The Ateneo is a remarkable institution in that, as of late, there have not been many disputes between the studentry and the administration. Unlike other universities (particularly Western universities and our neighbor down the road), where students challenge everything from budget allocation to curriculum, Ateneo is a relatively tension-free environment. Maybe the administration is doing a wonderful job. Maybe students don’t question enough. Or maybe the powers that be find ways to silence opposition.
The only time in recent memory that a debate erupted between the students and the administration was when the Vice President for the Loyola Schools proposed the implementation of an LS-wide dress code. It was an immense source of pride for me to see Ateneo students bravely stand up to authority, arguing, among other things, that college students are old enough to dress as they please. After listening to comments from students and faculty, the VP declared that, while those critical of the policy raised valid points, that fact was that the Ateneo had a “formative” duty to its students. How the implementation of a strict dress code was “formative” was left unelaborated. The value of formation and the formative aspect of the policy were assumed, thereby ending all debate.
Lest I be misunderstood, the Ateneo is generally an open academic atmosphere, and I am proud to serve this university. Despite this, I see a number of authoritarian tendencies that need to be questioned.
Psychologist Erich Fromm describes authoritarianism as an impulse that seeks to deny others their freedom. Many times this is a two-way process; somebody takes freedom while somebody gives it up. For this to be possible, a kind of masochistic submission on the part of the one denied freedom (the martir in our vernacular) is necessary. The martir must believe that being controlled is good for him/her. For this to be possible, authoritarian leaders package and sugar-coat control into something that seems good for the martir. Or in current Atenean language: “you aren’t being dictated upon; you are just being formed.”
In recent years, the administration has used the rhetoric of formation to encroach more and more on areas where students should be operating autonomously. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the sphere of student organizations. Since 2003, the Office of Student Organizations (OSA) has exercised more oversight over student organizations. The various reports and “consultations” have allowed the OSA to survey and scrutinize everything from budget, org structure, and codes of internal procedure. Of course, OSA’s commandments are packaged as “recommendations.” But disobeying recommendations always comes with the threat of not being accredited or getting fewer points in the OSA scoring system.
In effect, student orgs, which are supposed to reflect the diversity of student life, end up being homogenized. Compliance, though, is not only achieved through strict enforcement of guidelines. Control takes on a smiling face when the OSA celebrates the wonders of its system and the “unity” it creates through various celebrations, award ceremonies, and team-building seminars. Journalist Barbara Ehrenreich argues in her book Bright Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America that such celebratory activities serve as a means to insidiously silence dissent. They promote a sense of enthusiasm and unity that, while eliciting good feelings, prevent people from noticing that something is wrong. To question is to be a party-pooper and party-poopers don’t get awards. To challenge the premise of “formsems” is to sow disunity, and disunity is the last thing people want in team-building seminars. Amidst the denial of freedom, the message remains “stay happy and celebrate.” These techniques generate the masochism that Fromm describes. Masochists seem happy that their freedom is denied.
Unfortunately, student orgs represent only the tip of the iceberg. With the new requirement that student political parties be accredited, the OSA’s direct management is being brought to bear on what should be independent groups. Moreover, the OSA has long facilitated Sanggu’s formsems and evsems, attempting to “form” student leaders into automatons. Sanggu is a student-elected body that should primarily be accountable to those who elected them. Why does OSA presume to have a right to directly intervene in its affairs?
In this context, to truly love the Ateneo means we should not just celebrate. Something is wrong, and we should push for a more liberal Ateneo.
According to the World Values Survey (www.worldvaluessurvey.org), a global study that looks at the impact of culture on people, liberal and free societies generate more happiness–a happiness that is correlated to the strength and productivity of these societies. Societies that impose more on their people are worse off.
What this means in the context of Ateneo is that excessive formation is bad formation. True formation should be about allowing students to think for themselves. Students should be allowed to make mistakes and to learn from these mistakes. They should be able to device their own ways of serving others, actively developing their own skills and intellect in the process. Concretely, this means taking policy-making away from OSA and placing it in the hands of a democratic and student-run Council of Organizations of the Ateneo (COA). As it stands, not only does OSA have too much power, COA tends to serve as an extension of it instead of serving as its check and balance. This also means OSA should let Sanggu run its own affairs. If Ateneans are to be future leaders, they must learn how to run independent democratic institutions.
Simple reforms will allow for this, and students and teachers alike should demand for these reforms. I know for a fact that Ateneans are too smart to be rendered masochistic. The great student opposition to the dress code proves that students are capable of dissent. Certain things are worth getting into trouble for, independence being one of them.
The freedom to think independently is the best gift a university can give. It gives the student the creativity and the openness of mind to change the world. While it is easy and convenient to have scripts – to have courses of action planned out for you – nothing beats charting your own future.
Lisandro Claudio is a lecturer in the Department of History and Department of Communication.
