To read/download her appeal letter, click here: Sarah’s Appeal to the BOR

To read/download the history & chronology of her tenure application, click here: History & Chronology – Sarah’s Tenure Application

Click on the following to view three flyers on Sarah Raymundo’s tenure case, in PDF:  flyersdec13 .

Maraming salamat!

The Real Issue in the Sarah Raymundo Case: Academics versus Yahoos

By Walden Bello*

Should President Emerlinda Roman fail to reverse the decision of Chancellor Sergio Cao to refuse tenure to Ms. Sarah Raymundo of the Sociology Department, this will be the final act of an academic tragedy.

Never has a tenure decision-making process been as flawed as this one.  Allow me to cite the crucial points in this sorry affair:

- The majority of the department, by a margin of 7-3, votes to give tenure to Ms. Raymundo.

- The minority subverts this decision by manipulating Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Lorna Paredes into sending the decision back to the majority to justify—a move that was unprecedented.  Confusion ensues.

- The College Executive Board (CEB) of the College of Sciences and Philosophy upholds the majority decision to grant tenure by 7-1, with three abstentions.

- The Chancellor disregards this decision of the college’s highest governing body and decides against tenure.

But the blatant irregularity of the process should not obscure the key issue in the Raymundo case.  Beyond all the procedural controversies that surrounded the affair was the fundamental substantive question: did Ms. Sarah Raymundo deserve tenure on the basis of her academic record?  It was the position of the minority on this issue that was, in effect, legitimized by Chancellor Cao’s decision to refuse tenure.

The minority in the tenured faculty never formally based its opposition to Ms. Raymundo on academic grounds.  How could they since Ms. Raymundo had an excellent publications record and superb scores on teaching evaluations, indeed probably the best in the department?  Instead, the minority focused on an issue that was marginal if not irrelevant to the tenure process: that Ms. Raymundo allegedly lied about her association with a press conference on two students that had been abducted by the military.  In any context, this would be a minor disciplinary matter that would be handled as such.  Ms. Raymundo’s guilt or innocence on this matter should have been ascertained in disciplinary proceedings separate from the tenure process.  Instead, the minority elevated this alleged infraction, for which Ms. Raymundo’s culpability had not been settled, into their key and only consideration in their recommendation for denial of tenure, arguing that Ms. Raymundo did not deserve it for “ethical” reasons.  This might be difficult for people outside the department to believe, but this alleged infraction was the only basis of the minority’s recommendation to deny tenure!  Could Chancellor Cao really be serious in dignifying this position?

Why did the minority act the way it did?  Let us no longer tiptoe around what was really involved in the Raymundo case, which made the stakes so high.  In disregarding Ms. Raymundo’s academic achievements and blocking her tenure for an unproven allegation, the minority was exhibiting a behavior that had long frustrated their other tenured colleagues and the junior faculty.  They did not care about academic excellence.  Most of them had poor teaching evaluations from students and their publications records were practically non-existent.  The last major sociology texts they read, according to some students, probably dated two decades back.  Two were in fields that were only marginally related to the discipline of sociology.  Only two of them were trusted enough to handle a graduate class by their colleagues.  They were not concerned with intellectual exchange, which is the lifeblood of any academic department, and they had reduced departmental life into bureaucratic humdrum.  For them, being a member in good standing in the sociology department meant conforming to rules, not intellectual achievement.

Most members of the minority were, in effect, non-performing assets or, to use a kinder term lifted from Jonathan Swift, yahoos.  Conscious of the power conferred by tenure, most of them terrorized junior faculty with their demand for conforming to rules, being the cause of a series of departures of bright and motivated young faculty.  Not surprisingly, Ms. Raymundo, with her intellectual achievements, was seen as a threat by this anti-academic faction that championed mediocrity–one whose addition to the tenured faculty would have tipped the balance in favor of the pro-academic grouping.

The pro-academic grouping within the senior faculty, in contrast, saw Ms. Raymundo as an indispensable asset to the department, as one who could contribute to the revival of intellectual exchange and innovation in the department.  This grouping, which was composed of Profs. Laura Samson, Filomin Gutierrez, Gerry Lanuza, Josephine Dionisio, and myself, saw the battle over Ms. Raymundo’s tenure as having implications beyond her. We saw ourselves as fighting not only for the future of a brilliant young colleague but for the future of the department itself.

The majority’s will was thwarted by an irregular decisionmaking process that was capped by Chancellor Cao’s copout.  But this painful story would not be complete without calling attention to the role of some members of the tenured faculty who had endorsed the original majority decision but abstained in succeeding decisions.  Academics well known for their contributions to Philippine sociology, they proved to be ethically supine, unable to display the courage to stand up for their convictions.  Unwilling to antagonize the minority, they retreated from endorsing Ms. Raymundo and tried to project themselves as being ”above the fray.” They threw Ms. Raymundo to the dogs, and they will forever have that on their conscience.

The Sarah Raymundo case is reaching its final stages.  Will President Roman reverse a terrible miscarriage of justice and reassert UP’s commitment to academic excellence? Or will she, like Chancellor Cao, render the final act in yielding the sociology department to the reign of the yahoos?

*Walden Bello, PhD, now serves as a congressman for the party-list Akbayan!  The author of 15 books and numerous papers and articles on international political economy and other topics, he was a member of the tenured faculty of the Sociology Department from 1997  until May of this year.  An editor of the Review of International Political Economy, he won the Gawad Chancellor Award for Best Book in 2000 and was named the Outstanding Public Scholar of the International Studies Association’s Political Economy Section in its 2008 Convention in San Francisco.

Lately we are witness to truly benighted decisions made by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in rejecting the applications of Ang Ladlad and the Alliance of Concerned Teachers for party-list accreditation.

The other aberration is the decision of the University of the Philippines administration to deny tenure to a fully qualified assistant professor of sociology—amounting to what concerned faculty and students see as gross injustice.

The Comelec and the UP decisions are related as they manifest convergent ideological views, one straight from feudal times and the other from the Cold War.   The denial of Comelec accreditation to Ang Ladlad, known for espousing the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders (LGBT), reveals homophobia and extreme prejudice on grounds of medieval morality and an obsolete penal code provision dating to colonial times. (This provision must have been the same one that ensnared young poet Jose Garcia Villa, author of a poem “Man-Songs,” deemed “obscene.”  A similar provision on obscenity in the US also banned James Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness novel Ulysses in the late twenties.  Times have changed, but the Comelec panels as well as the Revised Penal Code have not kept up.)

The rejection of the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) on grounds that it has no national presence is misplaced because it has chapters and affiliates all over the country.  The more likely reason is that ACT is part of the progressive or Left bloc now represented in the House of Representatives by Bayan Muna, Gabriela, Anakpawis, and Kabataan members pursuing the principled politics of change as opposed to trapo politics.

Progressive party-list representation has faced an uphill battle because of efforts by the establishment to limit the number of representatives through biased interpretation of constitutional and enacting law. Furthermore, bogus groups (purporting to represent the dispossessed and the marginalized but are extensions of ruling blocs) are allowed by Comelec to come in as party-lists. Hence, the presence in Congress of a retired general accused of human rights violations by local and international agencies, and other fake champions of the disadvantaged.

The case of Sarah Jane Raymundo, assistant professor of sociology, MA, who has been teaching for nine years in UP- Diliman is a bizarre one.  Raymundo’s tenure has been endorsed by majority of the permanent faculty in her department and the executive board of her college (social sciences and philosophy) but the case dragged on for some two years because of the opposition of a minority of three (including a former department chair) for other “academic” reasons. The latest is that the UP- Diliman chancellor used the minority report and the case of an associate professor in another college (science) as the basis for denying   Raymundo’s tenure.

One who reads through the basic papers of the case can sense a strong Byzantine element in the latter part of the tenure proceeding involving the administration.  Here it is apparent that the academe is not immune to pressure, convoluted reasoning, and arbitrariness.

While Raymundo’s peers acknowledge her “excellent quality of mind,” “expansive intellectual interest,” “competence in current and emerging academic discourses [as] reflected in her teaching” and “capability to engage in sustained scholarship,” Chancellor Sergio Cao, in denying tenure, overturned peer judgment and belittled the professor’s academic qualifications (e.g. publications in many journals, active participation in seminars, and community work) and cited other “academic” grounds obviously drawn from the minority report of peers who charged Raymundo of “breach of professional ethics” which have not been proven.  This apparently stems from Prof. Raymundo’s having been thesis adviser of one of two UP coeds who were reported abducted two years ago by military agents, tortured and presumably “salvaged.”

Some of Raymundo’s colleagues believe that her membership in CONTEND (Congress of Teachers for Nationalism and Democracy) and the Alliance of Concerned Teachers may have figured in the denial of her tenure. If this were true, then the professor is a victim of political persecution, ironically, in an institution that had long nurtured diverse political and ideological persuasions.  Here a professed socialist, Dr. Francisco Nemenzo Jr., became UP president; professors and students who were detained during martial law were reinstated in the university upon their release.  Dissenters/non-conformists found haven on campus.

There was division among constituents in celebrated cases like that of Rizal professorial chair holder Austin Craig (with poor interpersonal relations) who was about to be sacked for non-academic reasons but was supported by senior professors who believed in his scholarship. This occurred during the UP presidency of Guy Benton in the 20s.

The case of Sarah Jane Raymundo prompted Prof. Walden Bello to say: “The conflation of the tenure process with a disciplinary process—especially one that has not reached any conclusion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant—is wrong and constitutes a dangerous precedent that would destroy the academic objectivity that is central to the tenure process.”

As Prof. Ramon Guillermo noted, she “has never been given the opportunity to answer allegations against her.”

2 December 2009

Dr. Emerlinda R. Roman

President

University of the Philippines

Diliman, Quezon City

Philippines

Dear Dr. Roman:

As academic scholars in the U.S. with long-lasting commitments to the Philippines and important connections to the University of the Philippines in particular, we write to urge a redress and reversal of the denial of tenure to one of your most exemplary faculty members, Sarah Raymundo. We feel there has been an egregious breach in the integrity of the tenure process and in the principles of academic freedom that our international scholarly community upholds and vigorously defends. Moreover, as a result of this breach, we feel the University of the Philippines has done a grave injustice to an outstanding scholar, teacher and public intellectual, standing to lose one of its most valuable young faculty and setting an alarming precedent that is sure to erode the ideals, quality and principled practices of higher education.

Along with our colleagues in the Philippines, we were appalled and dismayed to hear of U.P. Diliman Chancellor Cao’s decision to overturn the original recommendations for Sarah Raymundo’s tenure made by, respectively, the Sociology Department, the College Executive Board and the Academic Personnel and Fellowship Committee. We have reviewed the documents in Professor Raymundo’s case and find the irregularities in the tenure review process to be insupportable. It is clear from the paper trail that while Professor Raymundo’s excellent academic accomplishments have been recognized at all the above institutional levels as meritorious and deserving of tenure, she has been punitively judged, in the most unilateral and arbitrary fashion at the behest of a red-baiting minority bloc, for her radical political commitments and involvements. We find this egregious violation of the codes of academic integrity and freedom and dismissal of scholarly achievement in favor of political ideology to be a huge mar on the University of the Philippines’ well-known and longstanding record of commitment to the principles of intellectual freedom and justice.

Many of us are familiar with Professor Raymundo’s brilliant scholarly writings on Filipino popular culture in the context of the global economy, Philippine national politics and social movements. We have been impressed by and learned enormously from her astute and illuminating sociological analyses of the conditions of lived life in the Philippines, the insights of which have been honed precisely through her long-time activist involvement and experiences substantiated through more formal research and study. Indeed, in our estimation, Professor Raymundo’s activist work in the areas of human rights and global social struggles is undoubtedly both a key source and form of expression of her research and theoretical approach, and as such should also be understood as a significant intellectual and professional contribution in its own right.

Professor Raymundo’s combination of theoretical erudition (her fluency in sociological theory, critical social theory, as well as cultural studies) and empirical knowledge is an inspiring example to all of us, as it has been an invaluable instruction to the many students who have had the privilege of taking her classes. In addition to her achievements as a scholar and a teacher, Professor Raymundo has also been an exemplary colleague in the international academic community. She has not only been an active participant in international conferences but has also been central to the vital intellectual exchanges between students and scholars in the U.S. and in the Philippines, arranging talks and seminars at the University of the Philippines that have brought U.S. academics in important dialogue with our colleagues and with students at U.P. as well as at other universities in the Philippines. We cannot overemphasize the importance of Professor Raymundo in fostering these intellectual exchanges, in which many of us first came to know and appreciate her brilliance as a scholar of Philippine society and culture.

We can say with confidence that Professor Raymundo’s scholarly contributions to the interdisciplinary fields of Global Studies, Philippine studies, and Cultural Studies as well as Sociology, her strong teaching record, and her exceptional record of service to the intellectual community at large are well beyond the requirements for tenure. It is our hope that you will redress the grave injustice of the arbitrary denial of her tenure. Along with our colleagues in the Philippines and at the University of the Philippines, we understand the importance of her intellectual work to the critical work we undertake in multiple fields and urge you, as the President of this prestigious university, to recognize the broad respect she has gained as a scholar, teacher and public intellectual and to grant her the tenured position that she greatly deserves.

Sincerely Yours,

Delia D. Aguilar

Women’s Studies Program

University of Connecticut

Christine Bacareza Balance

Assistant Professor, Asian American Studies

University of California, Irvine

Nerissa S. Balce

Assistant Professor of Asian American Literature

Department of Asian and Asian American Studies

State University of New York at Stony Brook

Joi Barrios-Leblanc
Visiting Lecturer
University of California Berkeley

Jonathan Beller
Professor
Humanities and Media Studies and Critical and Visual Studies
Pratt Institute

Rick Bonus

Associate Professor of American Ethnic Studies

University of Washington

Tracy Lachica Buenavista
Assistant Professor
Department of Asian American Studies
California State University, Northridge

Lucy Burns
Assistant professor
Asian American Studies
University of California, Los Angeles

Jeff Arellano Cabusao

Assistant Professor

Department of English and Cultural Studies

Bryant University

Peter Chua
Associate Professor of Sociology
San Jose State University

Valerie Francisco
Doctoral Candidate
City University of New York, The Graduate Center

Maria Hwang
Graduate Student
American Civilization
Brown University

David H. Kim, Chair

Philosophy Department

University of San Francisco,CA

Anne E. Lacsamana

Assistant Professor

Women’s Studies Department

Hamilton College

Allan Lumba
Doctoral Student
Department of History
University of Washington, Seattle

Ruth Elynia S. Mabanglo

Professor and Coordinator

Filipino and Philippine Literature Program, IPLL,

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Martin F. Manalansan IV

Associate Professor of Anthropology and Asian American Studies

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Nerve Macaspac
MA in Asian Studies
University of California, Berkeley

Paul Nadal

Graduate Student, Rhetoric

University of California, Berkeley

Claire Oliveros
Coordinator, Multicultural Center
Portland Community College

Lorenzo Perillo
Doctoral Student
World Arts and Cultures
University of California Los Angeles

Roland Remenyi

Doctoral Candidate, Pharmacology
University of California, Los Angeles

E. San Juan
Fellow W.E.B. Du Bois Institute
Harvard University

Suzanne Schmidt
Doctoral Student
Department of English
University of Washington

Sarita Echavez See

Associate Professor

Asian/Pacific Islander American Studies

Program in American Culture & Department of English
Pacharee Sudhinaraset
Doctoral Student
Department of English
University of Washington

Neferti Tadiar

Professor and Chair of Women’s Studies, Barnard College
Director, Center for Critical Analysis of Social Difference,
Columbia University

Thea Quiray Tagle
Doctoral Student
Dept of Ethnic Studies, University of California San Diego

Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Asian American Studies

San Francisco State University

Rowena M. Tomaneng

Interim Dean

Language Arts Division

De Anza College, CA
Michael Viola
Doctoral Student
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles

Bryan Zadie
Doctoral Student
Comparative Literature
University of California, Riverside

November 24, 2009

Dear President Yudof (University of California) and President Roman (University of the Philippines):

It is widely recognized that global markets are in a state of crisis where the distance between the well being of some and the misery of most is expanding.  The contradictions of our global economic system are more severe in the Philippines than in the richer countries of the world.  It is in the Philippines that one is able to witness the everyday costs paid by an entire population as a consequence of the cure all remedies of privatization, structural adjustment programs, and trade liberalization.  The systematic violence of hunger imposed upon youth throughout the Philippines is supported by an educational system that pacifies and imposes the belief that “there is no alternative” to the current state of affairs.  As public educators, scholars, researchers, and graduate students located in the United States we realize that the structures of profit and corporate gain imposed upon a Philippine polity is not divorced from the social conditions for educators and youth in this country.  This is most evident by the current state of higher education in California. As a result of the 32 percent increase in student fees and the decision to lower enrollment at the University of California, higher education will be less accessible for working class and poor students. Filipino Americans and other students of color across UC campuses will be adversely affected.  Many first generation students may become last generation students at risk of being priced out of an education.  At other universities the “high-tuition/high-aid” model that the UC is moving towards has a marked record not only of reduced access but also increased student debt and inferior educational quality. In fact, according to the University Committee on Planning and Budget, this is the very reason that the UC made the decision in 2006 not to adopt a similar model.

Furthermore, in response to the crisis, support services and academic programs addressing issues important to working-class people and people of color are often the first to be cut.  Already targeted is the UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education.  The UC Commission on the Future reportedly entertains plans that would render campuses like UC Merced and UC Riverside “teaching campuses,” with research in only certain fields being funded, posing great risk for departments like Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies.  At UC Riverside, required courses such as English composition courses are cut leading to the creation of “six-year undergraduates”—that is, students unable to take basic courses due to lack of sufficient offerings.  These students must now stay additional years in the hope of later completing the courses for their degrees.  Students should not pay more while receiving less from institutions that were intended, as stated in the California Master Plan for Higher Education, to guarantee an affordable education to every California student.  Such a goal is not possible considering since 2001 undergraduate student fees have increased 300 percent.

We support the democratic mobilization of students who have organized forces with labor unions, community organizations, and progressive educators.  We stand in solidarity with the students and faculty in the United States, the Philippines, and throughout the world who are organizing in support of public universities so that they may be accessible to all instead of only a small few.  We believe that the transformation of an educational system so that it may reflect the potential of a diverse and vibrant new generation of global leaders is in fact possible.  However, we recognize the path for those who struggle for democratic, just, and equitable sites of education is not without consequence.  Take for example the context of Professor Sarah Raymundo’s protracted efforts for academic tenure at the University of the Philippines.

Professor Raymundo has been an educator at the University of the Philippines (U.P.) since 1999 in the Department of Sociology.  In February of 2008, she submitted an application for tenure to her department.  In June 2008, Professor Raymundo was informed that the voting tenured faculty within the department voted seven to three in favor of her tenure as she has exceeded the necessary requirements for consideration.  In fact, Professor Raymundo has garnered international praise for her scholarship linking cultural production in the Philippines to gender and globalization.  She has published numerous book reviews, articles, as well as co-edited an important volume titled Kontra-Gahum: Academics Against Political Killings (2006).

