The Jesuit pupil is taught a distinct way of proceeding—one that invites the person to overcome oneself, to exceed his limits and triumph over his selfish desires. As we conquer our own “inordinate attachments,” as St. Ignatius labels them, we are then called to “go forth and set the world on fire.”
The Atenean must then answer the call to be a person for and with others, or forfeit his claim to the title. One cannot be Atenean first, and serve the needy and the oppressed second. We have done so with students like Jose Rizal, Juan Luna, Evelio Javier and Edgar Jopson. It follows that the student council, as representative of the student body, should be the epitome of Atenean self-giving. I wish.
Having barely managed to reach voting quota, the student body has elected a new student council. This year could be a watershed year for student politics in the Ateneo. This year, the Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng Mga Paaralang Loyola has to promise and deliver significant reforms or face either extinction or permanent irrelevance.
Many recognize the urgency of the situation and have responded in different ways. We saw social media efforts such as “WhI Care?” and “#saveSANGGU.” We saw a candidate standing near the Gonzaga Hall polling station wearing around his neck a cardboard sign that said, “Vote.” We heard platitudes about the need for reform. The Sanggunian Central Board has assigned a Constitutional Review czar to consult with the student body and other “key stakeholders,” gather insights and submit a report for deliberation.
Well and good. One has to ask though: What do we really want to save when we ask the student body to “save Sanggu?” Is it the institution that has declined to speak loudly against political and economic injustices or actively take up the cause of the poor and the hungry? Is it the institution that has been seen by some as “irrelevant,” or worse, “useless?” Is it the institution that has appeared self-serving to even consider “internalization” as a path? Is it the institution that has pandered to our baser desires with such ideas as batch outings and block unity?
Now, for the more difficult questions: Is the hill that is our university a refuge for a suffering people, or is it but an elevation upon which we can look down on the rest of the nation? Will it be a platform for change, or will it be a monument to the status quo? In the eyes of the Filipino people, will the Ateneo try to be a light in the darkness, or will it simply be an unreachable star? We hope and pray that after the reform process, we will be able to answer these questions.
In the pursuit of answers, I raise these propositions as modest, if relevant, contributions.
First, a comprehensive financial reform package that directs significant amounts for social impact projects, simplifies and democratizes the budget process, and institutionalizes solidarity with the marginalized as a permanent budget item.
Second, true to the Christian principle of subsidiarity, the Sanggunian will have to transfer from the Central Board to the School Boards functions the latter can do themselves. This also means more money should be given to the School Boards.
Finally, the Sanggunian will have to proclaim a bold vision for social action, one that asks us to practice what the Jesuits would call “a faith that does justice.” This means a complete paradigm shift that will require introducing a certain degree of austerity where the Sanggunian is used to lavish spending. For instance, the Sanggunian needs to reevaluate its spending on school parties. We should find ourselves outraged that the Sanggunian, which in principle seeks to promote social development, spends six-digit amounts on parties, every year, when the same amount of money could be spent for many worthy student initiatives. To put things in perspective, the Ateneo Center for Education Development says P11.50 is enough to feed a child one meal. Imagine what P100,000 can do.
Before all these propositions could happen, however, we must ask ourselves the question we were once asked in the “Down from the Hill” manifesto: Are we willing to pay the price in terms of personal and communal sacrifices? As the Sanggunian cannot be separated from the Ateneo, and the Ateneo from its social dimension, so must the Sanggunian never part from its moral responsibility to use its human, financial and logistical resources to take up the social obligation that Ateneans are called to fulfill. When the Ateneo undergraduate student council detaches itself from the realities of the hungering millions, departs from the university’s commitment to forward the cause of the poor, the suffering and the oppressed, or decides to turn its back on social action, it ceases to be a legitimate Atenean institution.
Dy, an economics-honors sophomore, is the sociopolitical co-head of Aguhon, the social responsibility arm of the Ateneo Resident Students Association. He is also the Executive Management Staff chief of the Sanggunian School of Social Sciences secretary-treasurer.
