Share or Restrain Power?: Rethinking of the University Students’ Participation in Decision-making

When the Costa Rica-based University for Peace (UPeace) launched the Dual Campus Master Programme on International Peace Studies in the Philippines in 2007, there were 30 students from 11 Asian countries who made it to the Programme. Being the first batch of students under the new Dual Campus Programme, the students experienced the complexity of decision-making under the set-up of dual campus. While the center of decision-making remains at Costa Rica, there are two personnel of UPeace who have delegated authority to attend and respond to some issues raised by the students. One particular issue that was strongly raised by many students was about the decision of UPeace to arrange the accommodation of all students using their stipend without the students’ participation in the decision-making process. The students felt that any decision-making that concerns them should include their participation in the process.

Like any other organizations in a free and democratic society, a university adopts a certain decision-making mechanism that governs and affects its faculty, staff, students, and other members. The students, being a significant part of a university, should play an active part in the decision-making process that affects them. There is a “generally accepted political proposition that in free societies all those affected by a social policy have an inalienable right to a voice in its formulation” (McGrath 1970, 51). However, a university operates within and is embedded in a power structure that defines mostly its decisions. Morison (1970, 25) describes the “reality of power structure in the university that implies the acceptance of an administrative diagram which shows power-flowing down from the trustees, through the president to the faculty, with nothing left for distribution to the lowly students.” He continues that “the university is perceived to be virtually beyond the reach of the influence of students. It is this perception which lies behind much of the clamor about student powerlessness and the demand to be allowed to make decisions affecting the student’s own life” (Ibid, 51).

Acceptability of an effective decision hinges on the kind of participation given by the people concerned and involved (Prescott, 1980). In a university, some students are passive recipients of decisions but many students refuse to be just on the receiving end. The more the decision excludes participation of students, the more they will likely reject the decision and clamor for inclusion in the decision-making. For the students, a decision can be more effective if they take part in the decision-making process. This proposition will expectedly face objections from university administrators and educators.

McGrath (1970) enumerates five objections to student participation in the decision-making. First, due to their large numbers, students will dominate decision-making bodies in universities. Second, due to limited life experiences, students’ immaturity will reflect in their decision-making. Third, due to limited number of years in a university, students will miss to look at the larger and longer picture. Fourth, students have yet to gain specialized abilities and professional values. And finally, being part of decision-making will interfere with the students’ studies and gainful employment. It would be pointed out that these objections do not hold ground for the following reasons. Let us take them one by one. The apprehension that the students will dominate in the decision-making bodies is very unlikely to happen since members of these bodies are representatives of various groups that are proportionately represented. Both the immaturity of students and lack of professional values will be better dealt with by the challenges and lessons to be handled and learned at the interactive discussions of these decision-making bodies in which the students participate. The students are not supposed and expected to ponder the larger and longer picture of the issues because this is the work of administrators who shall balance the present and future needs and goals. The students are expected to give opinions and concrete examples on the issues based on their experiences and perspectives. The concern that students’ participation in the decision-making will interfere in their studies and gainful employment undermines the motivation of students towards their studies and employment. These objections to the students’ participation rest on a shallow ground to merit attention on their arguments.

On the other hand, there are six justifications for students’ participation (Ibid, 1970). First, with the sophistication of students and their serious and informed interests, it will be good and instructive to listen to students’ interesting voices and ideas. Second, in preparation for the students to be good citizens, they should be educated and exposed to democratic exercises like school elections and participating in decision-making activities. Third, through their experiences, students can improve higher education in general. Fourth, by treating them as maturing adults, students can help abolish the doctrine of In Loco Parentis (in place or position of a parent) in universities. Fifth, of course in the teaching-learning environment, students can have a hand in the improvement of instruction. Sixth and finally, students are recognized voice and presence in the universities, and that they should not be ignored or excluded. These justifications underscore the significance of students’ participation in the decision-making.

There are four core values in the participatory decision-making that a university can adopt (Kaner 1996, 24). First is the encouragement of full participation of all members. Second is the mutual understanding of the legitimacy of each other. Third is the inclusive solution from which various perspectives and needs are considered. The last core value is the shared responsibility of the task. This is to highlight that the task of decision-making is not on the officers, managers, and administrators alone but is shared by everybody who has a stake on the decision to be made.

Kaner (1996, 29) also presents the benefits of participatory values in decision-making.  These benefits are personal learning of those who participate in the decision-making, development of effective groups, and sustainable agreements. Of particular interest here are the sustainable agreements that are netted by participatory decision-making. If students are included in the decision-making processes in universities, there will be less restlessness and clamor among students to be transparent and accountable in the decision-making process since they are part and privy of the process.

