N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (November 23, 6:00 a.m.) where I write a weekly column (Philippine Fantasy).

Please allow me to start with a disclosure: Aside from my job as a journalist, I am a tenured faculty member of the University of the Philippines (UP) currently on special detail as a visiting professor in South Korea. I should also disclose that I had served as chair of the Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND; UP chapter) and national vice chairperson of the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT).

Readers should know the nature of my academic involvement as I write about the ordeal of UP Sociology Prof. Sarah Jane S. Raymundo who also happens to be involved with CONTEND and ACT. UP Diliman Chancellor Sergio Cao denied her application for tenure in a memorandum dated October 28. Raymundo wrote a letter to UP President Emerlinda Roman to appeal her case last November 16.

The drawn-out process started in February 2008 when Raymundo, who started teaching full-time at UP 10 years ago, submitted her application for tenure.

Hers is a “curious case” because the UP Department of Sociology initially recommended the granting of her tenure in April 2008. According to the department’s justification (a copy of which was provided to me by a high-ranking UP official), “Prof. Raymundo has consistently been ranked as among the top three of an average of eight to twelve candidates for hiring and renewal” since her appointment as a full-time faculty member in November 1999. It also added that her commitment “to continuously enrich academic discourse especially in theorizing and her passion to infuse dynamism into the discipline of Sociology have led her to an in-depth examination of current developments in Modern and Postmodern Social Theory, Feminist Theory and Cultural Studies.” (These excerpts were also contained in Raymundo’s November 16 letter of appeal made publicly available).

However, three UP Sociology faculty members claimed in their report that she should not be given tenure for dishonesty and for breaching professional ethics. They said that Raymundo had not been truthful about the nature of her participation in a June 2006 press conference about two missing UP students allegedly abducted by the military. She was also criticized for not helping inform others about the status of one of the missing students, a Sociology major, who was absent without leave (AWOL).

In the months that followed, the initial seven out of 10 tenured Sociology professors who voted for Raymundo’s tenure dwindled and she ended up not getting the supposedly required 2/3 vote to be granted tenure.

In an online petition calling on UP President Emerlinda Roman and the Board of Regents (BOR, the highest policy-making body of UP) to grant Raymundo the tenure she deserves, the following points were raised:

1. Raymundo has fully satisfied all academic requirements for tenure;
2. Her denial of tenure is political persecution in the guise of academic evaluation;
3. Her tenure case was not granted fair and due process;
4. Chancellor Cao upheld the Sociology department chair’s questionable 2/3 departmental rule for tenure (i.e., an applicant should get the vote of 2/3 of the tenured faculty of the department); and
5. Chancellor Cao did not give due attention to all relevant documents.

For its part, CONTEND, in a November 16 statement, stressed that the Chancellor’s decision on Raymundo’s case is unacceptable for two major reasons:

1. That the testimonies detailing alleged instances of Prof. Raymundo’s “breach of professional ethics” or “dishonesty” are all personal opinions of a small group or of individuals coming from the Department of Sociology. These “facts” have neither been established by consensus nor adequately supported by any investigation or inquiries undertaken by the Department itself. In the minority report dated October 17, 2008 sent to Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (VCAA) Lorna Paredes, three tenured faculty members (Profs. Marcia Fernandez, Clarissa Rubio and Marie Arguillas) of the Sociology Department strongly opposed to Prof. Raymundo’s tenure presented their own “facts” and a (contentious) “interpretation of a poem” which merely represented their own opinions and not that of the Department itself.
2. Prof. Raymundo, not having been formally provided with a copy of these allegations until the release of the Chancellor’s decision itself, could not reply to these alleged “facts” continually being cited against her. Furthermore, none of the accusations regarding “dishonesty” or “breach of professional ethics” are discussed or substantiated in any of the official letters written on behalf of the Department itself which were sent to or coursed through Prof. Raymundo, the College Executive Board or the Chancellor.

In addition, CONTEND lamented the failure of the UP Diliman administration to ferret out the truth. “This matter is not a question of weighing Prof. Raymundo’s excellent academic record against a pile of unsubstantiated and unconfirmed allegations; it is a matter of looking into the truth of the charges themselves and of setting in motion a process in which this can be ascertained with justice, due process and impartiality.”

As it is only now that I had access to the official documents, my two previous articles on her case (“Para sa estudyante ni Prop. Sarah Raymundo” and “Isang pakiusap kay Randy David,” both written in Filipino) did not draw conclusions on the motivations of those who had opposed Raymundo’s tenure. A cursory analysis of the given facts right now, however, clearly shows the irony that I had suspected all along: Witch-hunting is happening at the university known for liberal thinking.

Even if the authors of the minority report focused on her alleged dishonesty and unethical behavior, Raymundo’s active participation in human rights advocacy was definitely used against her. How else can one explain the accusations against her even if there was no quantifiable proof of harm? A basic question that should be clearly answered is whether or not Raymundo’s actions ruined any reputation or ended up embarassing the Department of Sociology or UP. As any student of ethics knows, harm is a major indicator in analyzing unethical behavior and the minority report fails to sufficiently explain this point.

That her academic credentials are outweighed by alleged dishonesty and unethical behavior does not make sense in the premier state university that takes pride in excellence and accommodation of different ideologies. It is necessary for the UP President and the BOR to act in favor of granting Raymundo’s tenure because it sends a chilling effect on the UP faculty, particularly the non-tenured ones.

The decision, after all, not to grant tenure despite Raymundo’s academic qualifications sends a strong message to the non-tenured faculty that they should toe the administration’s line and that they should remain apolitical.

For those who wallow in conservatism, mediocrity and apathy, Raymundo is now a de facto “poster girl” for what a faculty member should not be. Fortunately for those who know better, her curious case proves that the struggle for academic excellence and liberal thinking is far from being won.