rooting for sylvia claudio!

Rina Jimenez-David

AMONG those aspiring for the post of chancellor of UP Diliman is Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudio, director of the UP Center for Women’s Studies and a professor at the Department of Women and Development Studies of the College of Social Work and Community Development.

In a paper she prepared to present her reasons for aspiring for the chancellorship and outlining her vision for the university, “Guy” Claudio says her “sincere answer” to those who ask why she is vying for the post is “because I love UP.” “This is such a cliché that it is almost a political gaffe to say it,” she remarks. “And yet, in my conversations with students, alumnae, colleagues, staff and UP residents we say this to each other sincerely. Only when it is said in the context of a bid for power or position does it become suspect.”

Her “love affair” with UP began from birth, Claudio notes, since her parents, both UP professors, moved into the Diliman campus when she was just a few weeks old. It was also in UP where she took her grade school, high school, undergraduate and post-graduate studies, including her Ph.D.

* * *

AS for her plans should she manage to clinch the post of chancellor, Claudio says she envisions “a community that cultivates academic freedom and excellence and nationalism, acommunity of scholars governed by the mutual respect and collegiality, and one that guarantees equitable opportunities and benefits for its members.” She promises as well to “bring my social science and community development perspectives” to the office.

I have known Guy for well over a decade due to our shared commitment to women’s issues and involvement in the women’s movement. I welcome particularly the possible ascension of a feminist to this position, and I am sure she will bring her traits of being outspoken and fearless in her analysis of issues to the post of UP Diliman chancellor. I hope the UP Board of Regents give Claudio’s vision the serious and favorable consideration it deserves.

Political Suicide

Ben Kritz

… Far from sending any sort of message, a suicide leaves layers upon layers of questions, particularly so when the “victim” is a public figure whose action is intimately related in one way or another to the business of The People. As Benign0 asked a few days ago:

“Who are we to judge Angelo Reyes? Who are we to presume to judge the circumstances of his death — an apparent suicide as the Media reports say? And if indeed, Reyes killed himself do we really believe that the state of his mind moments before his death could ever be knowable?”

Indeed, it can’t be; the person who takes his own life must be in a very dark place, a place that means something, but means something to him and him alone. Sometimes the motivation, or rather an aspect of it, is circumstantially apparent; Budd Dwyer, for example, could save his pension and insurance for his family (and the huge legal bills he had incurred) by dying in office. But he never gave that reason, and the reasons he did give made no sense to anyone, and maybe didn’t even make sense to him. And as much can be said of the clues Angelo Reyes left behind in his distraught ramblings to a few friends in his last days.

Any judgment of the suicide itself is pure speculation; it is as prejudicial to consider the dead man “honorable” for choosing to be that way as it is to characterize the suicide as an admission of guilt. Those are nothing more than characterizations of our own reactions to it, and not any sort of truth. The suicide takes the truth with him, and that’s what makes it an ultimately selfish act. Whether there is honor or shame in the act, however, is a matter of sentiment; taboos, after all, are relative. In the end, that is the real tragedy of suicide: that so deliberate an act changes so little.

spinning suicide

Until the end, he was an officer, a gentleman. He did not betray anyone, he did not squeal.

libingan ng mga bayani?   full military honors?   what message are we sending here?   what disgraceful pattern are we setting?

there is nothing honourable about the general’s suicide, except of course to the family and friends and institutions he spared from investigation and incrimination.

while suicide may be an act of courage — it takes guts to kill oneself — it is also, in the context of corruption allegations, a cop-out, an escape from reality, an incapacity to do the right thing, a lack of moral fiber.

the right thing would have been to face the music, admit one’s culpabilities (if any), squeal on other wrongdoers (if any), and exonerate the innocent (if any), for the higher good, the good of the nation.

imagine if he and his wife, instead of ranting vs the whistleblowers, had bowed to the call of the times and told the truth, no matter how much it hurt, no matter that it would mean the end of a normal life, no matter the danger.

what a coup that would have been.   standing up for the truth.   a ninoy moment, an edsa moment, that the nation would have hailed extolled celebrated.   sayang.

suicide

napakalungkot para sa kanyang asawa at mga anak.   pero di ko makuhang malungkot para sa militar at administrasyon na pinagtakpan niya by taking his own life.   sana naglahad na muna siya, let the chips fall where they may.   then it would have been a noble death.