Note: We are publishing in toto the statement of the University of Santo Tomas on the Varsitarian’s editorial:
***
Arguments for and against the controversial Reproductive Health bill have been expressed in various fora including the social media. Since the bill is a highly charged topic, emotions indeed may reach feverish pitch in the healthy exchanges of ideas. The University of Santo Tomas has been steadfastly consistent in its opposition to certain provisions of the bill which are repugnant to the teachings of our Catholic faith. The University thus supports the Varsitarian, its official student publication, in its stand against the RH bill and for that matter any organization united in this regard with the Catholic Church. While it is one with the Varsitarian in this light, the University does not impose its will nor exercise prior restraint on the opinions of the school paper’s writers nor the manner by which they are expressed. Thus, the opinion expressed in the Varsitarian Opinion-Editorial insofar as it supposedly called the pro-RH Bill professors of the Ateneo de Manila University and the De La Salle University as “intellectual pretenders and interlopers” does not bear the University’s imprimatur.
We remain united in Christ with the Ateneo de Manila University, the De La Salle University and the other universities in our mission to promote Catholic education and to form students to become living testaments to the teachings of Christ and the principles we hold sacred—competence, commitment, and compassion.
The University of Santo Tomas, Manila
9 October 2012
So, what now? I understand what you mean, but I am still appalled by those two (yes, two) controversial articles. Think first before lambasting other campuses. Thank you.
Bravo, Varsitarian! Be steadfast.
Padre Damaso es Poncio Pilato también. ¿Qué sigue? La reactivación de la Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición?
Padre Damaso es Poncio Pilato también. ¿Qué sigue? La reactivación de la Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición?
/
K
This is VERY hypocritical. You criticize ADMU and DLSU for allowing their students, staff, and professors to support the RH bill, and generalize the schools’ names and populace. Yet here you are saying the article in the varsitarian does not speak for UST as a whole?
It was your anonymous author who wrote it. Your editor who approved it. Your moderator/s who allowed it. And your publishing and printing offices who produced it. Bear that in mind before attempting to save face, albeit in a poor and ill-thought-of manner.
This is VERY hypocritical. You criticize ADMU and DLSU for allowing their students, staff, and professors to support the RH bill, and generalize the schools’ names and populace. Yet here you are saying the article in the varsitarian does not speak for UST as a whole?
It was your anonymous author who wrote it. Your editor who approved it. Your moderator/s who allowed it. And your publishing and printing offices who produced it. Bear that in mind before attempting to save face, albeit in a poor and ill-thought-of manner.
UST: We have nothing to do with this.
I am a former News Editor and Features Editor and Founding Member of Pintig Ng Diwa: The Official Publication of the PSBA, QC
I would like to share with you this editorial
lifted from The Guidon
The Official Publication of the Ateneo de Manila University
Our duties as student journalists
By The GUIDON on October 9, 2012 in Opinion
In its editorial entitled “RH bill, Ateneo, and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards,” The Varsitarian came out swinging with logical fallacies, factual errors, and distasteful ad hominem attacks against RH bill supporters among the faculty of both Ateneo and La Salle.
Throughout its 84-year history, The Varsitarian has certainly had many moments of brilliance, but this most recent piece is an unfortunate stain on that record.
In reality, though, it is a record that is hardly spotless. Who can forget that November 2008 editorial by the paper branding the 14 Ateneo professors who then came out in support of the RH bill as the “14 Horsemen of the Apocalypse?”
With our conviction that a student newspaper must promote rational dialogue and the fruitful exchange of ideas for the benefit of the larger community, we find The Varsitarian’s willingness to employ a kind of dismissive language that verges on the fanatical as completely unacceptable.
A student publication that is arrogant enough to dismiss the participants of a debate as mere “intellectual pretenders and interlopers!”—complete with an exclamation point—does a disservice to all its readers. It’s as if it only seeks to demean and destroy, without contributing anything of substance to the larger social discourse.
The Varsitarian may be the official student newspaper of a pontifical university, but it is still a student newspaper. The stands that it must make are not exempt from the basic expectations of respect, decency and logical sense—valid demands on any credible publication.
The GUIDON itself has had its fair share of mistakes. Nevertheless, while our respective publications have their own distinct identities, fairness and fidelity to the facts are justifiably demanded from all journalists. Whatever stand The Varsitarian chooses to take on the RH bill or on any contentious topic, it must know that, as with any other media organization, its output will be held to the standards of sound journalism.
Unless The Varsitarian truly believes that its audience is purely uncritical, the paper owes it to that audience to treat them as thinking adults who can distinguish well-reasoned arguments from unsound drivel.
The students of the University of Santo Tomas deserve far better, and the first step The Varsitarian can take is to honestly, sincerely and critically reevaluate itself. Perhaps it is high time for The Varsitarian to point its penchant for impassioned critique unto itself and hopefully establish itself as a publication worthy of its readers’ respect.
