gabe ulanday,
Opinion: Your Form of Expression, Your Own Discretion
credits: Addie Sajise
As students of the University of the Philippines Integrated School (UPIS), we value our freedom so much that when certain agents and institutions attempt to limit it, one can count on our zealous protests against such restrictions. This is because even as early as the third grade, we are taught the value of liberty, and of the injustices in our nation's history, where freedom of expression and freedom of speech were violently restricted and conformity was dictated by various authoritarian, colonial, and postcolonial regimes.
While not so sinister and violent as the mentioned regimes, a not-so authoritarian regime is seen by some UPIS students to be allegedly, unjustly encouraging its agents to dictate conformity towards UPIS students—the school administration.
Several students from Batch 2020 have raised concerns about them being reprimanded by teachers and staff on dress code violations not mentioned in the UPIS Student Handbook. Some of these students, who preferred anonymity, described their respective encounters; as follows: One student claims that, for wearing earrings, he had been accosted by a teacher more than three separate times. Each time, he was told to remove his earrings as “they were not part of the school uniform.” Another student states that she was, once or twice, spoken to by a teacher and told her hair color was against the rules.
Do teachers have the authority to reprimand students on violations not stated in the handbook? According to Assistant Principal for Administration, Prof. Ma. Portia Y. Dimabuyu, of the UPIS administration, yes. The rules in the student handbook are apparently not the only set of rules students are required to follow. There are lex non scripta, or unwritten laws that students are expected to know and obey.
In connection to this, within their classroom, teachers are free to enact supplementary rules and regulations, and to punish within reason transgressions of these said rules. Even outside classrooms, teachers are authorized to call out what they see to be violations of the unwritten law.
This raises the question: if these unwritten rules are so important, then why are they not in the student handbook? Regarding the rules on hair dye and earrings, Prof. Dimabuyu said that these were indeed present in the official school rules, but for reasons she is not aware of, were removed some time before her term.
If the rules were indeed removed, then why are they still enforced? She added that since it is not stated in the official school rules and regulations, these unwritten rules are technically not law per se. Consequently, the enforcement is not uniform among teachers and it is up to the teacher's own discretion whether or not students are to obey these rules.
How then is one even supposed to know these unwritten rules if they are, well, unwritten? Prof. Dimabuyu says follow societal norms. Whether we like it or not, we live in a society that has its own expectations on how one must act and dress and we are required to follow these norms.
When asked why these unwritten rules are still unwritten, Prof. Dimabuyu said that just recently she announced to the school that the additional dress code requirements will be enforced. Despite this, she claims the number of those who violate these dress code policies increased instead of decreased.
If there is fear that officially acknowledging the regulations would influence some to purposely violate them, then what is stopping the application of the punishment? Is that not the purpose of punishment, to correct wrong behavior and serve as a deterrent?
Having unwritten rules not uniformly enforced is not the way to promote discipline. If there are to be regulations on what students wear, it is expected that it should be clearly stated in the official school rules and regulations. It is counterproductive to have it any other way. For example, when a student is caught with a violation, they can claim that as it is not explicitly stated in the rules and regulations, there was no violation committed. If it is explicitly stated in the rules and regulations however, what can one do except agree and face the consequences? If it was not stated in the Revised Penal Code that murder is illegal and instead relied on everyone having the same moral code that says “murder is bad and murderers should be punished,” who is to say murder really is prohibited?
In the core of the issue is maintaining social norms. As a fairly conservative country, many Filipinos frown on breaking these. This is especially true of the nature of the prohibition of hair dye, males wearing earrings, and other such unlisted dress code requirements.
However, as stated in a previous article on the issue, times are changing and with it are societal norms: (https://upismc.blogspot.com/2018/09/opinion-school-rules.html?m=1).
Those with a conservative view of what is normal in society understandably will have a difficult time facing this reality; they may never even realize this and insist on following their traditional ways. But this is fine, they are entitled to their own views of society. What is not fine, however, is when they force their views on those who do not share them. As they have their rights, so do those with views opposite theirs.
Until this convoluted issue with the school rules is resolved, students will just have to use their best judgement in what to obey or not. If they choose to visually express themselves in methods some will frown upon, they do it at their own discretion; and so will the teachers who would reprimand them for it. //by Simon Delfinado and Gabe Ulanday
0 comments: