Neutrality during crisis

Amidst the protests and all the loud criticisms against Ferdinand Marcos’s burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB), a serious question has emerged: shouldn’t schools remain neutral on matters that are political and thus divisive? Instead of giving a direct answer to the question, it would be better to have a quick look on the anatomy of neutrality as well as a brief reminder on the role of academic institutions in society.

Political neutrality comes from the persuasion that knowledge or academic pursuit should not be biased. Those who insist on neutrality, argue that political positions can compromise a person’s search for genuine or real conclusions.

Some people believe that the subjects being studied in schools should be used to improve human condition. Even some Social Sciences and Political Science departments insist that their researches should not promote a certain kind of ideology or political leaning.

Thus, another name for political neutrality is academic purism. This attitude presupposes some kind of an unconscious belief that schools should teach society, and that students should first learn in school before he or she interacts with the realities of society.

Schools want to assert their distinctive expertise and this is only possible by trying to appear objective in their processes and findings. Political neutrality therefore is partly due to the fear of losing that distinctive “expert knowledge” which schools possess.

Academics or university professors would rather monitor their citation index or finish a paper that needs to be published in a refereed journal. Yet some are simply busy covering their lessons because midterm or final exams are fast approaching.

One cannot but think by way of analogy: there is a strong typhoon devastating the lives of people outside the classroom, but the teacher continues to discuss a lesson on “the beauty and joys of summer” simply because it is the lesson that needs to be covered.

But the more serious problem with political neutrality is that none of us can be truly and honestly neutral. Those who insist on not taking a side are simply afraid, playing safe or uninformed. As Dante once said “the darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

It is not only sad but also alarming when academic institutions are afraid or would rather play safe in times when people are politically and morally confused. Precisely, academic institutions are supposed to take the lead in reforming society.

History tells us that many, if not most, of society’s reforms were prompted by the schools. Education is not just the absorption of information. It also carries the responsibility to change society for the better. Educators are not just agents of classroom learning, they are also teachers of life.

So when the Supreme Court said that it does not have the competence to declare the late dictator, Ferdinand E. Marcos, a hero, the schools simply responded to the court by staging protests re-echoing the chant of the day: Marcos is not a Hero.

By doing this, schools simply fulfill their tasks of allowing students not only to learn about society but with society. By asking their students to take a stand, schools are not depriving their students of the quality education they expect.

Simply put, schools challenge their students to also clarify their values because a truly educated person knows where he or she stands. After all, the measure of genuine learning is the ability to change society despite the baggage of individual interest.

This, apparently, distinguishes the truly educated person from an ordinary merchant.

I would like to believe however that the issue of political neutrality is not only limited to schools but also the Church. Yet let us reserve that for another discussion.-- from Rhoderick John S. Abellanosa