Quibbles, qualms, and intellectual dishonesty

Migoy sent me an e-mail earlier this evening, containing two editorials by The Varsitarian, the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas. The first editorial was about the 2008 THE-QS rankings, which I wrote about a few days after the rankings were released. The second was about the position taken by some faculty members at the Ateneo regarding the Reproductive Health Bill.

I've spoken to a few people and have given quick reactions. But I'd like to to share the salient points, even if it does come off as me sounding like an Ateneo apologist. I am, admittedly, and quite obviously, a hardcore Ateneo fan, but I'd like to think that I can be pretty reasonable, especially when it comes to things like this.

(This is a long post, by the way.)

In very general terms, my main gripe with both editorials is this: Both of them share a similar theme calling for some "intellectual honesty." But in my own opinion, the authors of the editorials have failed to comply with the standard they have set for themselves.

On "Dazed and confused-at 500"

I found this reaction to the THE-QS results pretty interesting, mainly because it was the angriest one I've seen from any of the Philippine schools evaluated by the survey. UP's position has been pretty calm and clear: They did not participate in the rankings. La Salle's school paper has an even "cooler" reaction: The rankings are "no big deal," even if La Salle did make a lot of noise when it reacted to the rankings with jubilation, fanfare, advertisements, and brochures in 2006. The Ateneo didn't publish an official position unlike in 2006 and 2007, but was kind enough to publish the reaction I wrote (I do not know if that means we can take that as the de facto position of the Ateneo, though).

But this Varsitarian editorial was something else. Drawing on statements made by university officials, it makes the case that the rankings are problematic, if not flat-out wrong, and made the assertion that the best schools in the Philippines are UP and UST, not the Ateneo and UP. Their basis? Performance measures in government-mandated licensing examinations conducted by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), as well as their own analysis of the survey. That much, I can accept. But what caused me to nearly spill my coffee all over my desk was the way the editorial was crafted.

They began with a disclaimer: "This is not to disparage Ateneo..." and then proceeded to bash the Ateneo while making a case for UST. That's performative contradiction. That's dishonest.

They then go on to characterize the Ateneo as "an institution that’s barely an expanded liberal arts college and with only a smattering (sic) of degree programs tested by state licensure exams." Okay, two points.

First, an expanded liberal arts college? Last I checked, most major institutions of learning not just in the Philippines but on Earth are "expanded liberal arts colleges." I'm no educational historian, but last I checked, most of the models of Western education draw heavily from an expansion of the original liberal arts disciplines. Harvard therefore is an incredibly expanded liberal arts college. So is Yale. And Oxford and Cambridge, even if they are of the tradition of the guilds coming together as universitas all crafted some sort of liberal arts program (the "Trivium" and "Quadrivium" of medieval universities) which has been expanded into what they are today. So are a whole lot of schools in the list, including the Ateneo, including UST.

So were they saying that we're really just a tiny school with a tiny milieu? Then that means the editorial's authors have failed to appreciate the fact that our approaches to education differ greatly, at least in how we craft our program offerings. And they have likewise failed to account for the fact that we are small by design, because of what we want to emphasize and because of what our declared vision and mission are. Incidentally, expanded liberal arts college Yale University is even smaller than the Ateneo in terms of undergraduate enrollment, but it's way up there.

Is it because we do not have a lot of programs tested by the PRC with some sort of post-graduation exam? Then I wonder what they think about Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, UChicago, Duke, Louvain, and all those other schools with a "smattering" (sic) of programs that are tested by some sort of PRC. And I have been pretty adamant about this whenever this topic gets brought up: Why do we place so much emphasis on "performance" (in the sense of getting the ridiculously important #1 test-taker spot) as regards such exams? Performance in licensing exams is hardly the best measure of "academic excellence," much less "comparable" academic excellence. This is probably the very simple reason why no international league table uses them as a measure.