In April 2008, the tenured sociology faculty of the University of the Philippines – Diliman in a vote of seven to three recommended the granting of tenure to Professor Raymundo tenure.  Seven months later, she was informed that the faculty unanimously decided to reverse their decision and not grant tenure to her application.  Furthermore, Professor Raymundo was also informed that she was no longer welcome on campus as she was instructed by Dr. Clemen Aquino, then department chairperson not to meet her classes scheduled for the term until further notice. She persisted in teaching her classes until her contract expired in May 2009.  After more than a year of academic limbo, Professor Raymundo had not received clear notification of the reasoning behind her denial of tenure leaving many to believe that her tenure process fraught with bureaucratic complications is a product of her politics.  Professor Raymundo was questioned several times by the Sociology Department to informally explain her involvement in the campaign to surface two U.P. student activists, Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan, who were forcibly taken by men wearing ski masks on June 26, 2006. Professor Raymundo has been one of U.P.’s most vociferous critics of the human right abuses that have impacted her campus community and the country at large.  She has openly questioned the Arroyo government’s role in the more than 1,000 reports cases of enforced disappearances and extra-judicial killings against educators, women, artists, journalists, urban poor, religious leaders, labor organizers, and students.

On October 28, 2009, in a statement filled with bias, contradiction, and unjust decision-making U.P. – Diliman Chancellor, Sergio Cao ruled against Professor Raymundo’s appeal for tenure.  In this statement, Chancellor Cao does not explain how or why the first vote in favor of Professor Raymundo’s tenure was overturned by the minority (7 in favor, 3 against).  Furthermore, Professor Raymundo was not granted fair and due process in addressing supposed evidence, rumors, and allegations made against her.  Considering that Professor Raymundo has exceeded the minimum requirements for tenure and the protracted, unfair, and undemocratic process in Professor Raymundo’s application for tenure, we are led to believe that her denial was motivated by her politics as opposed to her academic qualifications.

The public universities in the Philippines and the United States are widely known as vibrant sites of democracy, with rich legacies of challenging the status quo, as well as contributing intellectuals and leaders to important social causes.  These institutions have also performed an important role of being informal “think-tanks” for alternative models and social initiatives.  The privatization, academic repression, as well as the de-funding of liberal arts, ethnic, labor, and gender studies and foreign languages have all greatly impacted youth throughout the world.  We recognize that as educators, researchers, and students we are implicated in the struggle for education and as such we demand:

- An End to the Privatization of our Schools!

- An End to the Increase of Student Fees so that the UC System is Accessible to ALL!

- An End to Academic Repression!

- Justice and Tenure for Professor Sarah Raymundo!

Sincerely,

Dr. Kimberly Alidio

Postdoctoral Fellow

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Jessica Antonio

Masters Student

College of Ethnic Studies

San Francisco State University

Dr. Pia Arboleda

Assistant Professor of Filipino

University of Hawaii
Will Arighi

Doctoral Student

Department of Comparative Literature

University of Washington, Seattle

Anna Alves

Asian American Studies, MA Student

UCLA Academic Advancement Program
AnakBayan Los Angeles

Dr. Christine Bacareza Balance

Assistant Professor, Asian American Studies

University of California, Irvine

Dr. Nerissa Balce
Assistant Professor
Department of Asian and Asian American Studies
State University of New York, Stony Brook

Dr. Joi Barrios-Leblanc

Visiting Lecturer

University of California Berkeley

Dr. Jonathan Beller

Professor

Humanities and Media Studies

and Critical and Visual Studies

Pratt Institute

Joseph Bernardo

Ph.D. Student

Department of History

University of Washington

Dr. Francisco Benitez

Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature

University of Washington

Stephen Bischoff

Doctoral Student

American Studies

Washington State University

Dr. Rick Bonus

Associate Professor of American Ethnic Studies

University of Washington
Dr. Tracy Lachica Buenavista

Assistant Professor

Department of Asian American Studies

California State University, Northridge

Dr. Lucy Burns

Assistant professor

Asian American Studies

University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Jeff Arellano Cabusao

Assistant Professor

Department of English and Cultural Studies

Bryant University

Rosemary Candelario

UCLA PhD Candidate
Benji Chang, Ph.D.

Director

Youth & Parent Education

Asian Pacific American Legal Center

Dr. Richard T. Chu

Assistant Professor

History Department
University of Massachusetts

Dr. Peter Chua
Associate Professor of Sociology
San Jose State University

Dr. Deirdre de la Cruz

Assistant Professor

Department of Asian Languages and Cultures and History

University of Michigan

Dr. Sharon Delmendo

Professor of English

St. John Fisher College

Valerie Francisco

Doctoral Candidate

City University of New York, The Graduate Center

Dr. Joseph A. Galura

Lecturer II

College of Literature, Science, and the Arts

School of Social Work

University of Michigan – Ann Arbor

Jason Gavilan

Doctoral Candidate

Department of History

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Dr. Vernadette Gonzalez

Assistant Professor

Undergraduate Chair

American Studies Department

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Dr. Theodore S. Gonzalves

Associate Professor

Department of American Studies

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Maria Hwang

Graduate Student

American Civilization

Brown University

Faith R. Kares

Doctoral Student

Anthropology

Northwestern University

Dr. Anne E. Lacsamana

Assistant Professor

Women’s Studies Department

Hamilton College

Ryan Leano

Doctoral Student

International & Multicultural Education

University of San Francisco

Dr. Katherine H. Lee

Lecturer

College Writing Programs

University of California, Berkeley

Niki Libarios

Academic Advisor, College of Education

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Allan Lumba
Doctoral Student
Department of History
University of Washington, Seattle

Dr. Ruth Elynia Mabanglo

Professor

College of Languages, Linguistics and Literatures

University of Hawaii

Nerve Macaspac

MA in Asian Studies

University of California, Berkeley

Marites Mendoza

Graduate Student, Department of English

University of Washington, Seattle

Dr. Victor Román Mendoza

Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies and English

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Sherwin Mendoza

PhD Candidate, Literature

University of California, Santa Cruz

Dr. Peter McLaren

Professor

Graduate School of Education and Information Studies

University of California, Los Angeles

Alex F. Montances

MA Candidate in Anthropology

California State University Long Beach

Jesse Moya

Doctoral Student

Graduate School of Education

University of California, Los Angeles

Benita Murrel

Educational Program Coordinator

University of Michigan

Paul Nadal

Graduate Student

Department of Rhetoric

University of California, Berkeley

Dr. Claire Oliveros

Coordinator, Multicultural Center

Portland Community College

Portland, OR

Lorenzo Perillo

Doctoral Student

World Arts and Cultures

University of California Los Angeles

Stacy Perillo

M.Ed student

University of California, Los Angeles

Tochi Quijano
Public Educator

Evangeline Reyes
CPAF Community Advocate
University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Dylan Rodríguez

Professor and Chair

Dept. of Ethnic Studies

University of California, Riverside

Dr. Robyn Magalit Rodriguez

Assistant Professor of Sociology

Rutgers University

Dr. Dean Saranillio

Postdoctoral Fellow

Department of Ethnic Studies

University of California, Riverside

Dr. Sarita Echavez See

Associate Professor

Asian/Pacific Islander American Studies

Program in American Culture & Department of English

University of Michigan

Suzanne Schmidt

Doctoral Student

Department of English

University of Washington

Pacharee Sudhinaraset

Doctoral Student

English

University of Washington

Dr. Neferti Tadiar
Professor of Women’s Studies, Barnard College
Director, Center for Critical Analysis of Social Difference,
Columbia University

Thea Quiray Tagle

Doctoral Student

Dept of Ethnic Studies, University of California San Diego

Dr. Rowena Tomaneng
De Anza College

Dr. Karen Tongson

Assistant Professor of English and Gender Studies

University of Southern California

Simón Trujillo

Graduate Student

University of Washington

Dr. Sunny Vergara

Independent Scholar
Michael Viola
Doctoral Student
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
University of California, Los Angeles

Kathleen Williams

PhD Candidate

University of California, Los Angeles

Bryan Zadie
Doctoral Student
Comparative Literature
University of California, Riverside

Photo of President Emerlinda Roman from http://www.freewebs.com/upaaa/39_roman.jpg

Photo of President Mark Yudof from http://www.ucsf.edu/campusplanning/_graphics/photos/yudof_chansearch.jpg

Chancellor Cao’s Decision, Flawed and Unjust!

Tenure for Prof. Sarah Raymundo NOW!

November 24, 2009

While the University of the Philippines has clear rules on faculty tenure process as contained in the Faculty Manual, there are cases when qualified untenured faculty are not recommended for tenure. Various reasons, ranging from collegiality, alleged dishonesty and lack of integrity are cited as justifications for the denial of tenure. In some cases, departmental autonomy is used to justify the lack of transparency in the decision-making process. Although appeals may be submitted, there are no clear rules on how long the decision-making process of administrators deciding on the appeal may last. As such, untenured faculty members have no job security, have limited resources, and are vulnerable to being deprived of their rights to due process, transparency in decision-making, and the swift resolution of appeals.

This vulnerability of untenured UP faculty to arbitrary and unfair decisions on tenure application and appeal is the rationale behind the formation of the alliance Rights of Untenured UP Faculty (R.U.U.P. Faculty). The denial of Prof. Sarah Raymundo’s application for tenure by the Department of Sociology and the ruling of Chancellor Cao against her appeal, among other cases, illustrate the need to strengthen unity among untenured colleagues in the University.

On October 28, 2009 UP Diliman Chancellor Sergio Cao ruled against Sociology Prof. Sarah Raymundo’s appeal for tenure. This decision, which came after almost a year since Prof. Raymundo first appealed to his office in November 2008, is flawed and unjust in claiming that Prof. Raymundo is not academically qualified for tenure and that her case was handled judiciously by the Department of Sociology. The chancellor’s decision reveals that Prof. Raymundo’s denial of tenure is political harassment in the guise of academic and bureaucratic procedure.

