A Call for Vigilance: Mondays or Wednesdays?

Let us remain vigilant.

The new Academic Calendar has been approved. The peculiar thing is, the usual Wednesdays-off has been changed. Now, Monday is our official day off, aside from the weekends.

On February 4, 2008, the Board of Regents, approved the resolution submitted by UPD Chancellor Sergio Cao recommended by the UPD Executive Committee, observing Mondays-off. This is in line with RA 9492, an Act rationalizing of national holidays amending for the purpose Section 26, Chapter 7, Book 1 of Executive Order No. 292, as amended, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987” or the holiday economics. The resolution states that, “due to the enactment of RA 9492, most holidays, except those of religious significance will be shifted to the nearest Monday, the academic calendar will now observe Mondays off to avoid interruption of classes that fall on Monday. (UPD Executive Committee, January 24, 2008)”.

After the enactment, Chancellor Cao called upon the colleges to conduct consultations for the said shift. However, resolutions of such consultations have failed devastatingly to represent the sentiments of most students.

Constant vigilance is not for its own sake. Same efforts have been seen in the case of the UP Visayas for instance. So that after implementing the same policy, students and the faculty members have successfully brought back the Wednesday-off Academic Calendar. This same call of constant vigilance goes to all UP students.

It is in this regard that the University Student Council emphasizes that such policies, albeit left entirely on the discretion of the Chancellors, directly affect students and faculty members alike. Having said that, we call that such changes be studied further where students and faculty members are involved and consulted accordingly. It is our resolve that any measure or policy be truly reflective of the student’s, as well as the UPD community’s, interest.

This statement was prepared by the USC Academic Concerns Committee.

11 New Eng’g Lab Fees Pending Approval

Last May 6, 2008 the Students Rights & Welfare Committee (STRAW Committee), headed by Councilor Jaque Eroles, attended the student dialogue regarding the proposed Lab Fee increase for 11 Mechanical Engineering (ME) courses. Representatives from the College of Engineering Student Council (ESC) and Student Regent Shahanah Abdulwahid also attended the dialogue initiated by the ME department head, Prof. Gerald Denoga.

According to Prof. Denoga, the department aims that the increases be implemented starting First Semester AY 2008-2009. The proposal has already been approved by the college faculty and administration, and was already submitted to Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs, Dr. Elizabeth Enriquez. However, the OVCSA refused to approve the proposal since it did not undergo consultation with the University Student Council (USC). Thus, the reason for the said dialogue.

The courses affected by the proposed lab fee increase are as follows:

SUBJECT	Original Fee	Proposed New Fees	Remarks
ME 122 Turbomachinery	0	600	presently no equipment for the experiments
ME 131 Manufacturing Processes	300	1,500	price increase in materials
ME 136 Machine Tools Operations	300	1,500	price increase in materials
ME 143 Mechanical Vibrations	0	800	will need PC’s
ME 176 Control Systems 1	0	800	will need PC’s
ME 183 Refrigeration & Airconditioning	200	800	consumables & PC use
ME 73 Mechanical Measurements & Instrumentation	300	500	consumables & maintenance
ME 41 Mechanisms	0	500	will need shop & PC
ME 142 Dynamics 0f Machinery	0	500	will need shop & PC
ME 91 Numerical Methods	0	800	will need PC’s
SHOP 7 Shop Practices	200	1,500	price increase in materials

The original proposal included ME 165 Internal Combustion Engines (none-P1500) but was opposed by the ESC since according to them, it was a lecture class. The department agreed and decided that it shall not be included in the proposed lab fee increase.

Prof. Denoga discussed the rationale for such increases. According to him, ME should be a hands-on program and students should have access to adequate laboratory facilities. Most of these equipment and facilities are either non-functioning, insufficient or inexistent. Experiments may also require fuel, materials and other consumables. Also the 5 courses that currently has a lab fee was based on pre-1989 prices. The proponent also presented the cost breakdown of the expenses per subject.

The USC having the benefit of discussion during the dialogue recommended for the deferral of approval since certain question and concerns were not addressed. Some of these questions are:

1. In light of the second year of implementation of the Tuition and Other Fee Increase (TOFI), will there be any budget increase for the Mechanical Engineering (ME) Department? The TOFI promised for better facilities but why is there a need for even more exorbitant laboratory fees?

