In the Loyola Schools (LS), Sining ng Pakikipagtalastasan sa Filipino I and II (Fil 11 and 12), and Panitikan ng Pilipinas (Fil 14) are known for the insight on Filipino culture that students gain from their professors’ anecdotes.
The Filipino word “ay,” for example, is not a direct translation of the linking verb “is.” The Filipino nursery rhyme “Leron Leron Sinta” is a song about losing virginity. Under a lineup of acclaimed professors, students are expected to discover Filipino beyond the conventions of grammar and syntax. Moreover, the department is a Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Center of Development.
The value of the LS’ beloved Filipino subjects, then, is this: They are not only classes about language—they are also classes about culture.
However, there will come a year when freshmen will no longer experience the amazement of a Filipino professor correcting certain misconceptions they may have had about Filipino culture.
Late last year, CHED issued a revised General Education Curriculum (GEC) in light of the Kindergarten to Grade 12 program. Aside from reducing all college programs to 36 units, CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) 20, series of 2013 mandates that “remedial” courses, like Filipino, will be moved to Grades 11 and 12.
CHED has recently received backlash from nationalists, who slammed the new GEC as an attack against the national language.
Defenders of the CMO argue, however, that the GEC is not primarily about language instruction; rather, it is focused on the holistic development of the student. The GEC is envisioned to “lay the groundwork for the development of a professionally competent, humane and moral person.”
Perhaps the issue here is that CHED does not consider the study of the Filipino language part of being a “professionally competent” person when the study of Filipino is a formal discipline.
Those against the CMO argue that the non-inclusion of Filipino classes is detrimental to the intellectualization of the language. It reduces the Filipino language to an option for a medium of instruction. The CMO does not recognize that, like English, Filipino is also a language worth studying and it has unique things to contribute to the academe. How do we study the experience of being Filipino if we do not study Filipino?
The CMO is also receiving flak as it will likely call for the retrenchment of thousands of Filipino teachers nationwide. In the Ateneo, University President Jose Ramon Villarin, SJ said that only the part-time or contractual faculty members of the Filipino Department would be affected.
Does this mean that they will lose their jobs? Not necessarily.
They may be displaced to teach Grades 11 and 12 students. Some also suggest that the removal of Filipino language classes in the college curriculum makes room for more nuanced lessons on Filipino culture.
Introducing classes about Filipino art, aesthetics and psychology, among others, still upholds a part of what Fil 11, 12 and 14 wanted to instill in students: An appreciation for Filipino culture. However, this introduction may mean that Filipino professors will have to change their concentration and that their degrees in Filipino may be of less value.
Even this is a simplification of what Fil 11, 12 and 14 aim to do. Apart from gearing lessons toward a sense of nationalism, Filipino professors often challenge their students to go beyond nationalist rhetoric. They encourage criticism of the Filipino culture, which fosters criticism of Filipino society.
In the end, classes about Filipino culture may be counterproductive without classes about the Filipino language. As students learn in their Filipino classes, it is the language that informs the culture.
A misunderstanding of the language and an inability to criticize the culture, then, poses the threat of rendering us incapable of solving societal problems.
