Hooliganism
I consider the University of the Philippines as a potent ground for intellectual discussion-and idealism. Every forum that tackles issues affecting a particular sector or the general public is a manifestation of how fertile the ground is. For many years, even the very solemn graduation ceremony has no excuse, made as a venue for outcry of sentiment. Truly, the university is a training ground for students' critical thinking and expression. But how, when and where a line can be drawn for an expression to be rational therefore beneficial, displaced or uncalled for, for our future leaders?
When Budget Secretary Florencio Abad was invited by the University Student Council to speak about the proposed national budget for 2015, he was mobbed after the forum. According to reports, students yelled at him and hurled crumpled paper at his face, while some pelted him with coins, and another reportedly grabbed him by the back of his collar as he boarded his vehicle.
Few days after the incident, the university president said that students should have showed the budget secretary the courtesy and respect due to all guests of the premier state university. He further stated that while UP constituents are free to actively express their views on issues that affect our nation, such as the proper use of public funds, UP does not condone the use of violence in any manner against any person, be it a member of the university community, a visitor, or a government official.
He maintained that, as the country's national university, UP must lead the debate on important issues confronting the country. But debate and dissent, while articulated with passion, require evidence-based and reasoned arguments and civility to and respect for those who hold the opposite view.
But the group of University of the Philippines students accused of harming the secretary says that the latter was not willing to engage in a dialogue. These were the words of STAND UP, the leftist group.
But even then, it is clear that the incident showed lack of civility. It was supposed to be the kind of civility accorded to a guest regardless of a dissenting opinion or view he espouses.
All acts of violence, systemic or otherwise, when justified by an allusion to righteousness are plainly deplorable. Righteousness does not justify violence. For violence cannot in any way justify one's aim. Anger, no matter how intense and just, need not lead to violence. I must say that the certainty of correctness is necessary but not sufficient reason for anyone to proceed to violence. We will never be able to justify violence.
For faculty members of the UP School of Economics (UPSE), the incident was an assault on the University itself. Any academic institution for that matter does not tolerate any form of violence or any act that would disgrace anybody. Regardless of status, rank, preference, political affiliation or advocacy, decency and courtesy shall be accorded. An academic institution aims to produce intellectuals who are grounded on principles and values while upholding harmonious human relationship.
As the premier university, UP is expected to promote responsibility in the exercise of the freedom of expression and civility while engaging in political discourse. It shall remain a free and fearless field for ideas. Debates are won not by assault but by argument, not by shouting down but by speaking up. For freedom of expression to truly work, it must always be grounded on a foundation of both respect for others and sensitivity to their safety and welfare.
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may speak, write and print with freedom. But freedom of speech is not license to physically attack a government official, even if he is suspected of transgression.
We do not invite someone to our house just to disrespect and put him in danger. The hooligans have transgressed, beyond the boundary of courtesy and decency.
- Latest
