my problem with randy david (updated)
i was on the verge of blogging about the tenure case of tibak (activist) u.p. professor sarah raymundo of the department of sociology now chaired by prof. randy david, when the news broke that prof. david intends to oppose gloria should she dare run for congress in his home province of pampanga.
siyempre natigilan ako. here i was all set to wonder aloud why known-to-be-leftist randy david seems to have turned against sarah raymundo who is herself a product of the department, shaped by, among others, the good professor himself, when bigla na lang he’s on the front page of inquirer, terribly macho astride a powerful motorcycle, with tibak kerchief tied ’round his head in lieu of a helmet. macho tibak?!? new politics?!?
the excitement his declaration has stirred among oppositionists, and the pledges of support, do not surprise. it’s great naman talaga that this highly esteemed public intellectual has the chutzpah to challenge gloria arroyo, and, even, possibly make her think twice thrice about taking that inglorious road to perpetual rule.
just the same, like prof. danny arao of the u.p. college of mass communication, i find myself torn, unable to shrug off the unfair denial of tenure to sarah raymundo. pakiusap ni prof. arao kay randy david:
Sa darating na Pebrero 2010 (ang tinatayang simula ng kampanya), maaasahan mo ang pagbuhos ng suporta mula sa iba’t ibang sektor ng lipunan. Kilala ka’t iginagalang, bagama’t hindi natin alam kung ang kasikatan mo’t panawagan para sa makabuluhang pagbabago ay magiging sapat para labanan ang makinarya ng administrasyon.
Kasama ba ako sa tutulong sa iyong kandidatura? Pasensiya na’t hindi ko pa sigurado.
Wala man tayong malalim na pinagsamahan at napakalaki ng agwat ng ating edad (sikat ka nang propesor nang maging estudyante ako sa UP Diliman noong kalagitnaan ng dekada 80), may maliit lang sana akong pakiusap na sana’y huwag mong masamain.
Hindi siguro alam ng maraming tao na ikaw ay kasalukuyang tagapangulo ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya ng UP Diliman. Para sa maraming estudyante’t gurong taga-UP, alam na alam nila ang kaso ni Prop. Sarah Raymundo, isang kasamahan mo sa departamento (at personal kong kaibigan) na pinagkaitan ng tenure kahit na nalampasan pa niya ang mga pangangailangan para dito.
Hanggang ngayon ay wala siyang pormal na sulat na nagsasaad kung ano ang kanyang naging pagkukulang, kung mayroon man. Ang tanging alam lang niya ay hindi niya nakuha ang boto ng 2/3 ng tenured faculty ng iyong departamento, kahit na mataas ang ebalwasyon sa kanya ng mga estudyante niya, nakuha niya sa itinakdang panahon ang kanyang master’s degree at nakapaglathala siya ng mga artikulo sa refereed journal.
Maaari mong ipagwalang-bahala ang isyung ito at sabihing ito ay internal sa inyong departamento. Pero kailangan mong malamang ito ay sumasagisag sa klase ng lideratong ikakampanya mo sa susunod na hinaharap at itataguyod mo kung sakaling manalo ka sa eleksiyon.
Kung ang isang kwalipikadong guro ay hindi mo mabigyan ng hustisya, paano pa kaya ang milyon-milyong pinagkaitan ng kasalukuyang rehimen? Nasaan ang panawagan mo para sa government transparency kung ang mismong departamento mo’y pinagkakaitan ng impormasyon si Prop. Raymundo kaya hindi niya masagot ang anumang paratang sa kanya? Bakit ang paninindigan ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya tungkol sa kaso ni Prop. Raymundo ay hindi naiiba sa nakabibinging katahimikang ipinapakita ng Pangulong nais mong kalabanin?
