Facing Student Discontent
Recently I came across two articles published in The Bosun—the University of Asia and the Pacific’s (UA&P) official student publication—heavily critical of its new management committee under the leadership of newly-installed UA&P president Atty. John Philip Yeung. I do not yet think myself competent to pass judgement on the substance of these complaints, but I am certain that Management will face many more things like this in the coming months.
However, what I am certain of is that there has been a breakdown of communication between Management and the student body which has allowed for the unfortunate admixture of well-founded concerns and misunderstandings (or sometimes malicious misinterpretations), as evidenced by the hodge-podge of posts in the “freedom wall.” It is clear that this presents a unique challenge for the new direction sought by the new management committee, both in achieving certain PR objectives as well as getting the university’s many stakeholders onboard with its new institutional direction.
At the same time, this provides the university with a unique opportunity. People often say, to the point of it becoming trite, that UA&P’s student population is ‘apathetic.’ I do not think that this is true. The recent fallout surrounding the union, the tuition fee increase, and other happenings and goings-on in the university have definitely caused malcontent among a vocal section of the student population. There are definitely some strong emotions in our midst.
The way forward (in my humble opinion) really consists in finding out ways to constructively channel these latent feelings. While it is necessary to remind young people to consider the pitfalls of criticizing the places they belong to—be it family, school, or work—on social media, this is only one part of the equation. The other thing we need to consider is the fact that many criticisms hurled towards Management, though often exaggerated, do contain something worth reflecting upon seriously.
For instance, in cases where people in authority assert themselves—or speak of the potential natural consequences for certain behaviors—it is natural for younger people to feel “threatened.” This is not the result of ‘malice’ on the part of the authority figures, but on the plain fact that there is a natural imbalance of power which will always be a part of the relationship between students and their superiors, be it teachers or school administrators.
Furthermore, a number of students were understandably upset at Management’s absence during the recent stakeholder consultation regarding the proposed tuition fee increase. Although Management undoubtedly has the right to delegate, and did not act unjustly in doing so, it is also true that people appreciate leaders whom they can discuss things with in a candid, yet professional way. An instructive example for this argument would be Lee Kwan Yew, who successfully balanced his assertive leadership style with his ability to engage in candid, controversial discussions directly with his various stakeholders in an open forum.
The model of Lee Kwan Yew is also particularly relevant given the fact that, unlike previous university administrations, the current management committee is more personality-driven, at least in its public engagements. This further highlights the need for a more human-to-human approach in the way Management engages with students and vice versa. While some would frame this in the language of “accountability,” I would prefer to present this as a prudential consideration for promoting solidarity within the community.
If we were to open up more avenues for students to express their concerns directly to Management—particularly by means of open forums, discussion sessions, and other activities which allow for open yet professional dialogue—we would also be making yet another contribution to the human person’s integral formation, which is part and parcel of the UA&P’s mission. It is precisely because students should avoid talking back to their elders or making careless statements on social media that the University should take the initiative to provide more avenues for students to learn how to make better, more charitable, and constructive criticisms in issues that affect them, whether in private or in public.
This, indeed, can be a valuable teaching moment for all involved. When we engage in dialogue with those who we would normally be tempted to ignore or reject, we also give ourselves an opportunity to go deeper into what we actually stand for, so that we may “always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for [our] hope” (1 Ptr 3,15).
As we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and as we witness the renovations being made on our campus grounds, may we also have a renewed way of engaging each other in the spirit of mutual assistance, in fulfilment of the mission which we monotonously professed on the day of our incorporation. Let this opportunity not be in vain.