2. How else can lessons be modified to minimize cost while not sacrificing the quality of instruction?

3. What are the other possible sources of funds?

4. What are the mechanisms of the ME Department or of the College of Engineering Administration to address students welfare concerns? For example, in the ME program, students need to take 2 to 3 of such laboratory courses in one semester. Such may result to a possible P4,500 in total of lab fees to be paid by a 3rd year or 4th year ME major. What shall be the action to be taken if there will be any student who will be forced to drop-out and not graduate because of the increase?

5. Are laboratory fees, in general, supposed to cover acquisition expenses, aside from maintenance expenses, and consumables as what the proposal indicates?

The USC and the ESC shall also study if it will be possible to request the Industrial Engineering (IE) Department to subsidize their students who take SHOP 7. According to Prof. Denoga, they were able to offer SHOP 7 to their majors until the IE department required this subject to IE majors. Since there are approximately 140 IE majors, as opposed to around 40 ME majors, the ME Department could not shoulder the SHOP 7 expenses alone. The USC STRAW committee and ESC plans to draft a letter requesting for the deferral of approval to be submitted to the OVCSA, Office of the Chancellor and the Board of Regents.

Open Letter to VC Gregorio & CMC Admin

An Open Letter to Vice-Chancellor Cynthia Gregorio & The College of Mass Communication Administration

As early as the first week of April, it has come to the USC’s attention that 11 residents from Village B, UP Diliman will be affected by the planned demolition in the said area to give way to the rehabilitation of the DZUP tower. As student body representatives that recognizes the importance of the different sectors of the UP community, the USC decided that it would be best to study the whole situation in order to protect the rights and welfare of Village B residents, while not having to sacrifice the improvement of broadcast services to be rendered by the rehabilitation of the DZUP tower.

In cooperation with Anakbayan, the USC Community Rights and Welfare committee (USC CRAW) held regular meetings with Village B residents to consult them and to offer any help that the USC can provide. Meanwhile, the USC also submitted a letter last April 16, 2008, addressed to Prof. Rose Feliciano of the Broadcast Communication Department of the College of Mass Communication requesting for pertinent documents regarding the DZUP project. In the letter, the USC stated the reasons for such request:

We are humbly requesting your kind office for copies of pertinent documents relating to the project, so that we may study carefully the context, the facts, and the justifications for its various implementations, and that we may fairly dispense to our constituents and to the university community our stand and position with regards to the issue, and the action that we shall be taking.

A few days after, when the USC and the CMC Student Council (CMC SC) followed up on the status of the request, the involvement of these student institutions in community affairs was questioned. Nevertheless, we asserted that these community issues are also students’ concerns, and therefore, demand action from the USC and CMC SC.

Last April 28, 2008, a dialogue between the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs with the CMC administration and Village B residents, with the USC, College of Arts & Letters Student Council (CAL SC), CMC SC, and All-UP Workers Union transpired with regards to the demolition of Village B to give way for the installment of a new DZUP transmitter.

In the course of the dialogue, the student councils, in order to effectively study the situation and dispense a fair and justified action thereafter, requested a moratorium on the demolition and further asserted for copies of pertinent documents relating to the project. Beforehand, there were already licensed engineers, who volunteered to take part in the study and were already waiting for the copies of these documents.

The request for this documents, however, was turned down. According to the administration, the refusal was due to the reason that such documents are too detailed and technical for the student representatives to acquire and understand.

We would like to express our utter disappointment at this rejection. The matters on hand are matters of interest to the UP community: from the students of CMC, to the residents of Village B, and other similar sectors in our campus facing similar situations and challenges. As the official student representative body, the USC would like to assert its right to information with regards to matters that concern our constituents and the university community. Such documents, as such related to transactions and issues within the premiere State University, must be considered public documents, which should be available to the public for critical scrutiny. Thus, we reiterate our demand for the documents pertaining to the demolition of Village B and the installment of the new DZUP transmitter.

Furthermore, we would also like to reiterate that the USC firmly stands in its principle of giving service and representation to the marginalized sectors of the UP community. We recognize that our university is not an institution exclusively academic. The different sectors are components of our everyday activities in our campus, and therefore, it is important to conscienticize ourselves in their real situations and be integrated with their present concerns. In the present condition where these sectors lack adequate representation to policy and decision-making bodies of our university, the USC pledges to be a student institution that will uphold their democratic rights, alongside of the students’.

We hope that the different offices in our campus find these assertions a move to help in the establishment of a more democratic governance in our university. Let us all work hand together in the pursuit of the interests of our constituents, not as contending sectors, but as one whole UP community.

