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!
1 comment:
In last page of his 12-page October 28 memorandum, Chancellor Cao wrote that Prof. Raymundo only has two (2) publications and that these are only book reviews ("reviews of works of others") published in Kasarinlan. This gives the impression that she does not have a refereed publication (i.e., main article).
This is not true because she has refereed publications in the Plaridel journal, two (2) of which are main articles and one (1) is a monograph review.
I know this because Plaridel: A Journal of Philippine Communication, Media and Society is published by our college (UP CMC).
Thank you for reading.
Danny
Post a Comment