When the Office of the Associate Dean for Student Affairs (ADSA) released the Statement and Warning against “Human Auctions” and the like last September 29, the Ateneo community was nothing less than shocked. After a number of human auctions were approved by the Office of Student Activities (OSA) over the years, this contentious statement sparked a fresh debate on human dignity.

According to ADSA, “Such ‘human auctions,’ where people are treated as commodities, are a direct affront to the values of a Filipino, Jesuit, Catholic educational institution that holds the dignity of each individual sacrosanct.” These values revolve around service and excellence, but also uphold critical analysis and development of what it means to be a human being.

But when dealing with a concept as specific and unique as a person’s dignity, one wonders whether it was appropriate to ban avenue for expressing it. The very idea of human dignity and freedom connotes a certain freedom of choice that an individual possesses.

As president of AIESEC Ateneo, Ariza Francisco puts it, “I don’t think that ‘selling’ equals commodification of people right away.” She says, “It’s more of a matter of what they make them do or the nature of the human auction.”

Indeed, Ateneo Economics Association (AEA), Ateneo Celadon and Ateneo Management Information Systems Association (MISA) have all claimed their human auctions were used only for fundraising activities.

MISA President Carmela Balboa recalls that their organization was initially shocked when they received the hard copy of the memo. “After we talked about it, we realized [that] we didn’t do anything wrong,” she says. OSA had checked paperwork for their human auctions, and the participants of their auctions never complained. “It’s been happening for years, [so] why [ban human auctions only] now?” she asks.

An issue of commodification

According to ADSA Rene San Andres, the issue began when a student from De La Salle University gave a printout of an Ateneo organization’s human auction’s online advertisement to an Atenean, who then relayed the information to Ateneo Residence Halls Director Timothy Gabuna. Gabuna then alerted San Andres about the ongoing human auction. “He was kind of appalled that that information came from outside,” says San Andres.

OSA Director Christopher Castillo says the memo was issued after five factors had been taken into consideration: First, organizations that used to hold human auctions were accredited and would have proper rules protecting the students. Second, the human auction that triggered the memo was not from an accredited org and was essentially open to bids from “the public.” Third, that specific human auction’s mechanics did not pass through “legitimate processes,” or did not present any clear limitations. Fourth, the visuals representing the human auction were not “tastefully done” and were rather “suggestive.” Lastly, the human auction was done online—anyone else could see it, and that is precisely what happened.

“Ang sabi ko, this is like prostitution,” says San Andres. Without clear rules, limitations or boundaries, the human person is cheapened and turned into a commodity freely auctioned off online.

OSA’s stance on human auctions has also been questioned, following the release of ADSA’s memo. Organizers of past human auctions have said that OSA had signed off on their human auctions, as it was required of project proposal forms for all student organizations.

Castillo says that OSA had no particular stance on human auctions before the issuing of ADSA’s memo; human auction project proposals would be assessed on a case-to-case basis.

While waiting for official action from OSA, however, ADSA decided to issue the memo “as a preemptive measure.” San Andres relates this to strategy in times of war; time matters twice as much when others are at risk of falling victim to abuse of their own dignity. Since the release of the memo, OSA has chosen to respect ADSA’s decision to forbid Atenean participation in human auctions.

According to San Andres, the human auction in question was “hitting some of our core principles about human dignity” and exposing students to risk.

These risks may include the “auctionees” having to do things against their will, such as engaging in dangerous behavior or sexual favors in order to acquire profit. ADSA’s fear here is that the Ateneo community may have found themselves already “acclimatized” to these very risks.

A double-edged sword

While ADSA remains firm about its current stance on human auctions, student orgs have formed different attitudes about them. The common premise they share is that human auctions are fundraising activities that are planned depending on necessity.

When asked about how participants for the auctions were chosen, Balboa says that they have no quantitative criteria. MISA gets “people who are active in the org” and are “game to model for photos” that are then posted online. These photos advertise the candidates of human auctions and allow potential bidders to view all the people being auctioned off before making a decision. The bidding then takes place either online or in an area with the bidders. AEA President Margarita De Chavez states that these students can always decline participation, even if the organization nominates them.

