Siftings
Thoughts on UP as The National University of the Philippines
(Part II)
In this column issue, I continue the concerns I aired on UP's new status as the National University of the Philippines. A university is the center of intellectual and artistic activity wherever it is found, where young minds learn from the store of knowledge and wisdom embodied in its faculty of mentors and scholars. This was how it was in Europe of the Middle Ages, when scholars like the monk Abelard and scientists like Galileo, Newton, et al., tackled the paradoxes of life and death, God and man, etc.; posed theories and made discoveries and inventions that have since improved the quality of human life but ironically have also made it stressful, fearsome and untenable for many peoples who are unfortunate enough to live in bitterly contested, war-ravaged areas of the world. Like our own Mindanao today.
But what makes UP the state university different from UP the national university? What I know is that, the former got its budget from the state or national government, and operated according to its charter which laid down its basic nature as an academe, its policies and rules of operation; defined its mandate of academic freedom in pursuit of academic excellence. But what is now expected of the UP? A big difference with the use of the word "national?" While still getting its budget from the national government, will it become more directly involved in the policy-making and operations of the government for the eventual development of this country?
Prof. Randy David of UP Diliman, multi-awarded TV host of "Public Forum", in his Centennial Lecture entitled "Modernity and the UP: The First 100 Years" points out what UP could be now that it has become the national university by virtue of RA 9500of 2008 and I quote:
"I understand that this is meant to convey the view that UP is not just any other tertiary institution, but is in fact the 'premier' university of the land. But perhaps there is another sense in which we may interpret this semantic shift. Calling UP the 'National University of the Philippines' stresses the university's operational autonomy from the state, even as it remains very much in the service of the Filipino nation."
As Prof. David analyzes the gains and failures of UP as a modern state institution of learning, one thing stands out: that UP has what he calls a "blind spot," which seems the result of the emergence of UP as a modern university while struggling to assert its autonomy as a center of learning, operating according to its own distinct codes and programs, and doing so "while seeking to establish a strong presence in its societal milieu." This last endeavor I would interpret as UP's quest for relevance: societal, intellectual, academic, social. But in Prof. David's analysis, UP's quest for relevance almost throughout the last century suffered from this "blind spot:" He explains why:
"The need to contribute to the attainment of an equitable society was never high in the university's institutional priorities. Somehow, the pursuit of academic excellence produced an intellectual aristocracy that found a secure place in an oligarchical society. Without intending it, the UP became an effective mechanism for the reproduction of a highly unequal society, rather than a source of enduring impulses towards a more just and equitable social order.
We might say this has been UP's incurable blind spot, its failure. It is not to say that equity and social justice never found a home in UP. For, indeed, there was not a lack of students and professors who would champion the cause of the underprivileged at any point. But, for all the talk about institutional relevance, this was never crystallized into enduring programs or policies."
This is a deeply moving and thought-provoking analysis that can have great and lasting significance for the future of UP in this century, if given the proper attention by the proper university authority and government authorities.
We call to mind the now fading image of the countless Iskhos/Iskhas, mga Iskolar ng Bayan who died in encounters in the mountains or in bloody street rallies, all for the dream of a just, equitable and humane society for the centuries-oppressed masa of this land. But where are they now, these idealistic youth who made this country proud when the late dictator misruled this land? Have we reached the first decade of this century only to discover that our youth have morphed into mall rats and computer games addicts who have lost their capacity for independent, critical thinking? Like their parents who are forced by domestic needs to work hard abroad to be able to build mansions and bring good food to the family table, to have their children drive around their luxury cars in designer clothes to flaunt in the face of poverty? Alas, for the simple the joys of the third world! Gone with the wind!
While UP's original goal as state university was to produce graduates with technical skills necessary for the progress of this country- albeit with little or no loyalty to the nation that has nurtured them- it is now time to bring back the indomitable Iskho/Iskha, the Iskholar ng Bayan, as symbol of today's youth: committed, caring, courageous in the face of authoritarianism, oppression and corruption wherever these rear their venom-fanged heads in our midst.
In the interim, let me re-ask a question asked by Dr. Washington Sycip, founder of the SGV Group of auditors and management consultants, and multi-awarded international finance and economic leader, in his UP Centennial Lecture read at UP Diliman some weeks ago, entitled "UP: View From Outside:'Questions for the Future of UP'":
If UP has accurately claimed that during the past 62 years after we left the US umbrella, UP graduates have occupied the presidential chair for 46 years, then I may ask you: "Why are we in such a mess?"
Indeed, UP, why is the country in this mess we are in?