Then they bring up centers of excellence. The number of centers of excellence/development is an unreliable benchmark. This is because some schools offer more programs than others. And this also depends on the approach each institution takes as regards the development of particular programs. The Ateneo, for example, has been pretty adamant about not offering an Accountancy program, mainly because of its emphasis on organizational leadership rather than line-level work such as accountancy (this is with all due respect to accountants, of course, although any Ateneo management major will tell you that they go through hell with 9 units of accounting and at least 3 more of finance). What these measure, rather, is the quality of individual programs as compared to other programs of the same kind. Therefore, when we say that the Ateneo is a Center of Excellence in terms of Business Administration and Entrepreneurship, it means that it satisfies the rigid criteria for "excellence" in the field vis-a-vis other business administration or entrepreneurship programs. When we say that the Ateneo is a center of excellence in Philosophy, it means that among all those schools that offer Philosophy as a program, the Ateneo has (one of?) the best.

On their quip about national artists and scientists: First, yes, this speaks about the quality of a particular school's alumni or alumnae, but this does not necessarily say anything about the quality of academic programs offered at present, especially with regard to the criteria evaluated by a particular survey. Second, among these national artists and scientists, can we really, truly, and without doubt say that their excellence is the "fault" of their matriculating in a particular school, or are they simply brilliant on their own?

Then they go on to bash the Ateneo as an institution only affordable by the wealthy, hence the good student-faculty ratio. They have not even bothered to do research as regards individual scholarship programs offered by the four THE-QS-ranked schools (and might have found that close to one in five Ateneo students is receiving some sort of financial aid).

After that, they go into some rant about who would want to study in the third world. Um, first of all, the people who actually LIVE in the third world and have no choice but to actually study here? There are also those people who want to be exposed to the perspectives of our poor little third world!

But wait, there's more! They also rant about competing with Harvard. The thing is, the question is not about competing with Harvard. Competing with Harvard, if even imagined, is something that is going to be very difficult, simply because Harvard works very hard, regardless of the rankings, to maintain its preeminence. For one, it continually works to make sure that it has the financial wherewithal to run its programs and to do what it wants to do (it has an endowment of $36.9 billion), while allowing access to those who cannot ordinarily afford to spend $40,000++ a year on tuition. The size of Harvard is also another thing that allows it to simply churn out research with impunity (its college is roughly the size of the Ateneo's, but it does have around 13,500 graduate students, in addition to thousands of faculty members) and do work with impunity. But then again, size doesn't matter: Remember Yale.

And who the hell says Harvard's perfect? Harvard isn't even the top choice of many, many, many Americans, all of whom would be far happier matriculating at either Yale, Stanford, Dartmouth, or NYU. Many Harvard students, as reported in the US News magazine a year or so ago, find that Harvard can be a very impersonal place for a student, saying that some faculty are more interested in doing research than teaching. Or consider the fact that other schools have a far more "rock-star" faculty roster: The University of Chicago, for example, has, if I remember correctly, the most number of Nobel Laureates teaching in the faculty (it also once counted Hannah Arendt, T.S. Eliot, and some other school-of-thought defining names among its faculty, as well as the next leader of the free world, Barack Obama).

I don't mind the Varsitarian taking up the cudgels for UST. Or for wanting to boost morale.

But as a paper that actually thinks it is one of the best school papers around, it has certainly failed to engage in the journalistic practice of seeking balance. The greatest failure of this editorial is that it is extremely myopic, and that it failed to account for the official positions taken by the school it bashed. The greatest failure of the authors is that they have failed to do their homework in order to examine their agenda properly. But then again, I don't think that's measured in board exams.


On "Dishonest, mediocre, anti-poor"

This editorial was bashing right from the start. Allow me to quote the entire first paragraph in full:

"BY ISSUING a statement supporting the population-control bill, Reproductive Health (RH) Bill 5043, the 14 faculty members of the other Catholic university—Ateneo de Manila– betray the canker that may eat into any Catholic institution that, while inherently holy, has tendencies toward evil. Star Wars calls it the Dark Side, St. Thomas Aquinas calls it concupiscence. We simply call it intellectual dishonesty."

Excuse me? By issuing an honest, intellectual position, presumably done with some contemplation of their own faith, these people suddenly "betray...tendecies toward evil"?

The Varsitarian's set-up is as follows: "Since they teach in a Catholic institution, the 14 should either have the readiness to defend the Catholic position or at least have the sensitivity to refrain from doing something that would divide the Church. But not only do these self-proclaimed Catholic educators break away from the Catholic position and urge Catholics to do so: they twist Catholic teachings to suit their self-serving position."