Hindi pa huli ang lahat, Propesor David, para bigyan ng hustisya ang iyong kasamahan bago ka seryosong sumabak sa maruming daigdig ng pulitika.
sana makarating kay randy david. it would be awesome if we could all rally behind him without reservation come 2010 should gloria arroyo run in pampanga. in such a campaign, given arroyo’s dismal negative ratings, say ni randy sa big picture, every filipino becomes a cabalen.
the irony is, sarah raymundo herself is a true cabalen, also from the second district of pampanga.
*
UPDATE from prof. raymundo’s chronology of events appended to her letter to u.p. chancellor sergio s. cao dated june 24, 2009:
On February of 2008, I submitted my application for tenure to the tenured faculty of the Sociology Department through our then-chairperson Dr. Clemen Aquino. By the second week of June 2008 … I was informed by Dr. Clemen Aquino of the official result of the tenured faculty’s deliberation on my tenure application. The voting that took place among the tenured faculty was to my favor at seven to three.
i dont get it angela… 2/3 of the faculty voted no. what is randy david’s culpability here. isang tao lang sya, kahit pa syang chairman
@gabbyd: sorry, pls see update. 7 of 10 voted yes in 2008. but the minority, which
, it would seem, included prof. david,somehow overturned the decision. read prof. raymundo’s chronology of events appended to her letter to u.p. chancellor sergio cao dated june 24 09. posted by prof. danny arao: http://risingsun.dannyarao.com/2009/06/29/up-sociology-prof-sarah-raymundos-denial-of-tenure/@angela
sorry, too, but i don’t get it. nowhere in your link (the chronology) states that david was involved in a bad way. here’s my understanding of the chronology:
1) tenure committee voted yes
2) then someone complained: “I was also informed that the minority sent a separate minority report to the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs (OVCAA). Subsequently, the OVCAA wrote the Sociology Department asking the majority, who voted in my favor, to justify their position …”
3) the complaint is something i don’t understand
4) new vote: not- tenured is the result
5) new discussion, more discussion on the complaint
6) david comes up only 2 times in the chronology, here’s the first: “I decided to talk to Prof. Randy David, who was then acting as the Department’s Officer-in-Charge. During our discussion, I learned that some members of the CEB questioned the exercise and officially sent you (chancellor cao) a letter a few days after the CEB voted in my favor.”
7) the other meeting, david was just mentioned — again, he’s just one guy in a meeting…
My confusion here rests really on, what did Prof David do that is bad/problematic?
My observation here is: if the tenure system in UP requires admin involvement, i have to wonder why thats so.
Ultimately, tenure is a political act (i.e. people vote to hire you as a tenured official). if they followed the rules (i’m not sure that they did), then whether someone gets tenure or not depends entirely on the preferences of the tenured faculty. this sorta thing happens all the time, pag-botohan — minsan matatalo ka tlga.
di ba?
Angela, medyo magulo ang intramurals sa UP. A sad reflection of the bigger issue in the Philippines – walang natalo sa eleksyon, nadaya lang?
I’ve read a lot of blogs about this issue, and still am confused. Ano ang role ni Prof. David sa isyu ni Prof. Raymundo – Mesiyas, Pontio Pilato o Hudas not pay. Dapat maliwanag otherwise sour-graping ang pwede nating itawag diyan.
jun, hindi naman eleksyon ang proseso ng tenure sa u.p. in fact, napakalinaw ng rules dito: publications, years of service, M.A. lahat yan meron si sarah, pero pinagkaitan parin siya ng tenure.
and yet, hindi niya sinasabing nadaya siya. sinasabi lang niya na linawin kung bakit HINDI siya binibigyan ng tenure. ano bang dahilan, kung ganitong meron na siya ng lahat ng requirements?
si prof. david ay ang kasalukuyang chairperson ng socio dept. kaya niyang baligtarin ang desisyon ng previous chair, kung naniniwala siyang na-meet na ni sarah ang mga requirements. pero hindi niya ito ginagawa. dapat lang din i-explain ni prof david: bakit HINDI niya gustong bigyan ng tenure si sarah, ngayong nasa kamay na niya ito? command responsibility lang ang usapin. at transparency.
