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 891st 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
