Last February 15, TomasinoWeb posted photos of University of Santo Tomas (UST) students wearing their Type B uniform on social media to observe its official implementation for the current academic year. One of the photos includes two students from the College of Information and Computing Sciences (CICS) seen entering a 7-Eleven convenience store.
At first glance, the resemblance of the Type B uniforms of the students to those of the said convenience store is noticeable. The specific photo gained reactions from social media users and appeared to have caused “public ridicule” which the UST Office for Student Affairs (OSA) responded to by ordering its takedown and instructing TomasinoWeb to issue an apology.
Ordering the takedown of the said photo, in one way or another, indirectly reflects the school administration’s view toward convenience store employees. Nothing from the photo signifies disrespect toward the students, the university, or anyone who may be involved.
The photo was deleted from TomWeb’s post the following day, although its president, Jan Carlo Zamora, believes its ordered deletion is unjustified. Zamora said that this is only to avoid further consequences that may affect the organization.
An excerpt from their apology statement reads, “The organization was told that the photo has become a source of public ridicule toward CICS students, their College, and the University as a whole due to the supposed association of the CICS Type B uniform with the convenience store’s employee uniforms.”
Now, the question is, what is wrong with being associated with convenience store employees who are only doing their jobs? Why is the association of uniforms something that “tarnishes” the image of anyone and anything? Why is it seen as something that “ridicules” to the point that it affects the whole school? To this end, we can only blame the views, rules, and supposed norms of certain people.
Neither the UST OSA nor the CICS informed TomWeb’s president of what provisions were violated in the student handbook because of the photo posted on social media. Zamora, as a matter of fact, was even threatened to witness TomasinoWeb’s end during his term.
It is not, by any means, correct to order a takedown of a media post without justifiable reasons and threaten anyone to submit to their orders. A seemingly minuscule issue caused a huge stir because it reflects what lengths an administration can go to “protect an image.” If they can order takedowns for matters like this, they will surely do so for bigger ones that are seen as something that tarnishes their institution.
Days after the takedown of the photo, TomWeb’s publication adviser Leo Laparan resigned from his position on February 19, saying that he sees his position as “irrelevant” because of what occurred, emphasizing that there is nothing wrong with the photo. And because TomWeb has lost its adviser—according to UST’s existing policies—they are not allowed to publish any new social media posts until there is a replacement for Laparan, since they are not an “official” student publication under the institution’s rules. But this rule itself goes against the Campus Journalism Act of 1991 which states that the need for an adviser is not necessary for student publications in universities.
However, as the issue spread through the internet, UST OSA remained silent. Days passed but the university itself did not release any official statement yet addressing the matter amid protests by various progressive student groups for its accountability.
The halt of operations of the organization further emphasizes the control the institution has over the student-journalists. If more student-journalists speak up, would there be more instances of them being silenced, reprimanded, and threatened?
Such incidents can be seen as a manifestation of class struggle, where those in power seek to protect their interests at the expense of the voices of the students. Most certainly, this is not the first time an organization or a student-journalist was ordered around and restricted to exercise their right to press freedom.
In a country where the press is constantly being controlled and oppressed, in what way would it be helpful to do the same to campus journalists who, in the first place, never intended to harm anyone? A media organization’s press freedom reflects those of the whole school and of every student-journalist in the country who only intends to bring information and give light to issues.
Is there an extent to which media censorship is acceptable? How much can an institution limit press freedom to protect its supposed image? What rules should we abide by and what norms should be followed?
The answer? There is no acceptable extent to which media censorship is acceptable. To address the issue without trampling the freedom of the press, an open dialogue should be facilitated among the university administration, TomasinoWeb, and other student publications. There should not be any more threats and pressure that force an action without proper justification.
Moreover, there must be a review of university policies concerning student publications to ensure their alignment with legal provisions like the Campus Journalism Act. In doing so, concerns will be properly addressed without prejudice, and an environment that respects the rights and responsibilities of student-journalists will be fostered. If we never allow past standards to be rectified, we will forever lose the battle of upholding press freedom.
The struggle for press freedom intertwines with questions of authority, representation, and the right to challenge prevailing norms. Long-standing elitist, conservative views, and harmful norms should not be upheld most importantly if it further damages people's right to know what is happening.
Article: Naiah Nicole Mendoza
Cartoon: Kurt Aguilar Mendez
Comments