Three points: First, last I checked, even Catholic institutions of higher learning have historically encouraged some form of intellectual exchange and debate, all in the spirit of what is called "academic freedom" or some form of enlightened inquiry. Second, I have always assumed that even if one teaches in a Catholic school, or any religious institution, he or she is still free to give his or her two cents on a matter of controversy, even if he or she is reasonably expected to "tow the line" when it comes to certain things. Third, I do not think the Varsitarian understands that the position of these faculty members is NOT the Ateneo's official position, which, according to University President Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, S.J., is in line with the position of the Church hierarchy (I disagree with it to an extent, but I will concede and respect that position).

Before I continue, a "disclaimer:" I am not a model Catholic. I do not attend Mass regularly. I disagree with many men of the cloth, and have had no qualms talking about my disagreements with them. Oh, and I am a sinner—whatever God you and I believe in knows this very well. But that said, let me offer in my defense the following: I will be the first to admit that I have yet to come to terms with my faith, even if I can very easily parrot the Catechism of the Church with fanfare and aplomb (and except for the few snags in my Theology classes, I've gotten very good grades in all of my religion-related classes ever since I can remember). I also respect priests, pastors, preachers, and religious people—and I believe that talking to them is worth my time even if I do not agree with them and even if I know that I am smart enough to even poke fun at them from time to time. And I am not proud of the wrong things I've done, and I am even less cheery about the fact that I know that I have not made reparations for all of them, and that I probably never will. Heaven and karma know that I have, in one way or another, been trying to become a better person. And I will be the first to admit that I probably have to go to church more.

That said, I was pretty interested when the first news of this new reproductive health bill came out, mainly because I felt that there could be some pretty interesting debate about that. Debate. Exchange. To use a Jesuit catchphrase, "discernment." And I welcomed the position taken by those faculty members because I found it remarkable that teachers in a Catholic school were putting up a rather direct challenge to official Catholic positions. Positions which, if I am correct, are the subject of constant discussion, even within the Church itself, especially since many Catholics want to live with a "thinking" faith.

I hope to high heavens that doesn't mean I'm "evil," or that I betray some sort of evil tendencies. Of course, the sarcastic or self-righteous will quote the Genesis passage about eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and how that led to our banishment from Eden.

I will not argue with the "extensive" list of citations (however self-serving) made by the Varsitarian's editors in order to justify their Ateneo and Ateneo-professor-bashing position. Nor will I engage them on the level of what may very well be their own "intellectual mediocrity." I will, however, hazard an opinion and say that: First, I think that the Philippines is too populated for its own good, especially in the urban sprawl of Metro Manila, and that this population problem contributes to the inaccessibility to or inability or lack of adequate health services, and that the population problem is a contributing factor to the very real state of poverty. Second, I do not think that we can sustain the current trajectory of population growth, based on whatever model we choose, because I do not foresee any change in living conditions in this country that can keep up with our population growth. Third, I do think that there is some sort of validity to the assertion that our population growth is not sustainable in a manner that promotes balance with our already fragile environment and resources situation—the more our population grows, the bigger our "footprint," the more taxed our resources, the less are available for distribution.

Okay. I hope that doesn't mean I'm evil yet.

On the point on the centrality of the human person, the Varsitarian makes the assertion that the RH bill seems to treat the unborn like a disease that must be checked. I agree that the unborn should not be treated that way. But I do wish that the Varsitarian's editors gave a bit more thought to what the bill means for the living. Contrary to their assertion that the bill allows government to "compel" people to purchase contraceptives or to engage in some form of state-regulated population control measure that "compels" them to have two children per couple. The text of the bill is crystal clear: No passage demands purchase of contraceptives, but merely making them available. And the "ideal family size" of two children per couple is, very clearly stated in Sec. 16, "neither mandatory nor compulsory." It is merely "encouraged." Before engaging in hysterics or parroting some official UST position, the Varsitarian editors should have read the bill properly. And if they doubted their ability to interpret its provisions, I'm sure that there would have been many lawyers in UST's esteemed Faculty of Civil Law that could have shared an insight or two as regards proper statutory construction. Their failure to do so, whether deliberate or not, seen in the context of their going trigger-happy when it comes to bashing, is utterly telling.