We raise the following major points against Chancellor Cao’s decision to deny Prof. Raymundo’s tenure:

1. On Prof. Raymundo’s academic requirements for tenure: The Sociology Department and the College Executive Board of the College of Social Sciences never, at any instance, questioned Prof. Raymundo’s academic excellence in the longstanding issue of her tenure appeal. Prof. Raymundo has fully satisfied the academic requirements for tenure in the Sociology Department, as stated in the justification for tenure signed by the tenured faculty of the Sociology Department in April 2008 which is annexed in Chancellor Cao’s memo containing his decision. The justification signed by the majority of the tenured faculty of the department acknowledges Prof. Raymundo’s “excellent quality of mind,” “expansive intellectual interest,” “competence in current and emerging academic discourses (as) reflected in her teaching” and “capability to engage in sustained scholarship.”

Moreover, it is absolutely unfair to compare Prof. Raymundo’s academic accomplishments to a College of Science (CS) Professor’s academic record. Chancellor Cao denied Prof. Raymundo’s tenure by indicating that she does not have a PhD and has less publications compared to a CS professor who was also appealing for tenure. However, the chancellor should know that this false equivocation cannot be used in this case, considering that majority of the academic units in UP base their tenure decisions on the university’s general academic tenure requirements. In instances when colleges and departments actually adopt requirements more stringent that those set by the university, untenured faculty members are made aware of these upon hiring—which is certainly not the case in the Sociology Department. Prof. Raymundo has fully satisfied the existing academic requirements for tenure implemented in her own department and college, a fact that was affirmed and was never questioned by the tenured professors of the Sociology Department.  It is therefore surprising and puzzling why Chancellor Cao suddenly raised and used the academic basis in his decision, when Prof. Raymundo’s academic excellence was never the crux of the matter to begin with.

2. On the issue of Prof. Raymundo’s involvement in relation to the Karen Empeno case as evidence of lack of professional ethics: The tenured faculty of the Sociology Department never questioned the fact that Prof. Raymundo had satisfied the minimum requirements for tenure: at least a masteral degree, teaching and publications record. Even Prof. Clemen Aquino, then the chairperson of the department, recognized Prof. Raymundo’s teaching and publication accomplishments in her April 18, 2009 letter attached to Prof. Raymundo’s basic papers.[1] It should be clarified that the issue raised against Prof. Raymundo was in relation to her ethical conduct and professionalism. The minority and Prof. Aquino based their non-recommendation of tenure on the provision that “academic grounds include professional ethics, intellectual honesty, and other values central to academic life” (contained in the document “Shaping Our Institutional Future: A Statement on Faculty Tenure, Rank, and Promotion”; OVPAA, 2004, page 12).

In the 13-page October 17, 2008 minority report to Vice Chancellor Lorna Paredes by Profs. Marcia Fernandez, Clarissa Rubio and Marie Arguillas, Prof. Raymundo is accused of “dishonesty” and breaching “professional ethics” in relation to the issue of Karen Empeno, a Sociology student who has been missing since 2006, believed to have been abducted by the military. These issues against Prof. Raymundo remained “departmental secrets” until Chancellor Cao attached to his memo this minority report. There was no real, formal and written correspondence addressed to Prof. Raymundo, and thus, she was never given the formal chance to defend herself.

The minority report states that Prof. Raymundo gave inconsistent statements regarding her involvement in a press conference on human rights violations held on June 30, 2009. Prof. Raymundo is further accused of breaching professional ethics when she did not officially inform the Sociology Department chairperson about the said press conference. Furthermore, the minority report insists that Prof. Raymundo did not uphold the truth by not clarifying that Karen Empeno had an AWOL status at the time of her abduction during a University Council (UC) meeting, where the UC agreed on a position that affirmed Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan as UP students.

We find it disturbing that Prof. Aquino raised the issue of Karen Empeno’s AWOL status as basis for not recommending Prof. Raymundo’s tenure application in 2008, considering that as early as 2006, the UC meeting’s presiding officer Chancellor Cao already affirmed Karen’s status as a student of the university, despite her AWOL status. This UC position was reaffirmed in the statement released by the UC concerning the disappearance on July 12, 2006. Furthermore, we do not see how Prof. Raymundo’s presence or involvement in a press conference on human rights violations became proof of dishonesty or breach of professional ethics.

After 16 long months since Prof. Raymundo’s recommendation for tenure was withdrawn, the Fernandez-Rubio-Arguillas minority report finally confirms that Prof. Raymundo is being denied tenure based entirely on her progressive positions, not on academic merits. The serious allegations against Prof. Raymundo in the minority report should have been the matter addressed by Chancellor Cao. By turning Prof. Raymundo’s case into a matter of academic requirements, Chancellor Cao skirts the real issue of this tenure struggle—that Prof. Raymundo’s denial of tenure is a case of political persecution.

3. On the so-called “2/3 rule” for tenure in the Sociology Department: The Sociology Department, under the leadership of former chairperson Dr. Clemen Aquino and current chairperson Prof. Randy David, was inconsistent in invoking this so-called 2/3 rule for tenure. This rule was never raised during any of the tenured faculty and College Executive Board voting, nor was this rule raised in previous letters from the Sociology chairpersons to the chancellor.

The 2/3 rule was only invoked by Sociology Department chairperson Prof. Randy David in a meeting on June 16, 2009 with Chancellor Cao and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Lorna Paredes, in what seemed to be a last-minute idea to deny Prof. Raymundo’s tenure.  Prof. David insisted that the 2/3 rule be upheld in the second voting by the Sociology Department’s tenured faculty on Prof. Raymundo’s case, resulting in votes of 5 for, 4 against, 1 abstain, and 1 waiver of tenure. However, it is worth noting that the so-called 2/3 rule was not upheld in the first voting of the tenured faculty which resulted in Prof. Raymundo’s favor, with votes of 7 for, 3 against.

In his decision denying Prof. Raymundo’s tenure appeal, Chancellor Cao upheld this questionable 2/3 rule without justification, even when this was one of the issues raised by Prof. Raymundo in her letter of appeal. Chancellor Cao falsely assumed that this 2/3 rule was in fact a valid premise for the Sociology department’s non-recommendation of Prof. Raymundo’s tenure.

4. On the lack of due process and the Sociology department’s “minority report”: Chancellor Cao maintained that the Sociology department “sufficiently explained” the non-recommendation of Prof. Raymundo’s tenure. While it is true that a number of meetings with Prof. Raymundo were held by tenured faculty members (June 2008 with Prof Aquino, end of July 2008 with some faculty members, March 2009 with tenured faculty members) regarding  the Karen Empeno case, these were merely clarificatory meetings for Prof. Raymundo. She was never given a copy of the 13-page minority report, dated October 17, 2008, signed by Profs. Fernandez, Rubio, and Arguillas. The significance of the minority report was never explained to Prof. Raymundo. This was not raised in her meeting with Prof. Aquino in November 6, 2008 when the latter informed Prof. Raymundo of the tenured faculty’s decision to withdraw her tenure recommendation. When Prof. Raymundo asked for the grounds of this decision, she was told by the chair that the latter was bound by the tenured faculty’s wish that Prof. Raymundo merely be informed of the decision.

It is clear that Chancellor Cao did not take into account Prof. Raymundo’s repeated appeals that the reasons behind the Sociology Department’s decision be made known to her.  As early as November 20, 2008, Prof. Raymundo had already written to the chancellor, expressing that she had not been informed of the reasons for the Sociology department’s decision. On June 24, 2009, the All UP Academic Employees Union-Diliman Chapter also sent a letter to the chancellor concerning the Sociology Department’s lack of transparency in Prof. Raymundo’s tenure application, which was not replied to by the chancellor. Prof. Raymundo was never able to defend herself in writing nor had the chance to consult with a lawyer regarding the allegations raised against her, which points to the obvious lack of due process in the Sociology Department’s handling of Prof. Raymundo’s tenure application.

Chancellor Cao himself should be made to answer for his long period of inaction regarding Prof. Raymundo’s tenure. Although Prof. Raymundo brought the matter to his office in a letter in October 2008, the Chancellor never answered Prof. Raymundo, either in writing or through other means of communication. The chancellor only initiated actions in February 2009, after receiving letters supporting Prof. Raymundo’s appeal, almost four months after Prof. Raymundo’s letter. Such inaction is a direct violation of Section 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Officials, which stipulates that public officials should respond to official letters within 15 working days from the receipt.

5. On the chancellor’s selective use of arguments: Given the numerous documents and letters submitted to the chancellor related to Prof. Raymundo’s tenure case, Chancellor Cao was not able to take into account the relevant documents that should have been given due attention. A case in point is the non-citation of Prof. Walden Bello’s letter of support affirming Prof. Raymundo’s academic excellence. In this letter, Bello also said that the allegations against Prof. Raymundo’s ethical positions cannot be used to deny her tenure and should instead be addressed in a venue separate from the tenure vote. Another glaring flaw in Chancellor Cao’s selection of arguments is his misuse of a paragraph from Prof. Laura Samson’s letter (November 3, 2008), which he cited to highlight dissent within the department, without considering Prof. Samson’s concluding statement that actually supported Prof. Raymundo’s appeal for tenure.

Chancellor Cao’s skewed, arbitrary, and unjust decision-making which is tantamount to abuse of authority has no place in a university that stands for academic freedom and service to the people. The R.U.UP calls for the immediate reversal of Chancellor Cao’s decision to deny Prof. Sarah Raymundo’s tenure.

CHANCELLOR CAO’S DECISION, FLAWED AND UNJUST!

