FOLLOWING THE demand for increased transparency in the University’s handling of sexual harassment cases, the Office of the University President released a memorandum on October 23, 2019 addressing concerns about specific faculty members. The memo stated that, “no formal complaint for sexual harassment has been filed” against Philosophy Department professor Jesus Deogracias Principe, PhD, among others.
This propelled Principe’s former students to come forward, confirming the existence of formal sexual harassment complaints made against the professor in 2016, in the hopes of empowering other survivors to do the same.
One survivor had emailed University President Jett Villarin, SJ, to ask why their case was not mentioned in his October 23 memo, prompting a review of the processes and policies in that particular case.
Unnecessary and uncomfortable
Two of Principe’s former students reported that he had sexually harassed them in the following accounts.
Julia* (AB COM ‘16) recalled genuinely enjoying Principe’s Philosophy of Religion class, even joining him and a group of classmates in discussing the lectures after class. She also mentioned that Principe, in response to a question about a lecture, had invited her to discuss the matter over drinks.
“At first, I felt oddly honored that he would invite me for further discussion outside of the classroom. After a few days, it began to sink in that it felt like an inappropriate invitation,” said Julia.
Julia also recalled an incident when she recited a passage of an assigned reading in class and Principe approached her to rub her neck and shoulders. “This was completely unnecessary and it made me uncomfortable. This one, I couldn’t shake off my mind,” she explained.
However, Julia did not feel she had sufficient grounds to file a complaint. She feared that “rocking the boat” by making a report would cause her to fail the class, especially as it was her final semester in Ateneo. It was only after graduation that Julia agreed to file a formal complaint in support of another student, Patricia Escalante (AB EU ‘15 and AB PH ‘16).
Principe was instrumental in guiding Escalante through her decision to finish a degree in philosophy in her fifth year. Their positive relationship and shared academic interest in Plato led her to choose him as her thesis advisor. The two would talk and spend time together, both in the context of a mentor-mentee relationship and as friends.
“However, certain events led me to feel uncomfortable around him and as such led me to decide to forgo a thesis and do the comprehensive oral exams instead,” said Escalante in a letter she wrote to former Philosophy Department Chair Remmon E. Barbaza, PhD.
Escalante added that she had received inappropriate text messages from Principe. In particular, she recalled one instance when, following a brief conversation about restaurants, he had said that they should go out on a date. When she asked to clarify the intent of the invitation, Principe apologized for seeming overly familiar. Escalante reiterated that she felt his invitation was inappropriate.
In a separate instance, Escalante joked that she would turn into a salmon because of how often she consumed the fish. She added that Principe responded by saying that he might be compelled to rub wasabi all over her should that happen.
A glimpse into the process
Julia said that upon receiving letters of complaint from her and Escalante, Barbaza conferred with relevant administrators before deciding to form an investigative ad hoc committee within the Department. However, the committee was only a “mediating unit.” In the Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy of 2006, which was in effect in 2016, the Office of Human Resource Management and Organization Development (OHRMOD), through an Investigating Committee, was responsible for determining how to proceed with the case and what sanctions were proper.
It was also during this time that Principe sent letters of apology to the complainants, one through Barbaza and the others directly to Escalante and Julia. At this point, the complainants had to decide whether to close their individual cases or to push through with the complaint.
Julia was hesitant to proceed after receiving Principe’s “eloquent and moving apology.” At the time, she felt her experience was “trivial,” but after “more and more people came out with stories about Principe in the following years, [she] finally became empowered to feel the proper emotions toward [her case].”
Escalante chose to write to the Office of the Vice President of the Loyola Schools (OVPLS) to further her case. She described the experience as an “unclear, frustrating, and inhumane” process.
After waiting several months for a response from the OVPLS, Escalante was informed that a hearing would take place in Ateneo. According to her, the 2016 Investigating Committee failed to provide a clear definition of what the school considered as “sexual misconduct” and its equivalent sanctions. During the hearing, Escalante was extremely “uncomfortable” with their line of questioning; she felt that her complaint was put in doubt—particularly because she remained in contact with Principe after his inappropriate messages.
“It also has to be emphasized that my friendship with him was not contradictory to my feeling abused—that is precisely the context. I felt that this relation, which was supposed to be safe and healthy, was abused and compromised, paving the way for discomfort,” Escalante wrote to Vice President for the Loyola Schools Maria Luz C. Vilches.
The Investigating Committee reached a verdict in May 2017, but was only able to inform Escalante about this in August. According to Escalante, she had been waiting for the decision on her case and followed this up in July. However, she said that the Committee was not able to get back to her because they were “on leave.” This had made her feel “betrayed and neglected,” as if they “didn’t take the case seriously.”
She added that Principe had been given a “strong reprimand,” a warning against future misconduct.
When asked about Escalante’s 2016 case, Vilches said that she “cannot comment on the formal complaints against Dr. Principe in 2016.”
“Dr. Principe’s case was handled by a committee with confidentiality and I respect the privacy of the matter,” she added.
Sanggunian efforts
Principe continued to teach in Ateneo for AY 2017-2018. However, according to sources from the Philosophy Department, his classes were dissolved in the second semester of AY 2018-2019. School of Social Sciences Representative for AY 2017-2018 Dasha Uy added that the administration assured the Sanggunian that an investigation “in accordance with the established rules [of the University]” ensued. She explained that the administration did not disclose further details, in adherence to the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
In the first semester of AY 2019-2020, Principe was given a full load of classes, causing indignation over his return.
Later that semester, on October 15, students and faculty organized an anti-sexual misconduct and impunity protest. The protestors demanded further transparency on the school’s response to sexual misconduct complaints, including those against faculty members like Principe. Following this, the Sanggunian petitioned the OVPLS to implement a No Contact Order (NCO) against Principe.
The petition was granted and the NCO remained effective until the end of the first semester. During this period, Principe’s teaching load was reassigned once again. The Sanggunian’s Commission on Anti-Sexual Misconduct and Violence (CASMV) also launched a call for sexual misconduct complaints against professors in the LS after Villarin’s October 23 memo.
Administrative response
Following the demands for greater transparency in handling sexual misconduct cases, the administration promised to release an Anti-Sexual Harassment Manual by the end of the school year. The Interim CODI was also formed in December 2019, which will serve until May 31, 2020. There is also the LS Gender Hub, established in August 2019, which continues to provide case assistance and counselling services for sexual harassment survivors.
In a statement to The GUIDON, University President Jett Villarin, SJ, said, in relation to the survivor who had emailed him about a case against Principe: “I have responded to that person with an assurance that we are instituting a review of the process and policies that were followed in this particular case, without prejudice to the University-wide process review already being undertaken by an independent consultant.”
Escalante said that she had emailed Villarin in December 2019. She decided to contact Villarin directly because she did not receive any response from the administration after she had publicly questioned the October 23 memo. Escalante has received two updates from the University since her email.
“[A]side from letting me know that there is a committee and that they have met a number of times, they have not given me any other information or updates on the matter,” she said.
As for Principe, Gender Focal Point Committee Chair Melissa Lao, PhD, confirmed that he “is still employed by the school” in a non-teaching capacity.
Principe said that he “is not commenting about any of this at this time,” for reasons of confidentiality.
With reports from Frans G. Regala.
Editor’s Note: The name of the interviewee has been changed to protect their identity and privacy.