@ina
thats not the only criteria right? there will still be voting, di ba?
if what ur saying is correct, why vote at all?
@ina, it was a metaphor.
Its in his power to reverse? But I thought it should be a committee decision?
Kayang baliktarin ang desisyon, but what is the point of having a committee if its going to be a one-man decision lang pala.
Kyuryusiti lang, what if Prof. David’s silence meant that he agrees with the finding of the committee, does that make him less qualified to run against GMA?
Actually, ito ang problema kapag hindi above-board ang mga bagay at mga tao — hindi malinaw ang mga akusasyon at walang malinaw na dahilan ang mga pagbabago ng boto.
Sa pagkakaalam ko, bumoto noong una si David nang pabor sa tenure ni Prop. Raymundo. Majority ng faculty, pabor sa pagbibigay ng tenure.
Tapos nagwala na ang minority — hindi sumalubong sa majority at sumulat na sa admin, etc. Nagbigay sila ng report na hindi presented ang laman sa majority.
Then may akusasyon na namang sumulpot vs. tenure ni Prop. Raymundo. Nagpulong ulit sila. Dito na bumaligtad si David, kahit nakakuha pa rin ng majority si Prop. Raymundo.
Ngayon, bilang Department chair, si David ang nagdadahilan na wala nang majority pabor kay Prop. Raymundo dahil nagretiro nga iyung isang bumoto at iyung isa ay nag-resign (para maging kongresista — si Rep. Walden Bello).
Mula sa labas, napaka-irregular ng mga nangyari. Nagbotohan na, gumawa pa ng gulo ang minority. Nagbotohan na, tapos naghanap pa ng bagong “ebidensya” laban kay Prop. Raymundo. Nakakuha na ng majority noong nagbotohan, ikinakatwiran ngayong wala nang majority just because nawala ilan sa mga bumoto.
At sa lahat ng ito, hindi ihinaharap kay Prop. Raymundo ang mga akusasyon sa kanya — mga usaping sa pagkakaalam ko ay napakahirap patunayan, kung hindi man talagang hindi totoo.
Ngayon, si David ang nagpapatupad ng pagtanggal kay Prop. Raymundo. Hinayaan niya ang sarili niyang magpa-bully at magpagamit sa dating minority sa Departamento, gayung kinikilala siyang tao dito.
Hindi ito principled politics, kung ako ang tatanungin. Gusto lang ni David na mapayapa ang mga tao sa Department.
naku, teo ;) salamat sa pagklaro. for a while there i wasn’t sure na nga about the sequence of events. so first he said yes, then he said no, nagpa-bully sa minority (!?), and continues to say no.
btw, na-spam ang comment mo, buti na lang nacheck ko, kaya ngayon lang na-post ;)
@teo
gets ko na ngayon ang reklamo. in a nutshell — assuming that the timeline is correct, david’s error is that he allowed the minority (whoever they are) to reverse the orginial decision. thats fair…
hey gabby, in the ideal world of the university, the votes must be dependent on the fulfillment of those requirements. any vote that’s extraneous to that is obviously personal. this is what the minority report is about. this is what sarah has a right to: what personal grudge do they have against her? particularly since this minority that voted no has been able to turn things around and keep sarah in limbo.
hey jun! alam ko naman na metaphor yon, i’m just saying it doesn’t hold given the tenure process in u.p. :)
prof. david wouldn’t be reversing the committee’s decision, he would be upholding the original decision, which found sarah getting the majority’s votes for tenure. that original decision is what must hold. everything else after that is problematic because it isn’t part of the normal tenure process.
if in the end, prof. david’s silence is because he agrees with the minority’s decision, then all he has to be is transparent about it. linawin natin where he stands in this issue of a credible, productive, well-loved young faculty member being denied her only means of livelihood in a time of crisis, with no clear explanation as to why, no clear crime committed.
at this point in time, prof. david’s silence already tells us a lot about him.