TENURE FOR PROF. SARAH RAYMUNDO NOW!

Visit http://tenureforsarahraymundo.blogspot.com.

We urge you to sign the online petition http://www.gopetition.com/online/32122.html in support of Prof. Raymundo’s continuing campaign for justice and tenure.

Rights of Untenured U.P. Faculty (R.U.U.P. Faculty Alliance)

All U.P. Academic Employees Union | All U.P. Workers Union | CONTEND-U.P. | Concerned Faculty Members, Administrative Staff, REPS, Students and Individuals

Read also Sarah’s answers to allegations against her detailed in the Arguillas-Rubio-Fernandez October 17. 2008 Minority Report: Sarah’s Reply to Minority Report

November 16, 2009

Professor Emerlinda Roman, PhD

President

University of the Philippines System

Quezon Hall, Diliman, Quezon City

Dear President Roman:

The purpose of this letter is two-fold. First, I seek redress and appeal for a reversal of the denial of my tenure by the Office of the Chancellor of the University of the Philippines – Diliman. Second, I wish to apprise you of the grave injustice that I have endured in my overdrawn and highly irregular tenure application process.

On November 3, 2009, I received Chancellor Sergio S. Cao’s memorandum (No. SSC-09-541, (attached as ANNEX A) which ruled against my appeal for tenure.

I would like to begin by emphasizing that I have fulfilled all the academic requirements for tenure. The Sociology Department never at any instance questioned my academic credentials and, except for Chancellor Cao’s memo, my eligibility for tenure has been upheld by the other offices and bodies which deliberated on the matter. I cite the following documents and instances to support my position that is shared by various bodies that I am qualified to be granted tenure.

1) Department of Sociology Tenure Justification, April 18, 2008 (ANNEX B).

In a vote of seven to three and after two meetings dated March 5 and 25, 2008, the majority of the tenured faculty members of the Department of Sociology recommended me for tenure. My own Department in its written justification for tenure on April 18, 2008, cited the significant academic work I have conducted as a faculty member for the past nine years. I quote:

“Prof. Raymundo has served the University for at least eight years. She joined the Department of Sociology in June 1999 as Lecturer. In November 1999, she was appointed to the position of Fulltime Instructor and earned a promotion to Assistant Professor 1 in June 2006. Through the years, Prof. Raymundo has consistently been ranked as among the top three of an average of eight to twelve candidates for hiring and renewal.”

“Prof. Raymundo’s excellent quality of mind, expansive intellectual interest and competence in current and emerging academic discourses are reflected in her teaching. Her teaching portfolio includes course syllabi with updated readings lists, the use of classic and contemporary audio-visual resources as instructional materials, and the formulation of integrative exam questions. Her commitment to continuously enrich academic discourse especially in social 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.”

2) Basic Paper for Tenure, April 18, 2008 (ANNEX C).

The Basic Papers for my tenure dated April 18, 2008 holds the signature not just of the majority of the faculty members of the Department but also the approval of the College Personnel Committee, and the the Dean of CSSP. The Academic Personnel and Fellowship Committee (APFC) of the University also endorsed my tenure in its 381^st meeting on May 27, 2008 as indicated in the same document.

3) “Pananaw bilang Tagapangulo ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya,” Prof.  Aquino’s letter dated April 18, 2008. (ANNEX D)

Even in Prof. Aquino’s attachment to my Basic Papers on April 18, 2008, wherein she manifested a dissenting opinion to the majority vote, she acknowledged my academic credentials.

“Kinikilala ko po ang ang mga akademikong nagawa ni Prop. Raymundo sa larangan ng pagtuturo at publikasyon. Kahanga-hanga ang kanyang sigasig na makapag-ambag sa pagpapayaman ng disiplina ng sosyolohiya at magamit ito tungo sa ikauunlad ng ating lipunan.”

4) Dean Zosimo Lee’s Memo relaying the College Executive Board (CEB) Vote on the matter of my tenure, dated March 18, 2009. (ANNEX E)

After the irregular delays, the Chancellor instructed the College Executive Board (CEB) of CSSP to “discuss the matter and make a decision on the matter of tenure.” In a meeting on March 17, 2008, the CEB voted to recommend my tenure in a vote of seven against one, with three neither recommending or not recommending.

5) May 15, 2009 Reference Slip of Vice Chancellor Paredes to Chancellor Cao citing my eligibility for tenure (ANNEX F) and the subsequent Reference Slip from Chancellor Cao to the Department for tenure processing to commence as cited in June 3, 2009 Letter from the Department of Sociology (ANNEX G)

Acting upon the instructions of the Chancellor to consider once again my eligibility for tenure, Vice Chancellor Paredes relayed that the APFC considers me eligible for tenure in a May 15, 2009 Reference Slip addressed to Chancellor Cao. The Chancellor subsequently instructed the Sociology Department  to “please prepare basic papers for tenure processing to commence.”

Despite the concurrence of my own Department, the CEB, and the University APFC regarding my eligibility for tenure on academic grounds in various instances, the Chancellor in a memo dated October 28, 2009 handed down a decision denying my appeal citing a supposed Departmental rule of two-thirds majority vote and my insufficient academic requirements as a major basis among others.

In my almost fifteen years of study and teaching in the University, I have adhered to the standards of academic excellence and service to the nation to my utmost capacity. I have published my own research in refereed journals, attended and presented in local and international conferences, and have also undertaken social research. The justification for my tenure attached to my Basic Papers also cite that I have not been remiss in my teaching. I have spent the last decade of my life working towards an academic career in the University. I believe that I am now being denied of my right to tenure on the basis of my political convictions and activism which I consider to be consistent with the  the University’s cherished tradition of critical thinking and service to the nation.

I am the Secretary-General of the Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalist and Democracy or CONTEND and a National Council member of the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT), organizations known for their nationalist and progressive advocacies which I have imbibed both as a student of Sociology and a “Scholar of the People”. I believe that the procedural and institutional barricades that have been placed in my way of getting tenure are politically motivated and  violate my rights to a fair and judicious resolution of my request for tenure.

I will also, for the first time, take this chance to formally reply point-by-point to the allegations contained in the the minority report (MR) (ANNEX H ) filed against me by some members of the faculty last October 17, 2008 which I feel has been unjustly used to deny me tenure. Note that it is only upon receiving the Chancellor Cao’s memo last November 3, 2008 that I got the chance to read the MR. If only to highlight that the allegations against me contained in the MR consists of allegations which remain unproven, I am attaching my response to specific allegations and questions raised in the said document in this letter (see ATTACHMENT). I would like to emphasize, however, that the allegations cloaked  as instances of “breach of professional ethics” and “lack of transparency,” and hence are academic grounds for denying tenure,  are actually ” a few concerns pertaining  to [my] political commitment” by some faculty members as stated in the April 18, 2008 justification for my tenure made by the Department (see ANNEX B).

I shall now address the Chancellor’s essential points as well as reiterate the grounds upon which my appeal stands.
The Grounds of my Appeal
A chronology of events is provided in the Chancellor’s memo. While the Chancellor correctly presented the chronology of events, some very glaring and highly crucial points necessary to the fair and judicious resolution of my case have surprisingly escaped his attention. I will present these to refute Chancellor Cao’s bases for deciding against my tenure.

1. I. What is the Department’s position on the matter?

Chancellor Cao predicated his decision to deny my appeal based on a supposed two-thirds vote rule of the Department as constructed in a meeting attended by the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor Paredes, Dean Zosimo Lee, Chairperson Randolf David, and former chairperson Prof. Clemen Aquino on June 16, 2009. Thus, according to the Chancellor, the March 9, 2009 meeting will be interpreted as a decision not to grant tenure.

Here are some points:

a)    With a vote of seven (7) against three (3), I was already recommended for tenure by the faculty of the Department of Sociology as indicated in the Basic Paper forwarded and the accompanying Justification for my tenure dated April 18, 2008. If such a rule does exist, then I should have been granted tenure as of April 18, 2008.

b)    The Department is deeply divided and remains ambiguous on many issues related to my tenure including the two-thirds rule that the Chancellor based his judgement on.

In the course of my tenure process, the Department deliberated and divided the house a total of three times. The first was on March 25, 2008, with a vote of seven against three. The second voting was reported in the November 14, 2008 letter where a number of faculty members did not reiterate their recommendations for tenure. Even on the particular voting that the Chancellor cited, the one on March 9, 2009 where five voted for my tenure, four did not, one abstained while another recommended a waiver of the tenure rule, nobody raised the so-called two-thirds rule for tenure.  A review of the documents show that it is, in fact, the Chancellor who insisted on using the two-thirds rule as the minutes of the said meeting bear on July 16, 2009 (ANNEX I).

I quote:

“1. Prof. David reiterated the Department’s long-standing practice of arriving at a consensus in the matter of tenure. The only time that there was a vote was in the case of Prof. Dionisio (who got at least two-thirds of the votes and was therefore given tenure).

2. The Chancellor said that in the absence of a “codified” policy, what is long-standing practice/tradition can be considered “policy.”

3. In view of this tradition in the Department, the Chancellor said that the result of the Department’s vote reported in the March 9, 2009 letter will be interpreted as a decision not to grant tenure.” [emphasis supplied]

The application of the Chancellor of the two-thirds rule as a policy that guided him in ruling against my tenure is problematic for a number of reasons.

