[Blog] “Prof” Lolong as the lapdog of stupid CHED: The Betrayal of a soulless creature and a uselessness of a good for nothing government agency. By Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

“Prof” Lolong as the lapdog of stupid CHED: The Betrayal of a soulless creature and a uselessness of a good for nothing government agency
By Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

I refer to Dr. Lisandro “Leloy” Claudio’s “CHED is not targeting Filipino language instruction”, Rappler, June 19th with regard to the raging controversy spawned by CHED’s Memorandum 20 series of 2013.

Mario De Vega

According to Leloy’s central baseless charge: the “emotionally-charged, ill-informed nationalist polemics about the national language move us away from more productive debates.”

Question:

When he talks about more productive debates, what is he referring to? His rubbish and good for nothing essay?

For the benefit of the people of this land, let us dissect bit by bit the garbage article of this character which in the view of this author, without the slightest degree of emotion is a creature without a soul or identity.

This is his opening statement:

“The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has recently received a lot of flak from teachers and activists for Memorandum (CMO) No. 20, series of 2013 – a document that outlines the new General Education (GE) for colleges and universities.

“Unfortunately, reporters and pundits have reduced this 22-page memo into a convenient sound bite. They claim it removes the mandatory teaching of Filipino/Tagalog from tertiary level curricula. Because of this simplification, people have been led to believe that the CHED has put the national language in danger. It has not.”

Commentaries:

Who the fuck is the one who is engaged in simplification?

When the intended victim, those professors who shall be affected by the stupid memo asked the CHED for clarification, what the hell shall happen to them, that good for nothing government agency told them something to this effect: “no worries, you may be out in college but you can teach in high school”.

Such a rubbish pronouncement!

Is it that easy?

To his assurance that the national language was not put into danger, then why killed or abolished the Filipino subjects in Higher Education?

Do I have to remind this so-called pol-sci “prof” the provisions of Article XIV, Sections 6 to 9 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that clearly stipulated that the national language of this republic is Filipino?

The same constitutional provision also stated that it is the duty of the government to develop and to cultivate the said language.

Is this their way of developing and cultivating the national language? That is by killing and abolishing those subjects being taught in colleges and universities all over the archipelago?

Wow!

Then, this creatures’ follow up is this:

“Let’s see what the document has to say, and consider how educational institutions can implement it.

“The memo, with the subject “General Education Curriculum: Holistic Understandings, Intellectual and Civic Competencies,” is not primarily a text about language instruction. Rather, it presents the outline of a new GE curriculum, more advanced and more interdisciplinary than ones currently in place. For instance, it mandates the teaching of courses like “The Contemporary World,” “Ethics,” and “Understanding the Self,” which depart from the discipline-based courses we have now (disclosure: I am helping design one of the CHED GE courses). Instead of, say, taking a basic Psychology class, a student will instead take the course on the “self,” which would be taught through various perspectives and disciplines. At Ateneo de Manila, we envision the course to be team-taught by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and political scientists.”

Commentaries:

That so-called Ched prof, stated that: “Let’s see what the document has to say, and consider how educational institutions can implement it.”

Question:

Nowhere in his article does the 22 pages memo was highlighted! So, when he says that “let’s see what the document has to say”, what the hell is he trying to say? When he and the document that he says that he claims to say something does not say anything?

Bloody hell! This reminds me of the lyrics from a song: “you say it all, when you say nothing at all”. Bwahahahahahaha!

If “the memo, with the subject “General Education Curriculum: Holistic Understandings, Intellectual and Civic Competencies,” is not primarily a text about language instruction”, then what the hell is the issue with regard to the issue or question of language?

Is this creature saying that the bloody memo under consideration is but a mere outline of a new GE curriculum?

I do not think so! There is more to that! It is my firm view that the said memo has a sinister objective and dark aim and that is to obliterate eventually the Filipino language to the prejudice of the people and the nation!

This guy, without first settling the issue on the question of the dispute on language even claimed that the new GE curriculum is “more advanced and more interdisciplinary than ones currently in place.”

Question:

I am heavily wondering, what is the basis of his assumption that it is more advanced and more interdisciplinary?

It is because you massacred and reduced the GE subjects from 60 to 36 units, does it makes your curriculum more advanced and more interdisciplinary?

I do not think so! I never believe in the length of the study, but in the depth and breadth of the endeavor! The government can even make the High school education up to ten years, but as long as the pressing problems being confronted by the whole educational system is there — that would be in vain and incontestably useless and worthless!

Sad but true!