Should universities then share their power on decision-making with their students? Or should they restrain power in themselves? The quality and effectiveness of a decision lie in the openness of the universities for participatory decision-making since they traditionally hold the key for this kind of decision-making. Obviously, the benefits of participatory decision-making are there to reap. The students are there to be tapped for their sea of potentials. The universities are there to facilitate these potentials into fruition. Thus, whatever the tasks and functions of universities, they are always seen as shared responsibility, with the community, parents, local officials, government, and especially students who care for their education, have a stake as anyone else, and want to seize the opportunity to take command of their actions and future as responsible members of society.

References:

Kaner, Sam. “Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-making.” British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 1996.

McGrath, Earl. “Should Students Share the Power?: A Study of their Role in College and University Governance.” Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1970.

Morison, Robert. “Students and Decision making.” Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1970.

 Prescott, Bryan. “Effective Decision-making: A Self-development Programme.” Hampshire: Gower Publishing Company Limited, 1980.

To a certain Carlos who came to church

Dear Carlos,

As you read this, I pray for your well-being inside the juvenile jail cell.

Surprised and shocked, I could not hold shaking my head for quite a number of times after I saw your own "civil disobedience." As I saw it, there was no civility in the act. Yeah, it was a show of disobedience.

I understand the anger and disgust in the threat of excommunication from the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to President Aquino. To my mind, it is uncalled for and inappropriate for a representative of highly respected and influential CBCP to give such a threat to a newly elected and legitimate President. It is a plain display of moral ascendancy at the time when the Church is confronted by abuses and scandals worldwide.

As a Filipino citizen, you have the right to defend your President and voice your sentiments on issues.

I am a Filipino too. And President Aquino is my President too. And our Philippine society, I believe, is governed by laws, decency, and tolerance. Even Rizal, I imagine, would not claim and see himself in your act of disrespecting the institution and sobriety of a holy Mass. As far as I know and you know this more than I do, Rizal was a sensible man.

If you want the Church to get out of politics, you are not alone. I would also favor to see this. I don't like my church to get involved in the operations of the civilian government.

However, both the Church and the State have quite the same constituency in the Philippines. Besides, the issue at hand directly affects the flocks of the Church and citizens of the Philippine government on their moral decision-making. In this case, I would like my church and government to help me reach an informed decision.

And at this point, they are doing their jobs well, except the threat from a representative of CBCP. [Again, I'd stress that he is not the Church. Like me, your neighbors, your relatives and friends, he is a member of the Church. So when you direct your anger and disgust to the Church, you also vent those to us. In catechism, we know that the Church resides in every believer.]

As Filipinos, we know and understand basketball. I hope you like basketball as most Filipinos do.  In NBA, imagine someone guarding Lebron James or Kobe Bryant. The guard knows that James or Bryant will score more than ten or twenty points in any given game. But does it mean that he should stop guarding James or Bryant because both will score anyway? NO! He still has to do his job - guarding those prolific scorers.

The Church is playing guard here. It does and will do something that James or Bryant and their fans won't like, but the guard must not bow down, whether he is liked or not. It is his job to guard and stop the scoring.

The Church is guarding against actions without responsibility and obligation. Actions can be done in certain conditions (e.g. sex in the context of marriage). After marriage, parenting is such a huge responsibility. It is like sharing the gift of creation. With this gift comes responsibility. Condoms and artificial contraceptives do not remind us of this gift. Rather, they result to a wasted gift.

I feel that there is a misplaced blame towards the Church on overpopulation which is said to be dragging the country to the pits of poverty. Because of its policies and advocacies on abortion and contraceptions, the Church is being made as a scapegoat of something that it has not caused.

Yeah, I agree that we have a problem on overpopulation. But it is too much to relate overpopulation alone with poverty. I hope you have seen a politician that has become poor or has remained similar in economic standing after his/her term ends. I wish you had been to the rural areas where almost no infrastructure project is being implemented while in Metro Manila, a paved road is being dug out to be paved again. The basic problem is on the management and distribution of the country's resources. We are not a poor country, supposedly, but we are. Is it because of the Church?

I hope you have a good sleep inside the jail with your new friends. I know that you are an amazing storyteller. But your last story does not amaze me at all. Anyhow, you have the prayers of millions for your well-being.

Yours,

Juan Filipino Catholico

Peace as restoring broken relationships and building positive ones

Today, September 21 is recognized as the International Day of Peace.

Global peace is not only the concern and work of government and business leaders, it is also our concern and work as global citizens. As such, there are things that we can do to contribute to global peace - from ourselves to our immediate surroundings. These are the things that are under our control and influence.


Peace is not only a global issue. It is interpersonal as much as personal. Today, let us do some concrete things for peace in our hearts and minds by restoring broken relationships and building positive ones.


Have we hurt someone? Or someone has hurt us? Are we in good terms with them? In our family, have we kept that wound that never heals? Have we subdued ourselves because of pride and/or position?


NOW, it is time to confront ourselves, to ease the tension within us, to release the negative energies brought about by hurts, wounded pride, lofty position, and scarred past.