1. The rules for interpreting the result of a vote cannot be promulgated after the fact. In this case, the Chancellor is interpreting the results of a vote that took place three months after the March 9, 2009 meeting when the tenured faculty members of the Department voted.
2. The Chancellor is also external to the process. He was not around when the votes took place. It is surprising how the Chancellor takes for himself this interpretation when the tenured faculty of the Department did not.
3. It is my understanding that the faculty of the Department simply transmitted the votes on March 9, 2009 with a reason. The Department letter did not contain a specific recommendation for or against my tenure because they could not arrive at a consensus even in the matter of how to interpret the votes.
4. The so-called Departmental practice that the Chancellor cites as basis has a glaring difference with my case. On Prof. Dionisio’s tenure application, the Department reached a consensus that a two-thirds rule will be applied before they voted.
5. I believe there was no agreement among the members of the faculty to apply this rule in my case at any point, even during the most recent June 29, 2009 meeting of the Chancellor with the members of the tenured faculty of the Department.

The Chancellor himself declared in the first line of his memo that: “This is not a typical case of a tenure application which was simply denied by a department.” Yet, he employs as a justification for his decision the two-thirds rule  which the Department did not even resort to in order to traverse a deadlock.

I am scandalized by the Chancellor’s recourse to the two-thirds rule because it trivializes the whole tenure process.  Instead of opening the irregularities of my tenure process to scrutiny, sharing with me the minority report which played such an important role in his decision and allowing me to answer in writing the allegations, the Chancellor resorted to the use of a so-called two-thirds rule which was not applied with consistency in the long process of the resolution of my tenure application.

1. II. What is the College’s position on the grant of tenure?

First, let me point out that that the CEB had endorsed my tenure in a number of instances.  The first time was on April 18, 2008 as my Basic Papers indicate. When asked for an opinion by Vice Chancellor Paredes given the letter of the Chair and the first minority report, the CEB once again reiterated their position recommending me for tenure as indicated in Vice Chancellor Paredes’ letter to Prof. Aquino on June 20, 2008 (ANNEX J). When asked to vote by the Chancellor once again, the CEB responded overwhelmingly in my favor last March 17, 2008 (ANNEX K). The Chancellor cites this fact in his own memo: “The CEB of the college, however, recommended the grant of tenure, by a unanimous vote of those qualified to vote on the matter” (ANNEX A pp.11-12).

Complications once again arose, when the Chancellor allowed certain opinions to take precedence instead of valuing the decisions of the CEB as a critical and collegial body.

1)    The Chancellor allowed the composition of the CEB which voted for my tenure on March 17, 2008 to be questioned. Citing the letter of Prof. Serena Diokno (ANNEX L) and a Chair of a Department (ANNEX M), the Chancellor agreed to the position that Department Chairs and the Dean have the sole prerogative on matters regarding tenure thus effectively excluding the other members of the CEB who voted in my favor.

2)    On July 8, 2009, the Chancellor also presided over a meeting that supposedly establishes the CEB’s position to “respect or defer to the decision of the Department.” He continues in his memo dated October 28, 2009: “since there was no consensus to grant tenure to Professor Raymundo  at the Department level, it should be taken to mean that there is also no consensus to grant tenure to  Professor Raymundo at the College level.”(p.9) [emphasis mine] It is not clear, once again, in this instance, if the CEB categorically expressed in that meeting that “since there was no consensus to grant tenure [to me]… at the Department level, there is no consensus to grant tenure [to me] at the College level as well.”

What is clear in both these instances, in what is also becoming a constant feature of this tenure process, is that when various bodies decide in my favor, an intervening entity, endeavors to nullify the favorable decision. Let me reiterate that the CEB, on their own and as a critical body, had endorsed my tenure even with the presence of Prof. Aquino among them the first time around on April 18, 2008 and on June 20, 2008. They did so again on March 17, 2009.

By constructing the relationship of the Department Chairs and the CEB as one characterized by deference, wherein the CEB as a collegial body defers to the Department’s wishes in matters of tenure, the Chancellor is removing an important function of the CEB as a necessary venue where fairness and transparency in the tenure process can be assured. Where else can aggrieved members of the young faculty express their appeal for justice and fairness especially if they cannot find it in their own Departments? In this formulation favored by the Chancellor, the CEB ceases to be a critical collegial body capable of making its own decisions autonomous from the departments and their interests.

I am proud to cite some members of the CEB from my college who have insisted on playing this critical role with regards my tenure case. None of them were appreciated by the Chancellor in his memo.

The OIC of one department who voted for my tenure wrote:

“The Department Faculty wishes to prod the College to be transparent on granting tenure especially in cases like this. Substantiation of proof, may it be against or for the tenure should be opened for scrutiny to arrive to a fair and just decision.” (ANNEX L)

While insisting that departmental autonomy should be respected, another Chairperson also wrote:

“We also recommend that departmental responsibility be observed, such as by the Department of Sociology’s presentation at the college assembly of the process and the decision criteria used in the case of Prof. Sarah Raymundo.” (ANNEX M)

1. III. Was I given the opportunity to explain my side on the issues and concerns raised against me?

The Chancellor cites the two instances when I was made to explain my side before the authorized representative of the Department on March 2007 and on June 2008 before some faculty members who voted for my tenure on March 25, 2008 (p.9).  He considers these occasions as sufficient instances for me to clarify matters and explain my side on the issues raised against me.

I strongly challenge Chancellor Cao’s appreciation of my ordeal. If anything, my whole tenure process has been flawed and violative of my rights. Mine is not the only voice that think so. Even my colleagues from my Department have expressed the same observation.

In a letter addressed to Vice Chancellor Paredes dated January 12, 2009 (ANNEX N), Prof. Walden Bello asserted that there was no consensus on the November 2008 decision of the Department not to recommend my tenure since he was unable to sign it and he was registering his opposition to the said decision. He wrote:

Because it has been such a flawed process, I feel strongly that the decision-making on the Raymundo case should not be rushed and that it should be conducted with fairness, with transparency, and with the primacy of academic criteria. I feel that it is the responsibility of the higher academic authorities to ensure that Ms. Raymundo, whose academic record is considered excellent by all sides, is provided with a just tenure process that is based on academic considerations. I also feel that non-academic issues must not taint this process, as they have in the current process, 98 per cent of which was focused on a particular nonacademic incident involving Ms. Raymundo. Surely, this is highly questionable as a focus of tenure discussions, which must be devoted to the teaching and publishing record of the faculty member being considered.

Prof. Gerardo Lanuza also wrote on a letter addressed to the Vice Chancellor on the same date (ANNEX O):

Also, I believe that Prof. Sarah Jane Raymundo deserves a fair hearing before the tenured faculty so that she can answer all serious allegations raised against by some of our colleagues in the series of our deliberations.

Prof. Filomin Gutierrez, apart from withdrawing her signature in the Department decision not to grant tenure on November 5, 2008, also wrote that “there should be an opportunity to, once and for all, resolve questions about Prof. Raymundo.” (ANNEX P)

She adds:

“My hope is that we could thoroughly address not only questions about her ‘lack of transparency’ relating to the disappearance of Ms. Karen Empeno, and whether that constitutes a serious breach of professional ethics was committed, a decision that I do not believe was formally arrived at. It would also be for the best to ascertain whether such perception and/or judgment on Prof. Raymundo’s behavior should take precedence over her excellent academic qualifications in consideration of her tenure.”

The accusations and allegations that my colleagues were referring to is contained in a document I refer to as the minority report (MR).

The Minority Report and Violations of my Rights to Fairness, Transparency, and Due Process

On October 17, 2008, Professors Arguillas, Rubio, and Fernandez sent a letter addressed to Vice Chancellor Paredes substantiating the so-called Minority Position (ANNEX H). It (MR) is  the document containing specific allegations and instances when I supposedly “failed to uphold the truth” and “lacked transparency” in relation to the case of the two missing students two years before I submitted by application for tenure.

In November 14, 2008 (ANNEX Q), the Department wrote a letter to Vice Chancellor Paredes  transmitting the decision that the Department cannot recommend tenure anymore. Votes were again casted with two out of the eleven faculty members still reiterating their position to grant tenure and three faculty members from the original majority abstaining from reiterating their earlier tenure recommendation because “certain concerns that have bearing on the granting of tenure…remain unclarified.” I have every reason that this turn around by some faculty members of the Department is on account of the MR.

Let me also note that I was instructed by then Chairperson Prof. Aquino on November 6, 2009 to desist from attending my classes until further notice.

Here are my issues against the Department’s and the Chancellor’s handling of the minority report which, taken together, seriously violated my rights to fairness and transparency in my tenure process:

1. I was never given the opportunity to peruse the said report until I received the Chancellor’s memorandum where it was attached on November 3, 2009. Hence, the claim that I have been given sufficient opportunity to defend myself against the allegations therein is duplicitous and has misguided the Chancellor’s decision. I cannot have been expected to properly defend myself when the said allegations were never explicitly and directly presented. Given the monumental consequence of the MR, I strongly feel that I should have been given a copy of the said document in the first instance so I can respond and clarify matters accordingly. To this day, I have not been given the opportunity to answer all the allegations as they were written in the full context of the minority report.
2. Moreover, the contents of the MR remain allegations and insinuations which have not been substantiated and presented before any independent body. I am appalled at the fact that this document, which I have not had the chance to read and refute, had been informing the decisions of my colleagues at the Department as well as shaping the dispositions of higher offices.
3. While there were  “discussions” between myself, former Department Chairperson Prof. Aquino, and members of the tenured faculty, the questions raised in these occasions were never put in their proper context. What actually took place were a series of interviews that demanded a factual recounting of occurrences that took place two or three years before. At that time of these interviews, I have not perused and fully appreciated the minority report in its full sequence and over-all context. It is only now that I am beginning to understand the logic of their queries and the weight of their accusations.

Despite the good faith and trust that I placed on the faculty members who interviewed me, I feel violated that they were in fact crafting serious allegations of “lack of transparency,” and “failure to uphold the truth” -  issues that in effect cast aspersions on my academic integrity and professional ethics.  It is very clear that I have been actually denied of both substantive and procedural due process. This underhandedness makes a mockery of due process and puts to question the ethics and motives of my accusers.

