The recent controversy caused by the Aegis Administrative Board’s policy to disallow transgender students from dressing as they identify in their Aegis photo shoots provoke questions about the validity of some rules that are observed in the Loyola Schools (LS) community. Although this rule is only unrightfully subsumed under the “no cross-dressing” rule, it is still institutionalized discrimination. This is just one example of policies in the LS that are too conservative for the changing times.
A review of the policy-making process: Administrators propose policies, and, ideally, these policies should serve to reflect and propagate values that the LS espouses. However, we see that a disparity exists between the times when the policies were proposed, and the times when they are implemented. The Aegis dress code, for example, could have been created at a time when discourse on transgender rights was not so apparent in the LS yet.
One of the exemplars of a discrepancy between policy and current social situation was the LS’ move to allow women to study in the Ateneo in 1973. The shift to coeducation was controversial—a step forward for some, unwelcomed by others: At the time, some male students had voiced their disapproval. Eventually, the community accepted women’s place in the Ateneo, and today, women outnumber men in the LS.
Besides the Aegis dress code, there are other rules in the LS that seem to have been institutionalized at a time when its values were different from those we uphold today. Two of these are the retirement policy and the LS dress code.
The retirement policy has been criticized for being ageist. Professors are given their retirement pay at the age of 60 and are given two opportunities to get rehired. The first time will last for three years, while their second contract will last for two. If they are rehired after the age 65, their workload will drop from 30 units to 15 units. Their salaries will drop as well.
Despite the criticism the policy receives, the administration remains firm on their stand on the issue. The policy works well for the school financially and it is efficient in terms of transitioning the younger members of the faculty. But are these enough reason to discourage driven and passionate professors from pursuing their craft? Veteran professors see teaching as a way of giving back to the school. Setting restrictions because of their age discourages this practice.
The LS dress code also came under fire, especially on the Ateneo de Manila Secret Files Facebook page. A lot of posts on the page expressed disgust over seeing so many women on campus wearing “short shorts” and otherwise showing skin. Even more pronounced than this disapproval were the myriad women who commented on these posts, arguing that they had the right to wear what they want to wear. The LS dress code, then, becomes questionable: Is it necessary, given that people should be able to wear what they want to wear? Is it oppressive, given that it propagates a culture in which people are taught to think a person is respectable based on the clothes he or she is wearing, rather than his or her personhood?
All of this goes to show that some rules and policies implemented in the LS are not just outdated, but also counter-progressive. While the LS student body moves toward a future that is more tolerant and accepting, and more liberal about certain aspects of society, it seems that the student handbook is not quite there yet. Consequently, students of a progressive time—students who live in a culture that encourages people to be more socially aware and tolerant—are forced to adhere to rules written during more conservative times.
Perhaps the LS administration ought to consider a compromise between upholding Ignatian values and adapting to the times, in the hopes that LS’ rules will not only guide the Atenean to conduct himself or herself correctly, but also to guide the student body towards progressive thinking.
