IN DEFENSE
Renato Constantino
February 13,1940
We were greatly baffled by the attitude of
a certain cabinet member who expressed surprise when the University authorities permitted
Socialist Abad Santos to speak before a convocation of University professors and students.
Contending that the Socialist Supremo’s speech was a ‘virtual insult to the
government and that the speech would have been more properly delivered at a private
institution rather than at the State University, that department secretary, whose identity
has not been revealed, showed extreme narrow-mindedness and excessive conservatism. Such
an attitude manifests social cowardice, moreso when he refused to be publicly quoted.
To the broad-minded and understanding
constituents of this institution, it is clear that the University in allowing Attorney
Abad Santos to address that convocation, was merely encouraging reflective thinking among
our students on current problems.
Doubtless, without guidance, some students
and professors are apt to form hasty conclusions based on rumors concerning serious topics
of the day. In providing the students’ opportunities to hear views representing both
sides of any question, our University leaders make possible intelligent, careful
deliberations based on actual contacts with the representative conflicting factions of any
question. Thus, University students are being prepared to view with impartiality and
reflect on problems they are to meet in real life before they are swayed to any side of a
big problem.
To interpret this gesture as a
‘virtual insult to the government’ is to misunderstand the real motives of
University authorities in allowing Don Pedro to speak before that University audience.
This narrow-minded assertion constitutes an underestimation of the foresight of our
University constituents.
That the speech could have been more
properly delivered at a private institution rather than at the State University is another
distorted thought from our critical secretary for we believe that to guide the students
properly without necessarily cramping their ideas, the proper procedure is not to deprive
them of opportunities to hear the question discussed. On the contrary, the more they hear
both sides - the more impartial their conclusions will be. More than any other group, a
university audience can better ponder such delicate questions.
If bigoted ideas are to be avoided; if
hasty judgments are to be forestalled; if blind following is to be discouraged - then
students should be exposed to varied ideas and personalities, radical or otherwise. Only
thus, can they be in better position to make comparison, and to choose which are
worthwhile. In only such a broad-minded manner can we expect an intelligent reception and
discussion of questions of natural import within the academic shades of the University
campus.
be striking at the very root of our
democratic institutions." This statement we attribute to Regent Guillermo Villanueva
whose firm stand on academic freedom and free discussion merits commendation.
To oldsters who, like our unknown cabinet
member, invariably lament the impulsiveness of youth, we recommend more careful appraisal
and greater moral courage. |