1. It must be noted that I was only ever granted an official opportunity to discuss these allegations when Chancellor Cao invited me to an interview in his office on August 25, 2009, almost a full year since the filing of the minority report.  I was asked questions about the Karen Empeño case presented as the issues raised by the Department against me. I was also made to comment on the issue of trustworthiness that was supposed to be the major thread that weaves particular questions on the said case. I feel that I have responded to his queries in the most honest and collegial manner. Yet, none of my responses were ever cited in the Chancellor’s memorandum deciding against my tenure.

Upon receiving the said memo with its accompanying attachments, it is only now that I realized that those particular questions raised by Chancellor Cao were in fact culled from the minority report. Even the said discussion with the Chancellor, I was never given the chance to read the MR.

Violations of my other Rights

1. The right to a speedy resolution. Many of the complications that beset my tenure process can be attributed not just to the actions and intentions of those opposed to my tenure but also by the inaction especially of higher offices in finding a resolution to my case without undue delay. The Department, College, and the Vice Chancellor Office’s must be faulted for the inaction that took place between June 20, 2008 wherein Vice Chancellor Paredes requested the Department’s comments, and the response of the minority four months later, on October 17, 2009. After the August 25, 2009 meeting with the Chancellor, it took another two months for the Chancellor to come up with his decision.
2. My right to a speedy and official response from higher authorities. I wrote to the Chancellor for the first time on November 20, 2008 (ANNEX R) relaying my predicament having been informed by the Chair Prof. Aquino not to attend my classes. Earlier, I have also written a letter to the Dean of the College requesting for an explanation for such a decision. In the same letter, I relayed my intention of attending my classes despite the information from the Chair. None of these formal letters were ever recognized with a reply by either the Dean’s Office or the Chancellor’s Office.

I wrote to the Chancellor in three more occasions. On June 24, 2009 (ANNEX S), I wrote Chancellor Cao requesting him to look again into my tenure application and to clarify my status in the university. The same letter contains a chronology of events beginning from the time I submitted my application. I received a cryptic reply that my tenure process was still in review. That is the only reply I ever received from his office. My letter on August 2009 (ANNEX T) asking about developments on my case as well as my September 11, 2009 (ANNEX U) correspondence informing him that my salary has been abruptly cut-off never received a written response from the Chancellor.

1. Inaction about complaints. I did not just expect responses from the letters that I sent to the Dean’s and Chancellor’s offices. I also sought reprieve from the unfortunate situations this tenure process has brought me. When I was barred from teaching by the Department without basis on November 6, 2008, I sought the help of the Dean in getting a written explanation and  a clear clarification of why I was barred from from teaching when I have a contract with the University until May 31, 2009. When my salary was cut off, I expected the Chancellor to uphold my right to compensation. In both instances, no action was undertaken by the concerned offices.

1. IV. What would support the Chancellor’s Decision if he were to grant tenure to me?

The Chancellor cites the correspondences between him and Vice Chancellor Paredes indicating that I have met the minimum requirements for tenure. However, the Chancellor also cites the policy that units in the University can impose more stringent standards as they see fit (p.10) .

It is at this point that Chancellor Cao, I believe, shows that he has accepted as a fact the allegations of the minority that I have not conducted myself ethically. He quotes from the MR regarding ethical conduct.

“A faculty member who applies for tenure should not only meet the minimum requirements for tenure in terms of teaching. publications and service, it is also indispensable that the application must ‘conduct himself/herself ethically in all dealings with students, colleagues, staff. and persons outside the University’ (UPOVPAA, 2004, Shaping Our Institutional Future: A Statement on Faculty Tenure, Rank, and Promotion. Furthermore, ‘academic grounds include professional ethics, intellectual honesty, and other values central to academic life” (Ibid., p. 12)

He continues in his memo, “they [those opposed to the grant of tenure in the Department] have, in my assessment, sufficiently explained why she failed to meet the standards stipulated above.” (p. 11) This statement exposes the Chancellor’s acceptance of the allegations and insinuations against me in the MR.

The Chancellor, to whom I addressed my appeal to, and prayed would deliver me from the irregularities and injustice that I experienced in my tenure process has one-sidedly and unfairly ruled against my appeal. Relying mainly on the MR document as basis, he has found me guilty of the allegations therein which, throughout this whole time, I have not read and responded to, a document which has not gone through the scrutiny of an independent body, a document that remains a compendium of mere accusations by three members of the faculty and not all. In effect, Chancellor Cao accepted as facts the personal opinion of a small group of individuals and believed that their allegations are founded, and that these are sufficient academic grounds to deny my tenure.

It behooves me to note how someone accorded with such a high position in our esteemed University is so arbitrary and unfair in his practice of power. To Chancellor Cao reckless actions, I present Prof. Bello’s opinion in his letter to Vice Chancellor Paredes on January 12, 2008 (ANNEX N) :

If there are such extraneous non-academic issues, they should be subjected to a separate legal process where all parties are given a chance to present their side. The conflation of the tenure process with a disciplinary process–especially one that has not reached any conclusion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant–is wrong and constitutes a dangerous precedent that would destroy the academic objectivity that is central to the tenure process.

Furthermore, the very document that the minority report cites also has provisions that has been conveniently ignored by the Chancellor. Shaping our Institutional Future” (2004) under the “responsibilities” on the part of the tenured faculty tasked with recommending tenure, that they:

“Uphold academic freedom, which requires that faculty appointments are made solely on academic grounds – performance in teaching, research and extension, potential to contribute to the discipline, and ethical conduct of the profession” (I.B.2.2.a).

And that it is their responsibility to:

“create an intellectual environment that supports open and free inquiry, including the freedom to differ, in the spirit of learning and scholarship” (I.B.2.2.c).( From Shaping Our Institutional Future: A Statement on Faculty Tenure, Rank and Promotion,” OVPAA, 2004)

1. V. Action

In finally denying my appeal, the Chancellor compared my academic qualifications with those of an associate professor from another institute with different tenure requirements. The Chancellor has conveniently forgotten that the University Council adopted on December 15, 2008  the following additional guideline related to the process of the grant of tenure:

“Each faculty with temporary but tenure track appointment shall be provided by the Department/Division chair as Chair of the  Departmental/Division Academic and Personnel Fellowship Committee not later than 30 days after the start of his/her original appointment, a written notification of the evaluation criteria and procedures in effect at the time of the appointment and shall be evaluated on the basis of these criteria”.

I have fully satisfied the existing academic requirements for tenure of the Dept of Sociology and the CSSP, a fact that was affirmed by the Department, the CEB and UP-Diliman’s Academic Personnel and Fellowship Committee as I have already mentioned in the beginning of this letter.

1. VI. Prayer

The issues against me mainly pertain to my alleged “lack of transparency” or “failure to uphold the truth” in connection with the real academic status of Ms. Karen Empeno, a former student of the Department of Sociology, who was abducted on June 26, 2006 along with Sherlyn Cadapan, a former student of the College of Human Kinetics. No matter how hard they try to hide behind notions of professional ethics, I recognize that I am being penalized for the politics I espouse which informs their reading of my alleged involvement in the press conference for the two missing students on June 30, 2009. I am responding to these accusations in the attached document refuting the minority report.

My tenure saga has really been a saga by all accounts. But ultimately, what is alarming are the red-baiting accusations contained in the Minority Report upheld by our esteemed University officials particularly Chancellor Sergio Cao.

I contend that the Chancellor Cao erred in the following instances:

1)    When the Department and the College relayed their inability to reach a consensus on my tenure case,  it was expected of the Chancellor to prove he is worthy of the office he occupies. It was hoped that he would preside over a judicious process where all the parties concerned can expect a fair and transparent ascertaining of the truth, a process that I was more than willing to submit to given the chance. Instead, he devised an ineffective resolution that insults all the stakeholders in this tenure case by citing the two-thirds rule.

2)    Acting upon his request, the College Executive Board (CEB) of the College, as a critical and collegial body, voted in favor of my tenure on March 18, 2009. Allowing the composition to be questioned and nullifying the validity of their votes after the fact is unfair.

3)    The Chancellor believes that there have been sufficient instances for me to explain my side. I reiterate that my rights to due process, fairness, and transparency as explained above among others have been violated by the actions of those behind the minority report and the Chancellor’s arbitrary adoption of their opinion and I reserve the right to file administrative cases and moral damages.

4)    The Chancellor believes that I lack the necessary academic requirements for tenure. I reiterate once more that I have fully satisfied the existing academic requirements for tenure of the Dept of Sociology and the CSSP, a fact that was affirmed by the Department, the CEB and UP-Diliman’s Academic Personnel and Fellowship Committee.

From the moment Vice Chancellor Paredes remanded my tenure application back to the Department on June 20, 2008, the whole process for my tenure has been characterized by serious irregularities. Let me register the fact that as of April 18, 2008, with a vote of seven (7) against three (3), I was already recommended for tenure by the faculty of the Department of Sociology as indicated in the Basic Paper forwarded and the accompanying Justification. I have established above how various bodies and offices have ascertained that I am eligible for tenure in the course of this long process.

Furthermore, all issues that were thrown at me after the “7-3” March 25, 2008 decision in my favor have already been brought up, discussed and decided upon after thorough deliberations.

