Ending the marks of the enemies

(published in the Philippine Collegian, issue 04 in response to Mr. Luisito Abueg's letter to the editor)

Sadly, Mr. Luisito Cagandahan Abueg is still haunted by his own pathetic impulse on the UPLB Perspective editorship. Having witnessed the Perspective editor-in-chief (EIC) selection controversy in 2002, it remains a wonder why he remains deceived by Chancellor Wilfredo David’s tactic of dividing the studentry.

 

Abueg’s arguments reflect a bigoted understanding of the issue, limiting it to the two personalities contending for the editorial position – a tactic not far from the one used by Chancellor David through his mouthpiece, the Horizon. The controversy does not revolve around the personalities involved in the issue, but around an anomaly committed in the EIC selection process. 

 

Calleja’s use of end marks and misidentification of Prof. Jose Camacho with former Finance Secretary Isidro Camacho, tagging it as Calleja’s unforgivable error, were David’s reasons for not appointing Calleja despite the fact that she topped the carefully coded editorial exams conducted by the 2004 ad hoc editorial selection committee. These were the very reasons why David imposed a new grading scheme (eliminating the lowest and highest scores I, Peralta and Camacho gave) so the results of the exams will be altered and a new recommendation will be made by the same committee. David’s intention is clear: to railroad the committee’s original recommendation so he could appoint who he thinks is “best.”

 

Mr. Abueg should withdraw his statement regarding the use of end marks that should first be approved by the editorial committee. If he had learned from journalism seminars he has attended in his four-year stint in the Perspective, he should have known that using end marks is a common practice in journalism. Thus, even if the editorial selection committee did not set the use of end marks, it acknowledged the purpose just the same. I dare say that it would be Abueg’s burden to prove if I, a student representative, would have a clue on the identities of the examinees who used end marks.

 

Calleja only ranked third in the news-writing category for referring to Prof. Camacho as former Finance Secretary Isidro Camacho in her news article. She did not place any lower, considering David’s judgment that Calleja’s lapses were unforgivable. Even so, David committed the same unforgivable error when he referred to Katrina Ross Tan as Katherine Ross Tan in his official appointment letter.

 

Calleja’s scores in all the categories in the exam were computed using the normalized average ranking, the grading system set by the committee. She topped the exam, scoring 2.8, over Tan and Macalintal who got 2.9 and 3.31, respective. Therefore, she was recommended by the committee on April 12, 2004 in accordance with the Rules and Regulations Governing the UPLB Perspective. However, David came in to alter the results.

 

Mr. Abueg is right in saying that extreme values would affect the average of all the scores. That is why the committee devised the normalized average ranking to minimize the bias of extreme scores. I have pointed out in our committee meetings that extreme values are unavoidable in competitive editorial exams, where the criteria for judging an article vary among the committee members with different professional expertise, journalistic background, perspective and culture. The committee respected my opinion and in our March 10 meeting, it was stipulated in our minutes that, “Each member has the capacity for fair judgment. A high variance should not be considered a problem. A high variance is just the result of an exercise of free will.”

 

Most significantly, I would like to point out Abueg’s imprudent referral to the Perspective Charter, saying that David has the sole authority to appoint the next EIC. Articles 6 and 7 of the Perspective Charter state that the committee shall recommend the one who gained the highest average score in the editorial examinations and hereinafter the Chancellor shall appoint. The charter does not stipulate that the Chancellor can recommend a new ranking method nor can he appoint an examinee he has chosen after receipt of the results. In this case, the duty of the appointing body, is only ministerial.

 

The new grading scheme imposed by Chancellor David to “minimize bias” is incomprehensible. So is Abueg’s staunch defense of David despite the latter’s glaring attempts to railroad the committee’s recommendation.

 

Certainly, the fundamental issue of the Perspective editorship is satisfying self-interest.  Hence, we could clearly draw the line between the enemies of the campus press and their allies, as well as those who are firm to wrestle for the ultimate cause of the alternative media. I am hoping that Mr. Abueg has not been deceived. Or else, he would simply be an ignominy of the campus press.

 

Again,

Respect the Ad Hoc editorial selection committee’s autonomy!

No to Chancellor David’s Intervention!  

Uphold Campus Press Freedom!