Sir Lito, I remember you teaching us that we can be “adversarial without being adversarial.” I wonder if the present crop of Varsitarian writers you handle share the same sentiment about journalism. I was a proud Thomasian and a former UST Journalism Society president, and I held no pretensions toward morality and intellectual supremacy. I wonder what makes SOME Thomasians utter such statements about other schools or even congregations without even asking directly the very source of opinions they go against. And if you must know, I posted some items here meant to clarify, and to my surprise, there was an obvious lack of professionalism among your “campus journalists.” Instead of simply giving a feedback to the posted comment, I noticed your website administrator wrote “We know who you are Bhenjar Toor,” which is not really surprising since my name is easily found in google and I was a student leader myself during my time at the University. Sir Lito, though we may never had the time to really discuss so many topics dear to our hearts and even if you were the UST Journ Soc adviser when I was elected president, I must admit that the few instances we manage to have intellectual discourses are very precious because it is from those moments that the drive to further learn journalism even beyond the walls of my alma mater are lessons that have taught me to recognize that no one, not even religion, holds the eternal truth. Moreover, I guess I was not like many of these students who love to be associated with authority because they cannot stand on their own merits.
I hope that the Varsitarian will be more considerate in their choice of words. It is one thing to strongly voice out our opinion. It is another to insult entire institutions and blaspheme by using the name of saints and God even in a satirical tone. If we do that, given that UST is a pontifical university, then how different is Catholicism from fanatical Islam. Furthermore, if this editorialist tell people to just leave rather than convince them without disregarding Christian love, which is always taught in our Theology classes, becomes a common thing to see. If not, then we cannot fault people for looking elsewhere for salvation since the Catholics have become no different than the Pharisees Christ criticized during his time. The Pharisees share the same faith as that of Christ, yet Christianity became an off shoot of that. Just because we are not convinced, someone will just tell to our face that we should leave? What about conversion? The last time I read the Bible, Christ told those who are heavily burdened to go to him so he could give them rest. Has the Bible been revised and a new gospel – the gospel according to the Varsitarian – been added?
UST is 400 years old, and shares a lot in the history of the Church. I just pray that it is not one with the hypocrisy of many of these clergymen.
I read you have issued an apology and has purportedly considered the editorial as ‘un-Christian.” But I wonder why it was printed in the first place when a Campus Newspaper usually have several advisers? I also wonder what the apology is for if in the first place, this editorial is the official stand of the entire newspaper; hence, have been thoroughly reviewed.
To be honest, I am one of those saddened by this incident. More than anything else, I can only consider that the student writer who came out with this can only have to thank his mentors. After all, we learn our lessons from our professors since they are the ones who mold our minds. And being an educator myself, even if these students can think for themselves, it is not too much to say that they become mirrors of their teachers.
But in this case, I am surprised because I was your former student. And I know that you teach us to practice “adversarial journalism without being adversarial in the language we use in writing to give the people in the story the benefit of the doubt and to clarify matters before coming out with conclusions and assumptions.”
I wish you the best, and I hope the Varsitarian advisers will seriously look into the training of the students, especially in handling online correspondence. They may be students, but being part of a respected campus newspaper requires a certain level of professionalism.
It’s ok to express one-self’s opinion in an editorial but it’s unethical to bash other universities. Express your opinion and never include the opinions of other people. If you have the right to express your own opinion, that means that they also have the right to do so as well.
It’s ok to express one-self’s opinion in an editorial but it’s unethical to bash other universities. Express your opinion and never include the opinions of other people. If you have the right to express your own opinion, that means that they also have the right to do so as well.
Compassion? O Come on!
It seems that by releasing this statement the administration of the school does not want to hold its own student(s) responsible for antagonizing other schools and proclaiming UST’s moral and ethical superiority by putting down other people. It will be no small wonder that the editors of the V will continue this poor excuse of a superiority complex. Too bad, it was a chance for the administration to demonstrate a real Christian conscience by example.
I think that when you outlaw free thinking in an educational institution you limit education. By sticking to one perspective and not considering or teaching other points of view you are doing an injustice to your own students. If you continue on this path, it will also be a reflection on how society views your students – that because they study in a rigid and inflexible environment they must also be rigid and inflexible people. That may be why so many people, including your own alumni, are against the V’s editorial. Maybe the editors assume too much that because they are editors they represent all that is the best of UST. Be careful please. Your intentions may be good but you may have just demonstrated poor character and alienated a lot of good people in the process.
Ohh Please! Too much have been said about the “V” editorial already. SPARE THIS ONE!
UST is not rigid in its teachings. Its just that foundations of learning are strictly imparted from theological perspective. The article may seem to lack the journalism ethics but it surely did draw some attention to people who need to focus on an important and character-changing legislative agenda, the RH Bill.
Much so UST is not inflexible. You must have read the comments, did you? From Alumni to non-Alumni perspectives?
UST’s position is an open-minded position. It did not embrace the whole position of the editorial itself while it did explicitly promotes self-expression, courage and character in the same way that it strengthened its relation with the other universities involved and/or having been castigated by such editorial/s.
Your comment above seems like you certainly would like to put yourself on the editorial writer’s shoe by diminishing the institution of the University of Santo Tomas.