1. The written Justification (ANNEX B) for the granting of my tenure states the following:

“The decision to recommend the granting of tenure to Prof. Raymundo was arrived at after thorough deliberations in the two meetings of the Department’s tenured faculty held on 5 March 208 and 25 March 2008”

xxx   xxx   xxx

“Some members of the faculty raised a few questions pertaining to Prof. Raymundo’s political commitment (vis-à-vis her academic responsibilities) and her participation in department committee assignments, particularly the handling of work in the undergraduate Committee. After long and passionate discussions which touched on, among others, the theory and practice of democracy, academic freedom, and professional ethics, seven out of ten tenured faculty members (excluding the Chair and Dr. Walden Bello, who is on leave without pay), decided that her academic qualifications and achievements far outweigh the perceived shortcomings.” (Emphasis supplied)

1. The written Views of the Chair (“Pananaw bilang Tagapangulo ng Departamento ng Sosyolohiya Kaugnay sa Pagrerekomenda ng Tenyur kay Prop. Sarah Jane S. Raymundo” attached as ANNEX D), written by former Department Chairperson Prof. Clemen C. Aquino clearly stated that she had expressed her views during the March 25, 2008 meeting of tenured faculty members. Just the same, after the expression of her views and all possible objections to a decision in my favor, seven (7) against (3) faculty members voted to grant me tenure.
2. The events upon which the alleged questions on my ethics took place almost two years prior to my filing of application for tenure. None was formally cited to have transpired after I applied for tenure, much less after the tenured faculty originally voted in favor of granting me tenure last April 18, 2008. I was also renewed as a full-time faculty member for the next two years in the same Department.

In view of the foregoing, I ask that the rescission of the original favorable decision dated April 18, 2008 be declared null and void and that the said decision granting me tenure be upheld.

Respectfully yours,

Sarah Jane S. Raymundo

cc: Board of Regents

All U.P. Academic Employees Union, Diliman Chapter

November 16, 2009

Download/view this statement in PDF by clicking this link: FINAL CONTEND STATEMENT ON SARAH NOV

SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR SARAH RAYMUNDO’S fight for justice and tenure is finally coming to a head. In a letter dated October 28, 2009, Chancellor Sergio Cao has ruled against granting her tenure. We cannot accept the justness of this decision and appeal to the University to set things right.

We can justify our opposition to this flawed decision by starting with two simple facts:

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.

It is therefore quite surprising how the Chancellor, in his latest decision, speaks of the “facts” (ultimately stemming from the minority report mentioned above) as if these had already been established on the basis of sufficient evidence.

The transformation of allegations and accusations into facts probably began with VCAA Paredes’ June 20, 2008 letter wherein she requested an explanation from the majority of the Sociology Department regarding the case, “Perhaps the majority who were in favor can further explain how the academic qualifications and achievements far outweigh this instanceof breach of professional ethics” (emphasis added). Her phrasing gives the impression that the so-called “breach of professional ethics” had been mentioned in the letter recommending the granting of tenure to Prof. Raymundo. This is actually not the case; the original letter of recommendation only mentions that there were a few concerns about Prof. Raymundo’s “political commitment (vis-a-vis her academic responsibilities).” There was absolutely nothing mentioned in it about “weighing” ethical concerns against the other qualifications for tenure (Cf. Prof. Laura Samson’s November 3, 2008 letter on behalf of the majority). The minority of three however gave an unsolicited response to VCAA Paredes’ request to the effect that “it is not possible for academic performance to outweigh ethics” (October 17, 2008) as if, once again, it were an indubitable fact that Prof. Raymundo had indeed committed a “breach of professional ethics” which should be “weighed” against her other qualifications.

This sad train of assuming the truth of mere allegations and insinuations by force of repetition reaches its point of culmination in Chancellor Cao’s October 28, 2009 letter, wherein he states that he “must also assess Professor Raymundo’s academic qualifications and achievements vis-a-vis the other ‘academic grounds’ [professional ethics] being invoked to deny her tenure. What would tip the balance in Professor Raymundo’s favour?” The metaphor of weighing is here once again repeated. But this assumes that the scale does have something on both sides to be weighed. How can the Chancellor assume that there is indeed some weight to the allegations regarding Prof. Raymundo’s “breach of professional ethics”?

The Chancellor believes that, based on some occasions where Prof. Raymundo met with the Chair of her Department (June 2008), two subsequent meetings with tenured faculty members (July 2008 and March 2009), and his own meeting with her on August 25, 2009, that she has been “given sufficient opportunities by the tenured faculty to explain her side of the issues raised.”

Why then is this sentiment not shared by many of Prof. Raymundo’s colleagues belonging to the Sociology Department itself? Prof. Laura Samson wrote, “I believe that Sarah deserves all the opportunities to be heard, to properly defend herself, and if possible or necessary, to make amends” (November 3, 2008). As late as January 12, 2009, Prof. Lanuza wrote that, “I believe that Prof. Sarah Jane Raymundo deserves a fair hearing before the tenured faculty so that she can answer all serious allegations raised against her by some of our colleagues in the series of our deliberations.” A similar point questioning the applicability of the charge of “breach of professional ethics” was raised by Prof. Filomin Gutierrez in a letter dated January 12, 2009. More emphatically, Prof. Walden Bello in his January 12, 2009 letter protested that, “The conflation of the tenure process with a disciplinary process - especially one that has not reached any conclusion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant - is wrong and constitutes a dangerous precedent that would destroy the academic objectivity that is central to the tenure process” (italics in the original).

Regardless of the number of times she met with the tenured faculty, the most important thing is that Prof. Raymundo has never been given the opportunity to answer the allegations against her. The specific allegations and the supposed evidences supporting these have never been formally presented to her by any accusing party. This flatly violates the right of Prof. Raymundo to due process. The reality of the matter is that the weighing scale on the side of allegations may well turn out to be empty or just full of air. Likewise, on the other side of the weighing scale containing the other “academic qualifications,” the Chancellor’s rather mechanical and misplaced judgment on Prof. Raymundo’s academic qualifications starkly contrasts with the assessment of the majority of her peers within the Sociology Department who acknowledge her “excellent quality of mind,” “expansive intellectual interest,” “competence in current and emerging academic discourses (as) reflected in her teaching” and “capability to engage in sustained scholarship.”

We believe that the Chancellor has erred on both sides of the scale. 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.

The quote, “repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth” came from the pen of the fascist Goebbels who expertly used the propagation and repetition of lies in the brutal campaign to crush dissent and rid Germany of leftwing thought. May this actually be the agenda of those using these nefarious means today, in our University, in the case of Prof. Raymundo?

We must ask ourselves the following questions: How is it possible, in a University that values inquiry and scientific thinking, that repeated allegations can so easily become mistaken for the truth? How can it be the case, in an institution that holds academic freedom sacred, that the defense of individual rights and due process can be so carelessly abbreviated?

CHANCELLOR CAO’S DECISION, FLAWED AND UNJUST!

NO TO RED-BAITING!

END POLITICAL PERSECUTION IN THE ACADEME!

JUSTICE AND TENURE FOR PROF. SARAH RAYMUNDO!

CONGRESS OF TEACHERS / EDUCATORS FOR NATIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY

B. Last Friday, November 6, 2009, concerned faculty members, REPS and administrative staff, the All UP Workers Union and the All UP Academic Employees Union met and formed the alliance RIGHTS OF UNTENURED FACULTY or R.U. U.P. Faculty. Prof. Raymundo’s case is just one of the many cases of unfair labor practices committed against untenured faculty members of UP. In Diliman alone, aside from Prof. Raymundo’s case, there are two more cases waiting for Chancellor Cao’s decision.

C. In Chancellor Cao’s memo, some observations were made:

1. There was no real consultation, transparency and due process, especially within the Sociology Department, regarding issues raised against Prof. Raymundo. Issues raised remained “departmental secrets” until Chancellor Cao attached to his memo a very long minority report from three Sociology tenured professors (Fernandez, Rubio and Arguillas). There was no real, formal and written correspondence addressed to Prof. Raymundo, and thus, she was never given the formal chance to defend herself. It also should be noted that in Chancellor Cao’s decision, not one of the letters and statements sent by the All UP Academic Employees Union-Diliman chapter was put into account. An example of this is a striking statement by the union entitled “Criteria for Tenure Cannot Be Departmental Secrets.”

2. The minority report, needless to say, is a blatant attack against the political right of Prof. Raymundo. The said minority report is nothing but red-tagging disguised as issues of professional ethics and academic integrity.

3. There is inconsistency as to the application of a 2/3 confidence majority vote as a departmental tenure rule/practice. If such a rule does exist, then it should have been enforced in the April 18, 2008 votation where Prof. Raymundo easily garnered the 2/3 majority vote. This enforcement of the 2/3 vote rule as a supposed Departmental practice in the last instance is indicative of malice and bad faith on the part of the Department. Note also that in Sociology Department Chair Randy David’s letter to the Chancellor dated June 3, 2009, no mention of the 2/3 rule was made.

4. The issue of departmental autonomy is being used by the Sociology Department and by the Office of Chancellor Cao to justify political persecution. Departmental autonomy is not and should never be synonymous to abuse of authority.

5. Chancellor Cao skewed the whole issue by saying that Prof. Sarah Raymundo is not academically accomplished. The Chancellor applied the stricter tenure requirements of the College of Science (CS) to Prof. Raymundo who belongs to the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP). It is altogether malicious since CSSP adheres to the minimum academic requirements outlined in the Faculty Manual of UP Diliman. It seems that Chancellor Cao is undermining non-CS units such as CSSP!

We appeal for justice and the reversal of the non-tenure decision.

D. Please send support statements/letters for Prof. Sarah Raymundo. Online petition is still ongoing (links are on the right side of this blogsite). Prof. Raymundo will be writing an appeal letter to President Roman and the Board of Regents. We will also be making an omnibus statement, which will also serve as a petition, to be sent to President Roman and the BOR. Please help in gathering signatures for the said omnibus petition statement.

Thank you very much! Padayon sa ating lahat!