What the bill offers is choice. What sort of choice? The bill offers presumably mature adults choices as regards what sort of family-planning methods they may consider appropriate given their socio-economic circumstances. And it offers solutions and alternatives to families that are sensitive to the fact that people make mistakes, that scared women may want abortions, and that people may want to be more educated about what they can do. The bill makes sex education mandatory. I do not see how that can be wrong, or how it necessarily follows that kids who know a bit more about the birds and bees will want to make honey. On the other hand, I think that mandatory sex education is a good thing, because it provides an opportunity to come to terms, at least academically, with sex. Sex is not an evil thing, and being educated about it, about the issues attached to it, and the responsibilities that can arise because of it, is not a bad thing. In that regard, the bill cannot be said to be evil or against the unborn, because it allows for the strengthening of the living. The bill has no pretensions about protecting the living from life.

The bill is far from perfect, of course. And I am not certain if the policies can be implemented properly, or if the cost—quoted by the Varsitarian at Php1.2 billion—is something that we can spare. I agree that there is a need for government to address the health care situation in the Philippines and allocate funds properly and not merely push money towards more condoms or diaphragms or pills. I would think, of course, that this bill is one solution among others, and that it is not intended to operate alone. The fact that this matter is seriously being considered by government can be seen, if only to be optimistic, as some sort of positive action by government to address a social problem. Government isn't perfect—you can read my other blog posts and see that I agree with that point very much—but at least it is willing to consider doing something here.

Of course, that's my opinion, which I hope is not evil.

I understand that the Church has its official positions. And I understand that it has a duty to engage society, especially when it comes to matters of faith and morals, and that these matters are intrinsically tied up with actual living conditions. That's a good thing. But I do not think it is the Church's place to make impositions. Nor do I think the Church or its people can say that they are doing their job properly if they simply take a hard line stance on this matter without being willing to engage in meaningful discussion. This is why I welcome the opinion of some religious leaders to actually talk about this, or to propose alternative pieces of legislation. And I seriously do not think it is within the competence of the Church's hierarchy to determine, without bias, appropriate forms of social policy. But I do appreciate the fact that it is the Church's competence to at least tell us what the Christian faith says

I also understand that the Church is largely acting on matters of faith and doctrine. I will not be one to say doctrine is flat-out wrong, because I am certain that it comes from a good place and is also the product of the conscience of Church leaders, graced by God and His Spirit. However, even as a Christian, I will not be so irresponsible to simply take what the Church says as gospel truth without doing myself or my faith the proper service of thinking.

A strict, regimented, and unthinking subscription to doctrine has never been the point of any faith. Salvation is. Evangelization is. The point of the Christian faith can be summed up in two sentences: (1) Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. (2) Love one another. The Reproductive Health Bill does not change the first. It does not render the second impossible, and in fact may be an expression of the second point. Of course, that's me trying to wax philosophical.

Blind faith is folly. Blind faith is irresponsible. Blind faith would lead us to sustain the position that the universe revolved around the earth, and then cause us to apologize to Galileo hundreds of years later when empirical data confirms that he was correct. Blind faith is contrary to the freedom of will that I believe and that the Church teaches my Creator gave me. And while freedom is never absolute, I know that God respects me enough and loves me enough to let me act according to conscience. And if I am wrong, I will appreciate being told about it, so that I can I can ask for the forgiveness that I know God will give.

That, I hope, is not evil.

Perhaps I may be wrong, and perhaps the Varsitarian's editors meant the best of things when they wrote what they did. But I cannot deny the fact that these are skilled writers, who must have been able to properly calibrate their language in order to achieve the effect that they wanted.

And the language of the editorial reads much like the Pharisees and Sadducees that emphasized doctrine rather than the salvation of people, or in legal terms, the letter of the law more than its spirit. The language is clear and telling when it disparages, defames, and demeans the 14 individuals (there are more than 14 now, which the Varsitarian failed to note) who, exercising their faith and their conscience, applying what their own limited reason allowed them to perceive, issued a statement in favor of an imperfect piece of legislation. The Varsitarian editors crucified these professors, even as the editors tried to deceptively set the agenda as one that supposedly favored Christian faith and morals on the centrality of the human person.

I do not think I am wrong, but hope I am when I say: That's evil.