This part of the selection process shows that students can already determine whether participation in the auction is worthwhile. Within the organization alone, mechanisms like these allow students to make informed choices about what goes on in the human auctions and if they still want to join them.

Bids can range from P50 to P3,500, depending on how large and how popular the auction is. In AEA, the “auctionee” plans the activities before the auction and decides what activities he or she will participate in with the bidder. The effort put into these plans and the time spent with the winning bidders are similar to those of other service work. Both are compensated with the money paid by the consumer of their services, the nature of which is decided by the one marketing his services.

As for when auctions are necessary, Francisco conjectures that a human auction is one of the easiest ways to raise funds. Not much of a capital is needed, and because of the “friendship or relationship card, people are bound to be bought.”

The ease at which auctions appear to help earn funds may have a downside: Simply putting up people at no cost and earning from the event seems dull and straightforward when one considers that there is no need for a marketing scheme or a unique plan. De Chavez thinks that “orgs [resort] to human auctions because it’s an easy way to earn money without putting much effort into it.”

Even the idea of dehumanization cannot be neatly compartmentalized into black and white. For De Chavez, commodification is “if [taking part in the auction is] dehumanizing, [and] if what you’re doing for money no longer makes you happy or satisfied.”

This leads to the problem of what “happy” and “satisfied” mean. Discouraging students from participating in human auctions altogether presents a dilemma for students, because not all human auctions end up with a case of someone being disrespected or harmed. ADSA’s actions aim to combat the human auctions on one end of the spectrum—those which prioritize profit over the well-being of their members, advocating events that are tantamount to having a “slave for a day.”

Questioning maturity

While the university has yet to decide on official sanctions for those who choose to participate in or organize human auctions, both OSA and ADSA advise students to read through the Code of Discipline for certain segments or items that could be violated during these fundraisers.

There have been reports of instances wherein barkadas or groups of friends would pool their funds in order to bid on a specific person being auctioned off during an event. According to San Andres, this could be considered as an act of disrespect or discourtesy, to be sanctioned with regard to the Code of Discipline’s list of Offenses Against Persons found in the undergraduate student handbook.

However, the possibility of the reappearance of human auctions in the Ateneo is not a lost cause. If the students being auctioned off agree to participate in human auctions, if sufficient rules are put in place, and if the reasons for holding the auction are valid, the Ateneo administration may still consider allowing human auctions in the university. Castillo adds that human auctions could be subject to future reassessment, possibly when “something like it emerges” again.

ADSA’s memo was issued in response to a specific incident, but it was also meant to make a statement to the entire Ateneo community. Rules must be laid down and deemed acceptable or unacceptable within the scope of the Ateneo’s Ignatian values and principles.

“We have to also be equally conscious of unintended disvalues,” says Castillo. This calls for greater awareness of “unintended disvalues” and how they weigh against a certain project’s “intended values.”

This hearkens back to the school’s goal for students to discern, and to think critically about and develop as human beings. Human auctions are a gray area and harm should be defined by tangible cases, not from the activity itself. ADSA’s stating that they are completely against human auctions, shows they do the thinking for the students, an act which contradicts that aspect of their teaching values.

In an article posted on InterAksyon last October, National Youth Commission Chairperson Gio Tingson argued that the disallowance of human auctions may be an infringement on human rights. In other words, the Ateneo cannot ban students from participating in human auctions.

Although San Andres recognizes that students have the right to participate in human auctions, he says that they “do not have that right” in the Ateneo because it is a Catholic university. The university believes that students ought not to have this right because their parents entrusted the Ateneo to form them to be persons closer to “the idea of Jesus Christ.” He further explains that a university’s stance on an issue such as this, is always rooted in its mission and vision, and students must subscribe to this.

While ADSA, OSA and other Ateneo administrators endeavor to be as democratic and “non-interventionist” as possible, San Andres says that he trusts students’ maturity. Ateneans must have the capacity to discern between right and wrong, but when lines are crossed, the Ateneo administration must intervene.

A line was crossed when students put themselves up for sale with no limitations this year. For now, student organizations in the Ateneo will have to resort to bake sales and other means of fundraising—at least until a final set of rules and sanctions are put in place with regard to human auctions held in the university.