THE SACRED AUTONOMY OF THE YAHOOS

CONTEND-UP

January 2010

Rep. Walden Bello hit the nail on the head when he called those in the

Dept. of Sociology opposed to Sarah Raymundo's tenure as "Yahoos."

Yahoos are defined as being rednecks possessed of a somewhat backward

culture. One can imagine what Yahoos can do given self-rule or

"autonomy." They can immediately ban those immoral "homos" from

running or even voting in elections, they can forbid the teaching of

the theory of evolution, they can call for the return of slavery and

they can even permanently bar those troublesome "leftards" from

teaching in Universities.

Benighted fiefdoms run by Yahoos waving the banner of "autonomy" can

be pretty stifling and even scary places to live in. In "autonomous"

Aceh, Indonesia, women wearing tight jeans can be arrested on the

street. For worse offenses, stoning to death is once again a legal

form of punishment. Blatantly violating the European Convention on

Human Rights, the autonomous cantons of Switzerland which boasts of

being the only system of direct democracy in the world, recently voted

against the future construction of minarets in their territories. Here

in the Philippines, "autonomy" has allowed every sort of petty tyrant

to enrich himself, rule with impunity and terrorize the people with

heavily armed private armies numbering in the hundreds.

It is true that in some institutional contexts, "autonomy" can play a

positive role in developing local governance skills and encouraging

popular initiatives. Under some urgent circumstances, it may even be

put to good use as a kind of buffer against an abusive central power.

However, it is absolutely not a good thing when there no sufficient

safeguards exist to ensure that those who are supposed to benefit from

"autonomy" do not themselves fall victim to it.

This is precisely the case with the issue of Prof. Raymundo's tenure.

In fact, it still is an important test case. Respect for departmental

autonomy can open the floodgates to rampant abuses if it is not

balanced with a deep concern for the rights and welfare of young

faculty members and the institutionalization of effective mechanisms

capable of ensuring that only academic criteria are used in deciding

the granting of tenure to qualified applicants. Apparently unmindful

of this, UP Pres. Emerlinda Roman wrote in the letter to Prof.

Raymundo denying her appeal that, "upholding the autonomy of the

Department of Sociology" is necessary in order to maintain the

"institutional autonomy guaranteed under the UP Charter." That is to

say, any act which may rectify an injustice and protect the rights of

powerless junior faculty simply cannot be undertaken since these mere

"rights" are not as sacred as departmental "autonomy." This

absolutization of autonomy even when it is exercised in a wrongful

manner is a damaging admission of a blatant lack of concern for the

rights and welfare of young faculty members.

Pres. Roman also unwittingly confuses the notion of departmental

autonomy which is here at issue and the kind of "autonomy" promised by

the UP Charter which is mainly of a "fiscal" nature. (In fact, it

calls her a CEO.) It is well-known that CEO Roman, is hellbent on

kicking out public accountability and national service from the

vocabulary of the University in order to transform it into a

full-scale, profit-generating entity. The new breed of UP

administrators she represents has absolutely no interest in the

problem of how many poor students are now unable to enter the

University as long as the quarterly report looks good and those

profits keep rolling in. Remember that scene in the film Avatar where

the quarterly business report outweighs concern for any public outcry

over the massacre of innocent "aliens"? Educational corporations,

being privately-owned entities, do not have any inherent

accountability to the public right to education nor any need for

transparency in the way that they do business or make decisions.

If CEO Roman and Co. had their way, the actual limits of

democratization and academic freedom in the University should now be

determined solely by their impact on the margins of profit. And it is

here where corporate fiscal "autonomy" run by technocrats and the

"autonomy" of semifeudal fiefdoms run by Yahoos meet. They join

together in their fear of transparency, accountability and basic human

rights, not to mention those "radicals" who stubbornly refuse their

agenda.

People like Prof. Raymundo, a staunch defender of the University

against privatization and fierce opponent of the commercialization of

knowledge production must be silenced. The Yahoos can do it if they

quickly kick her out and just shut their clams. However, and

unfortunately for them, this still leaves the technocrats with some

really tough explaining to do.