@teo, thanx for the clarification. palagay ko ito ang hindi naipaliwanag maigi ng ibang blogs.
@ina, thanks also for the clarifications. mas malinaw na ngayon. tama ang sabi mo, kalialangan ng transparency sa usaping ito.
Dagdag pa, si David ang nag-imbento ng 2/3 rule — na ang majority ay dapat 2/3 ng lahat ng faculty. Wala namang ganyan rule bago nito. So napaka-arbitraryo, hindi ba?
@ Angela: Oo nga, akala ko tuloy moderated na ang komento dito. Parang hindi ikaw iyung gagawa noon. Hehe. Iyung 2/3 ang master stroke. By saying na kailangan ng 2/3, kinailangan niyang sumalubong sa minority.
@ jun ;) yes, most other blogs on sarah raymundo’s tenure case don’t even mention randy david. i suppose it is a measure of his standing in the academe and sociology dept — being a highly esteemed public figure, a rare public intellectual, how awesome, and intimidating. that is, except for masscom prof. danny arao, bully for him, which is why i thought him worth quoting kahit di rin siya clear about the kaibang voting process na naganap, thanks to the socio dept’s arrogant silence on the matter.
@ teo ;) i love to quote this paragraph from a piece by blogger blackshama, also a u.p. prof, that he posted sa FV long before randy david declared intent to run. http://filipinovoices.com/the-centennial-partys-over-and-now-comes-the-hard-part
“At UP Diliman … “tenure problem controversies” are often observed at the College of Social Science and Philosophy. The reason as some CSSP insiders say is that decisions are often influenced by ideological persuations. Now Raymundo is a known ”tibak”. I wonder why this tibak got the ire of UP’s homegrown “fascists”? Now it should be that in an academic community, tenure should be determined by one’s academic standing. It should matter not if one is a Marxist, Maoist, Fascist, Atheist, Opus Dei, ADD, Iglesia ni Cristo, Born Again, Catolico Sarado, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Metrosexual, Heterosexual etc.”
makes me wonder about randy’s “new politics.” hindi naman siguro “fascist”. maybe just an establishment kind of leftist, maybe nga what mong palatino calls a “fashionable ex-radical” in the mold of bobi tiglao, mike defensor, and alex magno? http://www.mongpalatino.us.splinder.com/post/612322/The+Other+Radicals
@teo
david wasn’t the chair right? he was the officer in charge. isn’t that different? doesn’t that mean david is constrained by what he can do…
a fishy thing about this tenure process is this paragraph: “A few weeks later, I was called on by Dr. Joy Arguillas in her capacity as OIC and Dr. Ging Candaliza-Gutierrez as member of the tenured body to inform me that the tenured faculty voted, with five in my favor, four against, one abstention, and one in favor of waiving the discussion for a year. They added that since the vote was “deeply divided,” the tenured body decided to defer their decision and thus left it to your esteemed office to decide on granting my tenure, after which, my tenure application and the department vote were discussed by the CEB.”
note, 5-4 in favor of tenure, but thats not enough to do it. is this the 2/3s rule? in the event the the voting doesnt pass the 2/3s rule, the admin (UP admin chancelor cao) was called upon to intervene.
so teo, before, the rule was simple majority, and then the OIC (not chair) david changed the rule to 2/3s? this wasn’t due to Dr. Aquino (the actual chair at the time?)