 

Bon Andrey Queaño

Student Representative,

2004 Ad Hoc Editorial Examination Committee

---

Queaño’s “Petty Concern”: A Nun-sequitur Analysis

(unedited version, published in the Philippine Collegian, issue 03, letter to the editor)

 

For the second time, Chancellor Wilfredo P. David contested the scores in the results of the UPLB Perspective Editorial Examination. For the second time, David recommended another scheme in determining the ranks of the examinees in the combined weights in the four categories of the exam (editorial, news, layout, and interview). And for the second time around, the disparity in the scores came from the student representative of the committee, in the person of Mr. Bon Audrey Queaño.

 

I would like to clarify three things in the news article entitled UPLB Chancy derails Perspective EIC selection by Jerrie M. Abella in the June 15 issue of the Philippine Collegian. First, it would be Mr. Queano’s burden to prove that it is indeed Chancellor David’s “petty concern” (as Mr. Queaño termed it) of observing a “bias in favor of examinees with end marks.” I personally believe that examinees must not use end marks in their articles, unless set by the ad hoc committee. The use of end marks may be very possible for the examinees and the committee to have a queue (contrast to Mr. Queaño’s statement that the examinees’ identities are coded and revealed only after the committee has evaluated their exams).

 

Second, if Mr. Queaño claims that Ms. Niña Catherine Calleja was indeed the topnotcher for three categories in the exam, why is she only second in editorial and third in news writing (the fact that Ms. Calleja was the former news editor)? It would be more convincing if Ms. Calleja topped the news and editorial components (at least the news writing component), which is 30% and 40% respectively, isn’t it?

 

Third, I personally believe that it does not follow that the news editorship of Ms. Calleja has a connection in the new ranking method, given that Ms. Calleja was instrumental in publishing articles “critical to David’s administration” (again, this argument is Mr. Queaño’s burden to prove). As stated earlier, Chancellor David was concerned over Mr. Queaño’s “bias in favor of examinees with end marks, ” and not whether Ms. Calleja would top the exam or not.

 

Furthermore, if Mr. Queaño really learned well from his elementary statistics and quantitative economics courses, perhaps he would have realized two statistical moral lessons: one, extreme values in a given sample set would drastically affect its corresponding arithmetic mean (or the average); and two, for qualifying exams like these, it would be more reliable to use the ranking (method) of the scores to eliminate the bias created by extreme scores, and not just asserting or crying in public that Chancellor David has a “malicious” motive in recommending another method for determining the more deserving examinee to be the next editor-in-chief of the UPLB Perspective.

 

In addition, according to the Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Publication of the UPLB Perspective (approved by the UP Board of Regents on its 891^st meeting dated August 25, 1977), the chancellor has the sole authority of appointing the next editor-in-chief “after the receipts of the results and the recommendations of the Editorial Examination Committee” (Article 7 of the UPLB Perspective Guidelines).

 

I would like to correct that it is Katrina Ross A. Tan (and not Katherine Tan, as published) that was appointed as the new editor-in-chief, and it is Nicolo M. Masakayan (and not Niccolo Masakayan, as published) who topped the editorial exam in the new method two years ago against Mari Zaira Kristine L. Lopez (and not Marie, as published). I would also like to correct that Chancellor David did not remove a category after which Mr. Masakayan topped the exam, as what is written in the news article. Rather, Chancellor David recommended a ranking method, which is the same as what he did for Ms. Tan, Ms. Calleja, and the other six examinees.

 

 

In the spirit of truthfulness, impartiality and objectivity in campus press journalism,

 

LUISITO CAGANDAHAN ABUEG

M.A. Economics student with number 1999-64898

Business Manager, UPLB Perspective, 2002-2003

 

 

Administrative Malady

UP Los Baños Chancellor Wilfredo David’s intrusion in the UPLB Perspective editorial selection has become a malady of abuse in administrative power. This is only one manifestation of his deliberate and relentless attempts to silence his constituents and suppress all forms of the freedom of expression. It is time to put an end to it.

 

Left with his first attempt, Chancellor David once again pounded an arm to the Perspective editor-in-chief selection as he did in 2002. For the second time, he bypassed the editor selection committee’s recommendation and appointed the second placer in the editorial exams, instead of first placer Niña Catherine Calleja.

 

This is a breach on the constitution of the Perspective, an independent institution that should be given due recognition and autonomy. It leaves the editor selection committee responsible in grading and evaluating the editorial exams. The chancellor has the power to appoint the editor-in-chief, only a ceremonial function, upon the recommendation of the selection committee.