Or, is it because, as you yourself said: a student who is taking a basic Psychology class “will instead take the course on the “self,” which would be taught through various perspectives and disciplines.”

That is good and laudable, but how can you execute or implement that goal?

Where can you hire a professor who can teach the concept of the “Self” on its political sphere, its philosophical dimension, its economic aspect, sexual part, spiritual area, psychological view and military angle?

Are you going to teach the concept or the idea or the term “Self” in all the spectrum of the different branches of knowledge in one course in one sitting?

Holy cow!

This creature also bragged that at the Arteneo de Manila, “we envision the course to be team-taught by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and political scientists.”

Question:

Do you also include there the Sikolohiyang Filipino perspective?

Then, this prof stated that:

“As you can see, these courses are advanced. The reason why colleges can now teach these courses is a function of the K-12 adding two more years to the basic education curriculum. Because of this, many of the courses that used to be taught in college will now be taught in high school. These include courses on languages.”

Commentaries:

This portion of that creature’s article in my view is one of the main problems.

It is clear from the foregoing that he and his CHED are the only creatures who see the aims of their memo as advanced.

Again, how the hell could their courses be advanced when in truth and in fact their memo did not have a comprehensive and contingency plan that will address the effects of their programs, such as the: Why it is that “many of the courses that used to be taught in college will now be taught in high school”?

I am inviting the attention of the public to the Philippine Daily Inquirer reports, “P29B not enough, say teachers” and “House urged to probe dropping of Filipino as a college subject”, both dated June 25th.

The first report deals with the certainty being faced by those teachers who will be affected by this move, while the second pertains to the fear and apprehension of the various stakeholders with regard to this act of the CHED!

Here’s is prof’s “rationalization” with regard to the said bloody memo:

“CHED’s memo cannot be understood outside the context of K-12. If we are scaling back language instruction in college, it is simply because we are intensifying language instruction in basic education. Instead of a first year of college where a student takes Filipino/Tagalog units, he/she will have two more years of basic education, which will allow him/her more time to study Filipino/Tagalog. The net effect is, in fact, an increase in time and resources devoted to the study of the national language.”

Commentaries:

Whether the bloody CHED memo can be understand or understood inside or outside of the context of K-12 is immaterial and irrelevant and only a stupid soulless freak like this idiot will even cite that, because that is a completely non-issue to this whole raging controversy.

For the benefit of our people and so as this moron, the main problem and the central issue with regard to this matter that led to the national debate is: WHY THE HELL THAT FUCKING CHED MEMO HAS TO KILLED FILIPINO AS A SUBJECT AT THE HIGHER LEVEL OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION?

Second main issue: WHAT THE HELL WILL HAPPEN TO ALL THOSE PROFESSORS, ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT ARE TEACHING THE SAME, UPON THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS SUPER STUPID memo?

How could there be “an increase in time and resources devoted to the study of the national language” when you and your bastard CHED has effectively killed Filipino as a subject and as a discipline?

I have no issue with them, “intensifying language instruction in basic education”, but the central and primordial question there is: why the fuck you are not doing or supporting the same tack when it comes to higher education?

“As you may have already gleaned, the CHED memo does not unfairly target Filipino/Tagalog. All language instruction will be brought down to basic education, including English reading, speaking, and composition. In asking the CHED to have mandatory Filipino language instruction in the college curriculum, advocates are, in effect, calling for the outright privileging of Tagalog over English. None of them advocate returning both Tagalog and English instruction.”

Commentaries:

This prof stated that, “as you have already gleaned”, gleaned what? Ah, that the “CHED memo does not unfairly target Filipino/Tagalog”?

Question:

If the said bastard memo did not unfairly target the national language, does it mean that it does targeted the same fairly? Then, how fair is the way it targeted the national language?

Wow! What a stupid play of words or worst, idiotic using of words! I am wondering: is this creature truly a prof?

On the question of the privilege on language

No one among the oppositors, objectors and all those people who disagrees with the stupid CHED memo has called for the privileging of Tagalogs over English.

That charge or claim of this so-called prof is not only malicious, but undeniably misplaced and a complete lie!

What the opposition simply asked is, again: WHY KILL AND ABOLISH THE FILIPINO SUBJECTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

Where the hell does that issue of the privilege come from?

Answer: only from the impertinent and malicious mind of this so-called prof, who is an “informed” ‘nationalist’ and emotionally stable freak!

What a shame!!!

“Most pundits have also been concerned about Filipino teachers possibly losing their jobs, while neglecting the fact that English teachers face a similar dilemma. But will Filipino teachers really lose their jobs? Not necessarily.”

