Silencia et Virtus
imposing the “virtue” of silence

by Marlowe del Mar Cañares and
Michael Villamor

No one is above the law.

But apparently, our university is. Article 3, Section 4 of the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Philippine Constitution recognizes the individuals’ right to speech, to expression and to peaceful assembly for the redress of grievances. The Students’ Handbook of the University of San Carlos, though, states that students have to obtain permission before freely exercising this supposedly unassailable freedom. Apparently, the law of the land is not at all that absolute.

Case in point: The NO PERMIT, NO RALLY policy of the university.

The Students Affairs Office pushed for the implementation of this policy back when Fr. Roderick Salazar was USC Assistant Vice President. Rallies, he said, would only disturb classes and violate the rights of the students attending their respective classes. Later, though, Father Salazar expressed that rallies, although essentially prohibited in the university, are possible.

This double talk speaks volumes. There is something not quite right about a “liberal” institution that regulates a basic individual right. It also shows clearly just how much intelligence the university credits its students when it presumes that they do not have minds critical enough to see beyond the surface level of the mandate. It is safe to assume that permits would be readily granted to those who would rally against generic issues like healthcare, abortion, or the ineptitude of the current president. But what if the subject of the protest is closer to home? What if the subject is, say, the perennial tuition fee increases of the university? Or the discrimination against women manifested by the uniform? What happens then?

It is interesting to note that rallies were never prohibited outright. Could this be because USC wishes to uphold its “liberalism”, despite its strong feudal tendencies? To tack up the sign “NO RALLY” would be to announce to one and all that USC would rather nurture the political ignorance of its students than have them up in arms against the policies that hold them hostage. That would not do the USC image any good.

The policy is not only repressive, it also defeats the purpose of a supposedly LIBERAL Carolinian education. After all, is the formation of critical-minded individuals not the ultimate goal of USC? Doesn’t one, to be critical, need to judiciously analyze, understand and if need be, question issues, policies, events and people? After all, simply going along with administrative decree is not a sign of obedience. It is but mindless submission.

What then is the acceptable way of thinking critically? Is there even an unacceptable way? People, by nature, think. If rallies and assemblies were prohibited as legitimate avenues of this right, where else would the students go? The so-called “other forms” of struggle (table negotiations, for example) would not suffice for the simple reason that students are not really treated as credible decision makers when it comes to issues that affect them. This is evident in the many policies that seem to magically appear out of thin air, policies conjured by certain institutions in this university that have no regard for public opinion, most especially the students’.

It is clear now that we are not actually being taught how to be analytical for to be analytical necessarily requires active involvement in different issues that surround us. On the contrary, we are being taught a culture of silence. Under the guise of liberal education, we are made to think that apathy and individualism are virtues to be upheld rather than discouraged. The university should realize that collective demonstrations and protests against repressive policies are not meant to undermine the authority of the administration. On the contrary, these are meant to point out to the administration their mistakes so these could be acted upon. In so doing, the give-and-take relationship between the students and the administration could be further strenghtened towards the realization of one goal, that of genuine respect for individual studetns’ rights. We are, after all, pursuing quality education. Who has a better say in this than the ones affected, the students?

This is supposed to be a university that listens to its students. But how can it listen if it does not even allow its students to speak? For that is what the NO PERMIT, NO RALLY policy really is — another not-too-subtle administrative maneuver to silence the students and suppress their rights to speak. It is ironic how a university teaching its students critical thinking should regulate their immutable right to do so. The NO PERMIT, NO RALLY policy is another glorious example of how those in power use semantics to hoodwink the very public it is supposed to serve. Because if the NO PERMIT, NO RALLY policy is not double talk, if it is not a violation of constitutional rights, if it is not a fallacy of adulterated freedom, just what is it? Nothing more than a line in the student manual, perhaps? Could this mean that our esteemed university is indeed above the law?

Copy right © 2003. Today's CAROLINIAN. All rights reserved.
for comments and suggestions, please e-mail us at:
todayscarolinian@eudoramail.com