HASTY ADMINISTRATIVE decisions made by the University in the last semester have prompted students and faculty members alike to question the institution’s unilateral decision-making process.
The sudden implementations of the early enlistment process, storage limits in Ateneo-issued Google accounts, the migration to the new student emails, and the North Carpark renovation project have caused students and faculty to withstand the consequences of such decisions.
With the community seemingly excluded from University affairs, Ateneans demand for the Ateneo to pursue a form of governance championing their productive and inclusive participation.
Presentations, not consultations
The lack of student and faculty representation in decision-making bodies has put the Ateneo community at the receiving end of several administrative changes. According to School of Social Sciences Representative Frodo Uranza, even the Sanggunian only receives notice of these changes shortly before public release.
“The Sanggunian also gets surprised by the admin’s decisions. [The administration] can’t expect us to properly represent [the students] if we keep getting sudden news like this, or if we find out about these at the same time as the rest of the student body,” Uranza explains in a mix of English and Filipino.
For the North Carpark renovation project, the administration held a stakeholder meeting last December 11, prior to the implementation. However, the Ateneo Assembly in its statement stressed that the attendees of the said meeting were “no longer in a position to make significant contributions to the project implementation,” as its launch was already set for December 21.
Subsequently, Ateneo publicly announced the renovation project last December 20, only a day before the start of the implementation. Because of the late communication, Sanggunian officers consequently become unsure of how to answer students’ queries about these decisions. Thus, Uranza regards the communication between the student government and the administration as “presentations” instead of productive consultations.
This limited participation from community members is also felt by members of the faculty. Political Science Instructor Gino Trinidad, MA believes the faculty’s involvement seems to be centered on academic pursuits only.
As an instructor, Trinidad participated in the revision of the University’s core curriculum from 2013 to 2015, alongside professors and instructors from other departments. He observed that while the faculty mostly handled the initiative, decisions seemed to follow a top-down approach.
“There’s a sense that [the] central admin decides and when it goes down, it appears that it already has been decided. […] What we’re looking for is an explanation as to how decisions were decided,” Trinidad shares.
As a member of the Ateneo’s faculty since 2009, Trinidad explains that there have been attempts in the past for consultative mechanisms. However, the drawback of a large university comes into play as consultations can be selective.
Despite these challenges and limitations, the Ateneo community has continued to push their ideas and suggestions forward through various initiatives.
In particular, the Sanggunian opened a discussion on the LS One Big Forum regarding the North Carpark renovation. To obtain in-depth insights from community members, it has also organized seminars, workshops, and community gatherings since December 2023. Uranza emphasizes that these collective actions have been a joint effort by various organizations and student groups within the Ateneo.
Spaces to speak up
While these spaces for discussions are available, the administration’s responsiveness toward suggestions and sentiments shared by other stakeholders remains a concern.
As the highest decision-making body in the Ateneo, the University’s Board of Trustees (BoT) holds much influence over many institutional changes. Among its duties is to consult members of the University on important matters concerning them.
However, former BoT member Toby Dayrit, PhD shares that stakeholder consultations oftentimes depend on the issue. He states that significant institutional changes—such as the shift to co-education of the Ateneo Grade School and High School and increases in tuition fees—require consultations with respective members of the Ateneo community.
On the car park renovation issue, Dayrit believes it was more “after the fact” in the sense that the number of stakeholders involved was only realized after the complaints came in.
Additionally, Dayrit emphasizes that the BoT mainly focuses on policy changes. According to him, concerns regarding Ateneo’s project implementation and management are usually handled at the administrative level, which is led by University President Roberto C. Yap, SJ.
Apart from the actual renovation, members of the community also heavily criticized the administration’s decision to inform them about the project a day before it began its implementation.
The consultation for the North Carpark Project with student representatives, which took place 10 days before the implementation, was seen in a similar light by the University community. In a joint statement, 20 Ateneo student organizations pointed out that the short notice limited the community’s time to appropriately respond, sending “the message that the concerns and needs of the University’s stakeholders hold no significance.”
In these cases, Dayrit emphasizes the need to evaluate which University-wide decisions need to be consulted with which stakeholders. “You have to balance which really needs, absolutely, ng consultation, and which ones don’t really require consultations, just prior notice or preparation,” he states.
Still, Dayrit believes that having conversations with the community about the project could have resolved or avoided the problems that came after. For him, discussions with stakeholders serve as an avenue for feedback and suggestions.
Trinidad also reiterates that stakeholder consultations “allow for more responsive decisions.” According to him, this space for dialogue would enable the administration to create decisions and pursue actions that would better address the problems within the community.
Towards University inclusion
As the Ateneo community continues to rally against the University’s exclusionary approach in its administrative decisions, it remains fervent to its call for participatory governance to make decisions more responsive to their needs.
Moving forward, Uranza hopes for data-driven efforts and comprehensive dialogues that are inclusive of various perspectives and experiences. He recognizes that even if proper channels are utilized, they might not still be beneficial for all parties involved.
As such, Trinidad suggests that the administration listen more to its constituents and pursue solutions based on their sentiments. “There are spaces for talking, pero may listening bang nagaganap (but is there any listening from the administration)?” he asks.
Trinidad adds that the processes of participatory governance do not have to be formal. For him, administrative visits to department offices and classrooms can already send a message that those at the top are able to connect with those who actually experience the impact of these changes on the ground.
Following a discussion with the Ateneo community last January 31, the administration will still proceed with the renovation project starting on March 11 to “enhance safety and improve drainage in the area.” As per the latest memorandum from the University President, changes in the initial plan were made to ensure that no native trees will be cut down.
Meanwhile, the administration has created a “Campus Mobility Forum” to serve as a communication channel for the University community to discuss mobility issues moving forward.
Ultimately, organizing forums is an essential tool in allowing the community’s participation. However, Trinidad points out that having a decision that stems from institutionalized spaces for deliberation and collaboration will be the ultimate test for determining if the Ateneo truly aspires for participative governance.
