UP College of Mass Communications Auditorium


February 12, 2014








Statement of Congress of Teachers and Educators for Nationalism and Democracy, University of the Philippines, Diliman (CONTEND-UP DILIMAN) Opposing the Proposed Shift of the Academic Calendar

February 10, 2014, National Institute of Physics

As the media hype the enthusiasm of major Philippine universities who recently announced they are shifting their academic calendars from August to May, to streamline their calendar with their foreign university partners and ensuring that their graduates will have a global outlook, the Congress of Teachers and Educators for Nationalism and Democracy- UP Diliman, do not see any compelling reason for this enthusiasm.


Synchronizing our local academic calendar to the needs and demands of Asian and other countries does not guarantee that graduates of our universities will automatically acquire “global outlook and global competencies”.


The much peddled “internationalization” does not necessarily rest on synchronized academic calendars of countries worldwide. Such unfounded claim simply disregard the rich cultural life and peculiar geographical conditions that define each country. Education, including its temporal dimension, is not disconnected with the rest of the cultural and environmental milieu of the community of learners. We cannot immediately disregard a long and time-tested tradition of opening classes in June for the simple reason of facilitating the flow of information, students, and academic goods.


For such drastic overhaul of tradition will impact on the rhythm of our social life and our cherished indigenous cultural rituals and festivals. Culturally, the “summer vacation” of students and their families will be drastically abolished. Festivals, fiestas will also be affected.


Second, as universities hold classes in summer, they will subject their students, teachers and personnel to harsh heat and chastising humidity.


Third, there is no assurance that there will be less rain, typhoons, and flooding during August as the phenomenon of global warming is considerably redefining our climate and the rest of the globe.


Fourth, synchronization of academic calendar is a form of cultural homogenization that fulfills the prophesy of critical scholars who presciently foresee that globalization will bulldoze local cultures and will eventually create a Mcdonaldized education.

We register strongly our earlier statement that “we refuse to be coaxed into the frivolous debate about changing academic calendar as a way to internationalize our University. While this issue is relevant, we believe that changing the calendar should not be reduced to mere question of efficiency and the imperative to accelerate cross-border mobility of students and faculty.


Internationalization has to address the wider economic and political context, both regional and global, that define the general contours and orientation of the culture of inquiry we want to create and nurture as well as the learning environment of the students and faculty. We can always change the calendar. But the entire philosophy that underpins such change must be debated and carefully weighed. Jumping too quickly into the bandwagon of internationalization is not necessarily helpful for our nation. We have to pause and decelerate to think hard about these questions: Whose internationalization? Internationalization for what? Only when these major questions are put into the table for discussion that we can rethink the mission and vision of the University as both national and international in scope, and not just follow the policy recommendations of bureaucrats who are often detached from real intellectual life of the university.”

The Congress of Teachers and Educators for Nationalism and Democracy, therefore, call on all progressive and concerned faculty, teachers, educational workers, students and parents, to strongly oppose the academic calendar change being peddled in the mass media by the bureaucrats of higher learning institutions. Such bureaucratic imposition, which passes over genuine democratic consultation and scientific study, must be exposed for what it truly is: desperate measure of universities to conceal their impotence in addressing the real problems of our deteriorating educational system.

Defy and oppose synchronization of academic calendar of UP with Asian nations!

Defy and oppose cultural and educational homogenization!

Fight for greater state subsidy for higher learning institutions!

Fight for a nationalist, scientific, and mass-oriented education!



UP Business Administration Council (BAC)


Last Thursday, the Board of Regents (BOR) upheld its decision to rename our college as the Virata School of Business. But our call to revert back to our beloved CBA is far from over.

We recognize the contribution that Virata has given to the college. But it is our firm belief that the institution should not be defined by a single person. And just like how CBA was one of the main bastions of activism during the Marcos revolution, we’re standing up again, this time against historical ignorance and insufficient student consultation.

