also be a protest rally for the Justice and Tenure for Prof. Sarah Raymundo campaign on Friday, Feb. 6, 11 am-1 pm, AS Steps.

Shameless

by Ina Stuart Santiago

It’s a downright shame that on the year of the University of the Philippines’ Centennial, one that has been celebrated with much publicity and fanfare and cash, we hear many stories of how the university has turned on its own. Students have to deal with a higher tuition fee and the difficult process of qualifying for the STFAP (one full scholar? unacceptable!). Janitors like Mang Meliton are given P.92 centavos as retirement pay after 41 years of service. Where is the justice in that?

And then there’s the story of Prof. Sarah Raymundo - one that has done the rounds of blogs, has warranted statements from scholars and activists here and abroad, and has been the bane of the Department of Sociology’s existence since everything blew over. And rightfully so. Because what happened to Sarah can happen to anyone who plays by the rules, does more than what’s required, but who is still deemed unworthy of permanent status in the University. What has happened to her can and will happen again, in a University of the Philippines that allows its departments to unilaterally decide on the future of its faculty members, ignoring what it is they have contributed to the University. What has happened to Sarah will happen again, in a Department of Sociology that has yet to come clean about her case.

In the meantime, one can’t help but ask: what is it that’s more important than Sarah’s academic work (international conferences, published essays in books and refereed journals, extension work, a graduate degree) in a University that teaches us about the value of getting published and the need for continuous study? What is it that weighs heavier than teacher evaluations that prove how students learn from her, and would take her classes again and again?

The answer seems simple enough: it’s Sarah’s politics. That’s as much as she’s been told by her superiors in the department, and this is all that this can be about given how Sarah has met all requirements for tenure. This is about her involvement in issues within and beyond the academe, it’s because she has decided not to sit on a fence and watch the world collide. It’s because Sarah’s an activist, and not the kind that only panders to what is politically correct when it is popular (for that is really just an opportunist). Instead she involves herself in issues that are important because relevant, and for this she is being made to pay dearly. What is wrong with getting involved in the issue of the missing U.P. students Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeno? What is unacceptable about her volunteer work for the human rights organization Karapatan? Why must she be made to apologize for the kind of teaching she does - which the Department of Sociology has deemed wrong - because some of her students have become activists themselves?

Any person who has been a student would know that some teachers can change our lives. Any student who changes her ideological leanings may pinpoint one teacher who has made her re-think her beliefs, re-assess her practices, without realizing that in fact she is only reacting to her own history, her own class contradictions. If and when a student becomes an activist, no teacher can take credit for it. To do so would be egotistical, and that’s to imagine that all students enter the classroom tabula rasa.

And yet it seems that the Department of Sociology’s active imagination has created a picture of Sarah as someone who consciously and conscientiously works towards turning students into her clones. Something that is impossible to prove, and is really more a matter of the pot calling the kettle black: there are undoubtedly teachers who want to create little mini-mes who will repeat what they say as if they are gods, who will put them on a pedestal and pinpoint them as mentors, who will forever be unable to look them in the eye and presume equality. Only teachers who see this as the correct order of things, will imagine that Sarah is the same. Only the powerful administrators can use this to take away the house and home Sarah has known the University and the Department of Sociology to be, political and ideological disagreements notwithstanding.

Sarah is a leftist, and the last time I looked there was no need to apologize for being so. Not when the work one does, the essays one writes and gets published, the conferences one is invited to attend, the M.A. one gets, is a product as well of that activism. There is nothing extraneous to one’s ideology, yes? So why is Sarah being made to suffer for what she believes in? Given so many tenured faculty members who are at the other end of the ideological spectrum, what can this be but a witch hunt? An academic killing of the progressive faculty of the University?

This is so much bigger than Sarah of course, as in this country real killings and disappearances of activists continue to happen everyday. But what has happened to Sarah, in the context of the publicity that has surrounded U.P.’s Centennial Celebrations, is proof of what the University has become.

So I take it back. It is perfect that this happened to Sarah on the year of U.P.’s Centennial. It reveals to us all, alumni and students, faculty and employees, that the University's activist past is all lost glory, and is only celebrated when it is convenient and romantic. In truth, it is now anti-progressive and anti-activist, and it will endanger the life of its own, take away house and home, for reasons that are nothing but petty, everything and unacceptable. In many ways, this Centennial showed U.P. to be ultimately and unabashedly shameless.

January 27, 2009, CAL New Building