 

Chancellor David’s actions bypassed and wasted the efforts of the selection committee. The five-man selection committee (composed of three faculty members and two student representatives) pondered on a grading system to be used and deliberated on the scores given to the examinees until dawn, right after the editorial exams. But Chancellor David sent a letter to the committee, claiming to have found biases in the scoring of student representative Bon Andrey Queaño, one of his administration’s staunch critics. Attached with the letter is a new grading system devised by David, which the committee immediately adopted, in the absence of Queaño. The rest of the committee did not inform the student representatives about the emergency meeting regarding Chancellor David’s complaints. Student representative Adeluisa Mae De Guzman was only able to attend the meeting when she accidentally saw the rest of the committee members, passing by the area where the meeting took place. Whereas, De Guzman said the committee did not deliberate on the new grading system suggested by the Chancellor, but merely signed the new recommendation to appoint second placer Katrina Ross Tan (who emerged first placer in the grading system devised by David).

 

For one, Queaño’s credibility as a student representative must be honored and respected. The way he graded the examinees is much the same as the other committee member’s, subjective but abiding to a personal faculty of knowledge, but which we believe is fair since the names of the examinees were undisclosed until the deliberation was completed.

 

It is sickening to hear the one who claims to prevent biases, is after all, biased. Chancellor David has abused his administrative power, eluding the initial decision and recommendation of the selection committee and arbitrarily appointing the one he personally thinks deserving, according to the new grading system he devised. It became a decision of one man over a five-man committee.

  

Chancellor David’s systematic suppression of his constituents must not deceive us any longer. Aside from the Perspective case, Chancellor David has been responsible for repressive actions to students and faculty members’ right to freedom of expression. Most controversial of his actions, a violent dispersal during a mass action against him and the dismissal of progressive teachers in UPLB.

 

Thus, we are calling on President Francisco Nemenzo for an immediate, steadfast decision regarding Chancellor David’s unceasing deception to justify his despotic actions. The calls are roaring. It is to time to put an end to this tyranny.

 

Condemn Chancellor David’s intervention to the Perspective E.I.C. selection!

Respect the selection committee decision!

Uphold campus press freedom!

 

Divina Nova Joy Dela Cruz

Chairperson

Solidaridad, UP Alliance of Student Publications and Writers’ Organizations

Reject Apolitical Intellectualism, Uphold Progressive Practice

Sa mga bagong iskolar ng bayan: greetings from UP’s campus press and writers’ organizations! As UP welcomes you into this supposed congregation of intellectuals, we issue these calls to caution and commitment.

Here, where the “best and brightest” from the nation’s “star sections and circles” converge, it is crucial to clarify the core of being “mga iskolar ng bayan”.

True, we must uphold academic excellence. UP’s intellectuals naturally aspire for high grades and acclaim, fortune and fame. But the true intellectual goes beyond empty posturing or proving one’s market value. The intellectual interrogates social ills, literally, figuratively. The intellectual interprets the status quo, change it. The UP intellectual earns significance in serving the people, in theory and practice.

Going beyond academics, we urge you to study the issues we face. At the local front, UP continues to oppose SB 2587, which proposes to replace UP’s colonial 1908 charter with another that ironically promotes less government support for a state university and increase dependence on multi-national corporations. We urge you to envision and support an alternative charter to the SB 2587 -- one that reflects the nationalist, scientific, and mass-based educational system we all aspire for.

We urge you to be aware that campus press freedom violations continue in this supposedly liberal university. At the UP Los Baños campus, administration intervention by Chancellor Wilfredo David continues to suppress the UPLB Perspective. Other UP student pubs struggle against repressive conditions, such as non-mandatory funding.

At the national level, we urge you to reflect on the roots of the political and economic crises. Why Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was reelected despite still unresolved allegations of the rabid corruptions, her mandate of state fascism against progressive groups, and subservience to US President Bush’s illegal and inhuman global “war against terror”.

These are among the issues that we must respond to as intellectuals. We challenge you to uphold historical analysis and collective action, to be, among other things, campus journalists relevant to the nation. Fictionists who bear truths. Poets who weave words for the people. Artists who wield brushes as weapons. To be aware that these problems actually constitute a “state of emergency” that necessitates our active response.

SOLIDARIDAD
UP Systemwide Alliance of Student Publications and Writers Organizations.

This section contains the official statements, published or otherwise, from the Chairpersons and Officers of the Alliance.