WE CALL on all CBAers and the University to be one in our campaign to revisit the Board's decision about our college's name. Let our voices be heard on the next BOR meeting this February 27 and unite in our final stand!

As One CBA and One UP, let's amplify our call to the Board on how much we value our identity as the UP College of Business Administration!


An Open Letter to the U.P. Board of Regents on its Feb 6 Decision Upholding the Name of Virata School of Business
Movement Against the Name Virata School of Business
February 10, 2014

We have learned unofficially that last February 6, by a majority vote, the U.P. Board of Regents approved with finality the renaming of the College of Business Administration into the Cesar E.A. VirataSchool of Business. Only Rep. Roman Romulo, Student Regent Krista Melgarejo and Staff Regent Rara Ramirez voted against it.

As of this writing, no official statement on this decision has been issued by the University. Hence, we are raising the following questions.

How did the Board of Regents respond to the resolutions of the University Council of UP Diliman related to this issue? These resolutions were approved by the UC in its December 2, 2013 Special meeting and was transmitted to the Office of the President by UPD Chancellor on January 7, 2014, a month before the Board of Regents Meeting.

Motion on Naming:

The context of the motion stemmed from the renaming of the College of Business Administration to the Cesar E.A. Virata School of Business. The proponent said that the naming of an academic program after one of the longest serving cabinet members of the Marcos dictatorship was a political issue and has deeply divided the university and its public.

The motion was to retain the naming of academic programs/institutions after the discipline and not after any person, living or dead.

There were three bases for the motion:

First, the long tradition of naming academic programs/institutions after the discipline had been serving UP well for years

Second, naming the academic program/institutions is highly divisive: within the university and between the university and its publics

Third, there already exist guidelines/mechanisms to name buildings, streets, and structures to honor outstanding alumni and/or donors.

With votes of 135 in favor, 63 against, and 7 abstentions, the motion to retain the naming of academic programs after the discipline and not after any person, living or dead, was adopted by the UC.


Motion to recommend to the BOR to rescind the BOR decision on 12 April 2013 to rename the College Business Administration into the Cesar E.A. Virata School of Business

This motion was raised immediately after the approval the motion to retain the practice of naming academic programs/institutions after the discipline and not after any person living or dead.

The context of the motion was therefore to ensure consistency in the naming of colleges and units, forward to the BOR the sentiment of the UC regarding the importance of consultations with stakeholders especially on matters which would change long-standing tradition, and reiterate the power of the UC vis-à-visacademic matters including the naming of academic programs and institutions.

With votes of 146 in favor, 19 against, and 23 abstentions, the motion to recommend to the BOR to rescind the BOR decision on 12 April 2013 to rename the College Business Administration into the Cesar E.A. Virata School of Business was adopted by the UC.

Faced with this clear majority vote from the highest academic governing body of the University, there are disturbing anomalies that need to be clarified.

First, how was the public opinion of the students of the College of Business Administration considered in the deliberations by the Board, if at all? Did the Board evaluate carefully the sentiments of the students who are the recipients of this drastic change? Or it simply ignored them in the name of administrative efficiency?

Second, did the board exercise the mandate of democratic governance when it merely paid lip-service to the strong dissenting sentiments expressed publicly by the faculty, alumni and students who are against a precedent-setting decision that creates dissension within theUniversity?

How is democratic governance exercised by the Board when it gave undue privilege to the representatives from the College of Business Administration to expound before the Boarddefending the renaming of College of Business Administration to Virata School of Business but did not consider the resolution of the University Council regarding this issue, nor even invited those who call for the revocation of the name-change. Brazen railroading is the only appropriateterm to describe this simulated democratic process.

In the name of accountability and transparency, the Board owes the academic community of UP, the alumni, and especially those who fought the dictatorship under Martial Law an account of how the decision was made, and compelling explanation why its decision is the best for the entire UP community and for the generations who will be affected by this decision. We demand no less than immediate response.