Commentaries:

To that phrase what “possibly losing their jobs” this creature is talking about? It is not a mere possibility, but indeed an impending reality, ironically based on the stupid CHED memo this guy is defending!

I wonder, what this creature means when he says that those Filipino teachers who will be affected by the implementation of the said bastard memo will not necessarily lose their jobs? Is he reading the papers? Did he truly read the 22 page memo that he is talking about?

My humble suggestion to this so-called “prof” is to attend the hearing of the House of Representatives higher education committee, in order for him to realize the truth and perhaps, he may come to his senses (that is, if he has one)!

Nonetheless, assuming for the sake of the argument, if one can construe it as one that those teachers will not necessarily lose their jobs, the question there is: does it follows that they might or that they may?

Let us listen to his “explanation”:

“Losing a course to teach is not tantamount to losing your job. Teachers teach more than one course. For example, under the new CHED GE, I will no longer be able to teach my beloved Philippine politics course, but this doesn’t mean I’ll be out of a job. Between now and 2016, I am developing Ateneo’s version of the CHED course on the contemporary world. Similarly, teachers who used to teach Filipino language may train themselves to teach the course called “Art Appreciation,” which would benefit from scholars familiar with Filipino literature and aesthetics. The rhetorical and compositional skills of Filipino teachers would also be useful for the course called “Purposive Communication/Malayuning Komunikasyon,” which, like all the other GE courses, may be taught in Tagalog. Will this retraining take time, effort, and money? Sure. The question is if it’s worth it.”

Commentaries:

I agree with so-called prof that “losing a course is not tantamount to losing your job”, but the question there is: why you and your CHED and the bloody government are fucking my course?

To the assertion that “teachers teach more than one course”, yes, perhaps that will apply to the majority of teachers; but how about the minority? Henceforth, the question there is: how about those teachers who only teach a single course? What the hell will happen to them?

Further, may I know what this guy meant by a course? Can a Political Science professor teach mathematics, physics, biology, and P.E.?

Another question: What will happen to a professor who has a Doctorate in Filipino, can he or she teach another subject, let say, Introduction to Political Science with Governance and Philippine Constitution? That teacher or professor is an authority when it comes to teaching the simuno and panaguri, pandiwa and pang-uri, but can he or she teach and discuss comprehensively the distinction and the differences between the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency from that of the Principle of the Separation of Powers to that of the Rule on Checks and Balance?????

Some would say, yes they can! But, can those “super profs” teach those subjects thoroughly, in-depth and with authority? Can they truly teach those subjects with justice?

I agree that a Social Science professor can teach a variety of subjects, but how about those professors who only mastered the different Filipino courses/subjects?

The “solution” or suggestion of training, retraining, etc. is questionable, to say the least!

Question:

Who will educate the educator? Who will teach the teachers? Who will train and retrain the trainees?

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Consider the scenario proposes by this “character”:

“…teachers who used to teach Filipino language may train themselves to teach the course called “Art Appreciation,” which would benefit from scholars familiar with Filipino literature and aesthetics. The rhetorical and compositional skills of Filipino teachers would also be useful for the course called “Purposive Communication/Malayuning Komunikasyon,” which, like all the other GE courses, may be taught in Tagalog.”

Commentaries:

Jesus, Joseph and Mary! Holy cow! What the fuck is this? What the hell is this?

So, a Filipino teacher who devoted himself/herself to the perfection and mastery of his/her subject “may train themselves with the course called “Art Appreciation””! I doubt if those Filipino teachers will appreciate that!

Imagine a Filipino professor who has a Degree in Filipino, a Master and PhD on the said course, that in order for him or her not to lose his or her job, he or she needs to train and/or retrain and then teach the subject Arts Appreciation?

What the fuck happened to the so-called field of specialization and area of expertise? How about that so-called vertical articulation thing?

So that bastard CHED memo wants to make some professors as master of all, jack of all trade?
That’s a big pile of shit!

I’m wondering, will the time come also that a Philosophy or Sociology or Anthropology or Political Science professor will need to have training in order for them to teach vulcanizing, carpentry, animal-husbandry, etc?

Again, the question: who will train who?

The bastard CHED memo without the slightest iota of doubt is bastardizing not only the national language, but undeniably demeaning the status and condition of the Filipino teachers and professors who are teaching the Filipino subjects!

My position on this matter is clear cut: what we need to do is to further study, develop and cultivate the national language, not to kill and/or abolish it!