Respectfully Yours,
University Student Council - UP Diliman

USC & Dorm Councils to Push for Collective Campaigns

The Students Rights and Welfare Committee (STRAW), under Councilor Jaqueline Eroles, held a preliminary consultation with the Dormitory and House councils last April 23, 2008 at the USC office. The activity aims to discuss with the councils and unite in a plan of action regarding the New Dormitory Admissions Policy implemented in UP Diliman last year. It also became a venue for dorm councils to voice out other concerns such as deteriorating facilities, poor services, proposed dormitory fees, and the new proposed rules binding to all residence halls in UP Diliman.

Common concerns raised regarding the new admission policy was the inefficiency of the whole process. Since applications are already made centralized through the Office of Student Housing (OSH), it resulted to certain inconveniences on the part of the students and staff. There were cases where some applicants were accepted in 3 dorms in which they did not apply for. Some male applicants were also approved for all-female dormitories. Another obvious inconvenience, according to the residents, was the excessively delayed release of application results resulting from the small number of staff in the OSH who had to review thousands of applications every semester. These problems were not encountered during the time when applications were decentralized.

Several recommendations and resolutions were agreed upon during the meeting. The USC and the house councils shall collectively campaign for:

1. The reinstatement of the powers of the dorm managers in admissions. A regulatory body can be established to fight corruption, irregularities and abuse, instead of centralized power vested in the OSH.

2. The review of pointing system in admissions and the transparency of results.

3. Dorm managers to have the power in approving activities. It would be more efficient and it offers a more sound decision than when the OSH does the approval.

4. The recognition that the House Councils are legitimate representatives of residents which are eligible in forwarding the concerns and campaigns of dorm residents.

5. The revival and strengthening of the Alliance of Concerned Dormitories

6. The transparency in processes–consultations should be done when new policies, fee increases and impositions are to be implemented.

7. OSH should be concerned in improving facilities and alleviating the resources of dormitories. It does not necessarily have to burden itself with applications every semester

These recommendations will be presented and lobbied at the Office of Student Housing this summer. Meanwhile, the USC STRAW Committee will further its study and investigation on the New Dorm Admissions Policy, including the Proposed Rules Governing Residence Halls in UP. There will be constant coordination with House Councils and Dorm residents, through dorm tours and consultations, to further ground these recommendations on concrete bases.

Manifesto Against 30 CMC Lab Fee Hikes

Below is a manifesto petition being circulated in the College of Mass Communication (CMC) by the CMC Student Council and the Student Alliance of the Advancement of Democratic Rights - UP CMC (STAND-UP CMC) with regards to the new laboratory fee hikes to be implemented in the college.

We, students of the College of Mass Communication, strongly condemn the railroading of the laboratory fee hikes in 10 Broadcast Communication subjects and 4 Broadcast Journalism subjects last March 12, and oppose similar impending hikes in at least 23 Film subjects. We take these recent moves as an assault to the principle of democratic consultation of the studentry and a clear indication of the commercialization route that our university is currently taking.

The proposed 16 new courses under the Broadcast Communication program also brought with it a fresh batch of laboratory fees ranging from P200 up to P1,000. As for the film courses, the proposed hikes during the first consultation last March 28 include the laboratory fees of both lecture classes (from P200 to P1,200) and production classes (from P800 to P3,200).

We stand firm and united against these anti-student policies that further render quality education as inaccessible, as this recent maneuver will set the trend in other degree programs in the college.

We also question the procedures and conditions which the approval of lab fees in Broadcast Communication subjects have undergone, and warn future tricks of a more scathing dissent from the broad number of uninformed or ill-informed students.

Rather than subscribe to the faulty logic of better facilities from greater lab fees, we remain steadfast in preserving democratic access to such mass media courses and in upholding the interest of the broad number of financially underprivileged students who will be severely hit by such increases.

The need to upgrade and replace some of the existing equipment and facilities in the college is unquestionable. However, we do not see the laboratory fee hikes as the panacea to the long-standing problem of the college in meeting the capital needs of equipment-intensive courses. Instead, we see the hikes as a counter-productive measure that will seriously limit the cultivation of skills of the broadest number of students, since costs always impose limits. This is a glaring truth especially in the context of worsening living conditions in the country.

In the interest of the Iskolar ng Bayan suffering under the harsh economic conditions engendered by the disregard of the Arroyo regime for the basic rights and needs of the people, we are determined to take effective steps to halt the impending lab fee hikes and to boldly assert that the new laboratory fee hikes in Broadcast Communication was railroaded. We persist in our call for greater state subsidy and demand the re-channeling of the people’s funds from widespread corruption to social services such as education.

No to Lab Fee Hikes!
No to Commercialization of Education!

« Previous Page