A student had applied for admission, was found to be qualified but could not afford the tuition fee. He was awarded a grant-in-aid to cover tuition, which meant he went through college without paying tuition fees. At the end of third year he was disqualified for scholarship because of low grades. The University interceded on his behalf with a Foundation and the scholarship was renewed. At that time he ran for President of the student council and was elected.
Towards the end of his term, in the elections to elect his successor, he ran for reelection. This of course was questioned by many students since he was about to graduate. Nevertheless the Student COMELEC allowed him to run provided he served as President only as long he was a student. He was reelected on a narrow margin. Having graduated in March, in order to continue as a student, he applied for readmission to the University to study for a second degree. The University refused to readmit him.
The University President explained that the University was a place for study and not to engage in student politics, which clearly was the motive in this application for readmission for a second degree.
Incidentally, (though this was not used as a reason for denying him admission) the student who had been supported in his studies up to his graduation probably expected to continue to be supported by the University financially for his second degree.
The University’s refusal to readmit him has been resented and the University is now being harassed.
I mention this case because several issues are involved that are worth reflecting about. One issue is the right of a school to choose its students. Does a school have that right?
A distinction should be made between a "public" school supported by the taxes of the citizens, and a "private" school that must support itself from tuition and other fees. We leave to others to answer the question regarding public schools. Our concern is with private schools.
Does a private school have the right to exclude an applicant? Or is it obliged to accept any and all applicants?
Therea re some in the United States (and therefore also in the Philippines, since we ape everyting American) who deny that a private school has the right to exclude anyone who applies for admission. But that is to deny academic freedom to a private institution, a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
A private school has the right to determine its standards and values. It must, therefore, have the right to exclude anyone perceived to be either deficient with regard to those standards and values, or whose presence in the school might make the upholding of those standards and values difficult.
There is another issue, and it concerns the student. A student whose studies are made possible by financial support from the school or from agencies connected with the school, thereby incurs a debt of gratitude. This is a debt not perhaps enforceable in the courts as a legal obligation; but it is a real and ethical obligation nonetheless.
Gratitude is a value particularly dear to Filipinos. One of its manifestations is the utang na loob, so often mentioned by sociologists. When a person, after having received support from a school in his or her studies, turns against that school and attacks it or its values, that person is guilty of gross ingratitude.
Unfortunately, this kind of gross ingratitude is not rare. I have seen many cases of it.
Perhaps the school should exercise greater care in selecting those who are to receive financial support in their studies. While it is not always possible to foresee who will be, or will not be grateful, nevertheless there are often indications. The norm is "poor and deserving." But those who are likely to be ungrateful are not deserving. They might be poor, but their poverty is not merely economic. They also suffer from moral poverty.