If we have a higher Being, have we made ourselves His/Her image here on earth? Hence, we shall reestablish our relationships with our God to be able to show His/Her goodness, blessings, and light through our actions, words and thoughts.

Pray. Read and be open to the Word.

To ourselves, have we made an utmost effort to be free - that is to do what is necessary and right, or have we come short of our own expectation and capability? Hence, we shall be free of the burdens of worldly competitions and human tendencies that revolve around our selfish world. We shall overcome the temptations of flesh, wealth, and prestige.

Let us Pray. Read and be open to the Word. Join formal and informal community activities and fellowships. Exercise. Be honest. Be strong. Listen to your hearts. Purify your thoughts. Doubt your instincts. Be intimate and in touch with our humanity.

To others, have we respected their humanity? Have we denied them of their rights and dignity? Have we observed and followed the local and national laws?


Let us Pray. Read and be open to the Word. Join formal and informal community activities and fellowships. Exercise. Be honest. Be strong. Listen to your hearts. Purify your thoughts. Doubt your instincts. Be intimate and in touch with humanity. Change ways. Welcome others. Share. Reach out. Respect.

Let us Think good, do good, be good. Then, things will be better.

Let us Believe.

This is for today. Do not forget that tomorrow is another day.

Let us Repeat.

Expel not those among us, the Gypsies

".. fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer.." - Shylock's defense, The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare

Are Gypsies european? (note that european is in small letter). This is to open up discussion. And not to express concluding and derogatory statements.

In the past weeks, more than a thousand Gypsies, or Roma, were expelled from France by the government that is inspired by an egalitarian goal since the French Revolution. And so the world and Gypsies thought.

French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, ordered the dismantling of over a hundred illegal camps of the Gypsies, one of the poorest ethnic group in Europe. His justification was that these camps were havens of crimes and displayed undignified living conditions in France, a country that has a generous welfare system. To show its condescending generosity, French government voluntarily provided cash payment of more than 300 euros per expelled adult and 100 per child.

Is the French government singling out and targeting an ethnic group on its policy of dismantling illegal camps and expulsions of those staying in the country allegedly without means of supporting their stay?

That is as plain as snow for the critics to see. However, the French government argued and defended that there is no targeting of any ethnic group. It is simply exercising its right to expel people illegally staying within its own jurisdiction for security reasons.

Why are the Gypsies living in such an undignified condition in the first place? Is it the failure of the governments to integrate them in society? Who is looking after them?

The recipient of the expelled Gypsies is Romania, a new member of European Union. The issue is not about new member confronting a founding member, nor a poor member vis-a-vis a rich member of the Union.

It is about an ethnic group that has long been victimized by structural violence such as discrimination, prejudice, and neglect, in the European countries which are incidentally looked up to by developing countries. The issue takes a lot of less ground for these countries to condemn any discriminatory acts by developing countries against ethnic minorities in their territories.

If I were the ex- policeman, this could be my open letter

To whom it may concern,

These past few days, much has been written about what I did which killed eight tourists and injured several others. The tragedy caused unfortunate and yet understandable reactions from those who care dearly about the victims, me, and our Philippines as a country. There have been fault-finding and blame-pointing here and there.

I did what I did. And I paid for it. The outcome was not what I had imagined.

Did I really intend to hurt and kill anyone? No.

I was neither a terrorist nor a criminal. I used to protect civilians as a policeman. As a dedicated officer, I received commendations including an outstanding policeman in 1986. I was a family man, a comrade to Manila's Finest.

For months, I suffered from the thoughts of a wasted career and a ruined life. What else could a man live for if these things were taken away from me without due process?

As a citizen, I wrote letters to authorities to look at my case. I did not get any response. One response, either positive or negative, would have been sufficient to calm my restless thoughts. I was just another Juan, a series of numbers in files.

One day, I could not bear it any longer. I did what I knew could catch their attention. I was a policeman, in my heart and outside. I risked my life in the call of duty. With commitment on my uniform and life, I prepared myself for this day.

It could have been any other buses in the area. I did not target Chinese to be my hostages. It so happened that their bus was where I was.

There were two simple things in my mind. I really thought that they were simple. I did not ask for huge amount of money. I did not seek fame. I just wanted my life and career back.

One, I wanted to expedite the resolution of my administrative case in the Ombudsman for alleged extortion. Two, I demanded to be reinstated as a policeman with full benefits as I neared my retirement from service. I would like to end my career with pride.

I knew too that this could be the defining moment of my career. It was here and now.

I was sober, temperate in my decisions and actions. I was in Manila. I felt I was with my comrades. They were not my enemies. I had no enemies. I even released a number of hostages. I asked for food for the hostages.

When it was becoming clear that I would not get what I demanded, I felt betrayed. I felt no one understood me. I felt nothing inside me. I had nothing anymore. I risked everything for this day. Everything in me. I lost.

"And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Matthew 25:30


Yours,


Ex-policeman, a servant