@ina
here’s my point: the number of articles, student reviews, etc — they are all measurable. once measured, they are not up to discussion; either you make the standard or you don’t
if its all up to these standards, then there is no need for a vote. the question becomes, why vote? the quick answer is what you said: there is a personal/political thing when you want to be a member of a group, especially a member that, once admitted, cannot be fired. at the very least you have to believe the new prof will bring something new to the table, will bring prestige, etc… all of these things are beliefs that are personal from the POV of the people voting…
i’d have to read more about this prof. randy david. i honestly don’t know him although it did raised my eyebrows kung sino tong superman who wants to challenge superpandak and i’m glad you wrote something about him which is really fair and i still quote kahi sinulat mo na:
“Kung ang isang kwalipikadong guro ay hindi mo mabigyan ng hustisya, paano pa kaya ang milyon-milyong pinagkaitan ng kasalukuyang rehimen? Nasaan ang panawagan mo para sa government transparency kung ang mismong departamento mo’y pinagkakaitan ng impormasyon si Prop. Raymundo kaya hindi niya masagot ang anumang paratang sa kanya? Bakit ang paninindigan ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya tungkol sa kaso ni Prop. Raymundo ay hindi naiiba sa nakabibinging katahimikang ipinapakita ng Pangulong nais mong kalabanin?”
yon pala ang laban. oo nga naman. tsk! tsk! tsk!
this has been a clear account of what has happened to prof. raymundo. pls do allow me to ask a few questions.
it is implied that prof. raymundo’s only fault is that she is an activist and that her tenure has been refused solely on these grounds. is there no question regarding her professionalism, integrity, competence etc.?
second, is it not the prerogative of the sociology dept as a whole to choose who would win tenure? and those up in arms in the UP community are claiming that the process has not been clear as to why prof raymundo has apparently been rejected? are there no accounts specifically saying she has been rejected because she is “too radical?”
third, it has been mentioned that prof. david can overturn the decision of the majority…that doesn’t sound right to me.
@sparks
to me, its clear that something weird happened in the tenure case. from the original decision of yes (with a large majority), the minority complained, and then there was a slight majority yes, but this is not enough to garner tenure.
its the responsibility of david thats not clear. from raymundo’s timeline, it seems that he was just the OIC at the time. it also seems that he tried to help her (by telling her about the situation)
hopefully teo might know more details beyond the timeline.
I agree na me problema talaga sa tenure ni Prof. Raymundo. Yung role ni Prof. David lang talaga ang malabo para sa akin.
Siguro maganda yun puntong dapat me transparency talaga para hindi nakabitin sa hangin ang lahat pero si Prof. David lang ba talaga ang susi para maging malinaw ang usaping ito?
@ Gabby D:
Sorry, na-late sumagot.
Hindi siya ang dating department chair. Nitong huli na lang. Siya ang magpapatupad ng “desisyon” ng departamento.
Oo, sa kanya galing ang mode na 2/3 votes ng lahat ng faculty ng department ang dapat makuha ni Sarah. Walang ganyan dati.
Pwedeng dahil pa rin kay Dr. Aquino — na talagang tumutol sa pag-tenure kay Sarah — pero mas ang nagpapatupad ay si David.
@ Sparks:
Wala ngang kwestyon sa mga bagay na sinasabi mo tungkol kay Sarah. Wala, walang magsasabing tinatanggal siya dahil radikal siya. Naghahanap sila ng dahilan. Pero insiders mismo ang nagsasabing pabagu-bago sila ng dahilan sa talakayan. Pero alam mo sa buong CSSP, halos si Prop. Raymundo lang ang NatDem! Iyan ang tinatawag mong kritikal na akademya! Hindi nila sinasabi ang dahilan — pero lumutang sa blog mo ang isang ispekulasyon (na ni hindi mo sinasagot) na may kinalaman si Sarah sa radikal na aktibidad ng mga estudyante niya, na hindi totoo. Sa blog ko, parang pinapalabas mong ako o ang mga NatDem ang may monopolyo sa katotohanan. Focus muna tayo sa isyu: Asaan ang proseso ng pag-alam sa katotohanan sa isyung ito? Ni hindi alam ni Prop. Raymundo ang dahilan kung bakit siya tinatanggal — after teaching in the department for almost 10 years! Collegiality? Galing ano?