To quote the full exposition from one commentator, gyverthegreat (taken from his comments on the article of “prof”):

“The teaching of collegiate Filipino does not revolve around grammar, syntax and tenses. A simple perusal of the course offerings of UP KAL for instance would tell us that indeed Filipino is a not a mere language course. Filipino is a literature and culture course. For instance, would you learn about Pop Culture literature in elementary and high school? The answer is no since literature studies in elementary and high school comprise of selected works such as Ibong Adarna, Florante at Laura, NMT and EF and if you are lucky or still remember Banaag at Sikat or at least a summary of it.

“Collegiate level Filipino courses expose the ordinary Filipino college student to other writings which would have been deemed improper study for a child or adolescent – stages of growth where censorship is greater. For example, in UP, we have Pan Pil 19 where literature is tackled in the context of sexuality and gender. Have you ever wondered why it is deemed more taboo to say ti** or p*k* in Filipino than say p*nis or v*g*na? (Forgive the auto-censorship because Rappler may refuse to post this). These things and much more are addressed in collegiate Filipino. Another example is Pan Pil 40 where works from 1946 to present are discussed. Do you think that Filipino literature was the same in structure and/or narrative pre-war and post-war? Do you not think that such questions and topics are legitimate areas of study that we are better off as a society to address them by mandatorily teaching them to college students?

“We enter college with a different (and a hopefully more mature) mindset than say elementary or high school. Teaching Filipino in the collegiate level matches that mature state of mind and addresses burgeoning questions that we may not have thought of or were too afraid to ask when we were in elementary and high school.

“This is why people easily mistake and misapprehend the value of college-level Filipino courses. We think teaching Filipino can be foregone because to most of us it is just a language course. On the contrary, it is in fact a valid, legitimate, important, and critical course that should be taught from elementary to college.”

On the Question of Identity

I am inviting the attention of the public to refer to my article, “Ang CHED memorandum Blg. 20 bilang akto ng Pagtataksil sa Bansa at hakbang ng Pagpatay sa Kaluluwa ng mga Mamamayang Pilipino”, published by the Human Rights Online Philippines, June 22nd to see my discussion on the relation and importance of the national language to that of the identity and soul of the nation.

To quote the comments of Ms. Elena Malgapo-Domingo from Rappler’s, “Should Filipino be scrapped from the college curriculum? Is Filipino a subject only for K-12 and below? We ask netizens”, June 28th:

“Wow. What’s up with the very vocal abhorrence for the teaching and learning of Filipino/ Pilipino. Have we really lost sense of our own identity? Ganito na ba talaga ang pagtrato natin sa sariling atin. Our heroes must be rolling in their graves right now. Roots, people, roots. Respeto naman para sa kultura at pambansang pagkakakilanlan, sa mga ninunong nagtaguyod ng bansa natin. To look at the problem this way is to disgrace our forefathers. Identity plays a crucial role in one’s placement in this globalization thing. I hate the word, the stigma attached to it, but honestly, we can never ever be globally competitive if we can’t even rise as a nation.

“This kind of attitude is doing disservice to our ancestors. This, clearly, is one of the reasons why growth continues to be stifled in our country. Wala tayong pagpapahalaga sa ating pinagmulan.”

The Propriety and Legality of the said memo

I joined the various stakeholders, the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino and the Tanggol Wika Coalition to question before the Supreme Court the constitutionality and morality of the stupid and bastard memo issued by CHED!

It is my firm view that the Highest Court of this land will strike down that memo for being unconstitutional, immoral and improper for being a traitor not only to the Constitution but most importantly to our History, to our Ancestors and Heroes and to the whole nation!

In my conclusion, let me quote the illustrious words of wisdom of a great Filipino writer:

“Ang kaisipan ay hindi maihihiwalay sa wika. Kapag ang kaalaman ng wika ay hindi sapat, ang pag-iisip ay pigil, may hadlang at hindi makadaloy nang maayos. Kapag ang isang tao ay nanghihiram ng isang wikang banyaga sa kanya, sa pagpapahayag ng kanyang sarili sa paano’t paano man, ang bahagi ng kanyang isipan ay hiram din at lubhang mahalaga at kulang ang sangkap ng kanyang individualidad o kakanyahan ay nawawala. Hindi mapag-aalinlangan ang paglalahong pagkalinangang ito ay bunga ng matagal at patuloy na kapabayaan sa mga wikaing pamparupok na siyang likas na paraan ng pagpapahayag ng katutubong kalinangan.”
Genoveva Edroza-Matute, “Walo at Kalahating Dekada ng Isang Buhay”

DOWN WITH ched memo 22!
Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

Philosophy and Social Science lecturer
Polytechnic University of the Philippines and Unibersidad de Manila

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s