linawin din natin, walang babaligtaring desisyon si prof. david. kailangan lang niyang i-uphold ang original decision to tenure sarah. kailangan lang niyang manindigan laban sa minority na binaligtad ang original decision to tenure.
linawin din natin: noong una’y bumoto si prof. david IN FAVOR of giving sarah tenure. nang mataranta ang natalong minority sa first decision na yon — the only decision that should hold water even at this point — naging ABSTAIN ang boto ni prof. david.
ang paliwanag raw sa botong abstain na ito ni prof. david ay ang bigyan ng chance si sarah na makapagturo pa for one year, without tenure, insinuating na magiging under probation si sarah.
pray tell, why would a professor who has met all requirements for tenure, who has proven her worth and mettle for almost 10 years in the department of sociology, be put under probation?
and yes, what makes this much much worse is the fact that sarah herself is left in the dark about the reasons for both prof. david’s decision to abstain, and the minority’s refusal to give her tenure.
what has been used as a reason for the re-vote and the refusal to tenure sarah has been her activism. is there a piece of paper that says this outright? no. for really, would the socio department of u.p. diliman admit to being anti-left? would any sociology department have the temerity to say we don’t like her because she’s an activist of a different color from us? not at all.
tenure is NOT won. the tenure process is NOT a contest. one is judged based on a set of criteria that are clearly listed in the faculty manual. what this presumes is that the members of the socio department’s tenured faculty agree with the criteria set by the university, and that they will vote yes, as a matter of pride in their own faculty member’s achievements.
this didn’t happen for sarah. and it is the responsibility of the socio department that’s NOW headed by prof. david, to at the very least explain why.
and as current chair, prof. david has the responsibility and the prerogative to look into sarah’s case, see it as unjust, and decide to uphold the first votation that was in favor of tenure. it is even just his prerogative at this point to uphold Chancellor Cao’s and the CSSP Dean’s recommendations for tenure.
the question then isn’t HOW prof. david’s connected to this tenure case. it’s WHY he has yet to do anything about it.
Ganda ng paliwanag ni Ina!
Magkaiba yata kami ng inside information na nakuha. Pakiramdam ko, mas accurate ang kanya: Abstain kaysa No. Pero itanong ko rin ulit.
Angela, Newsvine trackback here
my two cents worth is: you cannot be an academic if you’re ideological, sociology has to be value-free. Sarah carries an ideology with her. There’s absolutely no problem if she is in demagogue. But she’s a teacher, and should be moulding the minds of young scientists. Being ideological, in contrast to what has been said earlier, is not being critical — it’s being closed.
JJ, nothing escapes ideology. objectivity is an ideology in the same way that marxism is, or catholicism is, or apathy, for that matter, is.
the academe is an ideology in itself. sociology is infinitely ideological, otherwise it wouldn’t survive as a discipline. without ideology, there would be no critical discourse, which reminds us that a critical perspective is always necessarily ideological as well. your critical perspective in this comment defines your ideology, as my response to you does.
the issue here is not so much that sarah’s ideology but the sociology department’s, and yes, randy david’s.
Ay, ano ba iyan? Outmoded na ang notion na ang social sciences ay objective. Kahit ang mga matitinong practitioners ng mga disiplina, hindi na ganyan ang thinking. Pero hindi syempre ibig sabihin ay everything goes. Pero may recognition ng situated-ness ng mga nagsasagawa. Lahat naman ay ideolohikal. Sabi nga ng album ng bandang New Radicals: Maybe you’ve been brainwashed too.
At ano ngayon kung ideolohikal si Sarah? Kung totoong liberal ang UP, dapat bigyan siya ng puwang, bilang isang national democrat. Nagkalat sa UP ang mga nagtatrabaho sa militar, sa gobyerno. Bakit hindi taken against them ang ideolohiya nila?
Pingback: big bad randy