An Appeal to UP President Roman and the BOR to Grant Prof. Sarah Raymundo Tenure

WE, FACULTY MEMBERS, ADMINISTRATIVE staff, REPS, students and concerned individuals, appeal to University of the Philippines (U.P.) President Emerlinda Roman and the Board of Regents (BOR) to grant Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo the tenure she truly deserves.

On October 28, 2009, U.P. Diliman Chancellor Sergio Cao ruled against Prof. Raymundo’s appeal for tenure. This decision, which came after almost a year since Prof. Raymundo first appealed to his office in November 2008, is flawed and unjust. We raise the following major points against Chancellor Cao’s decision to deny Prof. Raymundo’s tenure:

A.) PROFESSOR RAYMUNDO HAS FULLY SATISFIED ALL THE ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR TENURE:
1. The Sociology Department and the College Executive Board of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP) never, at any instance, questioned Prof. Raymundo’s academic excellence in the longstanding issue of her tenure appeal.
2. The majority of Prof. Raymundo’s tenured colleagues, as stated in their original justification for recommending her tenure, acknowledge her "excellent quality of mind," "expansive intellectual interest," "competence in current and emerging academic discourses (as) reflected in her teaching" and "capability to engage in sustained scholarship."
3. Prof. Raymundo exceeded the minimum tenure requirements set by her department and college. Thus, it puzzles us why the Chancellor applied the tenure requirements of the College of Science (CS) to Prof. Raymundo, a CSSP faculty member; unless the Chancellor undermines the tenure requirements of CSSP and other non-CS units.

B.) PROFESSOR RAYMUNDO’S DENIAL OF TENURE IS POLITICAL PERSECUTION IN THE GUISE OF ACADEMIC EVALUATION:
1. Testimonies detailing alleged instances of Prof. Raymundo's "breach of professional ethics" or "dishonesty" are all personal opinions of three or four individuals coming from the Sociology Department. These "facts" have neither been established by consensus nor adequately supported by any investigation undertaken by the Department itself.
2. In the minority report dated October 17, 2008 sent to Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (VCAA) Lorna Paredes, three tenured faculty members (Profs. Marcia Fernandez, Clarissa Rubio and Marie Arguillas) of the Sociology Department strongly opposed to Prof. Raymundo's tenure presented their own "facts" and a (contentious) "interpretation of a poem" which merely represented their own opinions and not that of the Department itself. One issue hurled at Prof. Raymundo is her alleged failure to uphold the truth by not clarifying that Karen Empeno had an AWOL status at the time of her abduction during a University Council (UC) meeting in 2006.
3. However, during the same UC meeting, presiding officer Chancellor Cao affirmed Karen’s status as a student of the university, despite her AWOL status.
4. The Fernandez-Rubio-Arguillas minority report finally confirms that Prof. Raymundo is being denied tenure based entirely on her progressive positions, not on academic merits. Chancellor Cao skirts the real issue of Prof. Raymundo’s tenure struggle by turning Prof. Raymundo’s case of political persecution into a matter of academic, including ethical, requirements.

C.) PROFESSOR RAYMUNDO’S TENURE CASE WAS NOT GRANTED FAIR AND DUE PROCESS:
1. Chancellor Cao ignored Prof. Raymundo’s repeated appeals that the reasons behind the Sociology Department’s non-recommendation of tenure be made known to her.
2. Regardless of the number of times she met with the tenured faculty, Prof. Raymundo has never been given the opportunity to answer the allegations against her. The specific allegations and the supposed evidences supporting these have never been formally presented to her by any accusing party. This flatly violates her right to due process. Prof. Raymundo was never able to defend herself in writing nor had the chance to consult with a lawyer regarding the allegations raised against her.
3. Prof. Walden Bello in his January 12, 2009 letter of support to Prof. Raymundo wrote that, "The conflation of the tenure process with a disciplinary process - especially one that has not reached any conclusion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant - is wrong and constitutes a dangerous precedent that would destroy the academic objectivity that is central to the tenure process."

D.) CHANCELLOR CAO UPHELD SOCIOLOGY DEPARTMENT CHAIR RANDY DAVID’S QUESTIONABLE 2/3 DEPARTMENTAL RULE FOR TENURE:
1. Prof. Randy David insisted that a so-called 2/3 rule be upheld in the second voting by the tenured faculty, which resulted in votes of 5 for, 4 against, 1 abstain, and 1 waiver of tenure. But this rule was not upheld in the first voting of which resulted in Prof. Raymundo’s favor (7 for, 3 against).
2. The so-called rule was never raised in any previous voting or correspondence. It was only invoked by Prof. David in a meeting on June 16, 2009 with Chancellor Cao and VCAA Paredes.

E.) CHANCELLOR CAO DID NOT GIVE DUE ATTENTION TO ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS:
1. Chancellor Cao did not cite Prof. Walden Bello’s letter of support affirming Prof. Raymundo’s academic excellence.
2. The chancellor also misused a paragraph from Prof. Laura Samson’s letter, which he cited to highlight dissent in the department, even though Prof. Samson’s concluding statement actually favored Prof. Raymundo.

Chancellor Cao’s skewed, arbitrary, and unjust decision-making which is tantamount to abuse of authority has no place in a university that stands for academic freedom and service to the people. We call for the immediate reversal of Chancellor Cao’s decision to deny Prof. Raymundo’s tenure.

Thus, we reiterate our appeal to Pres. Roman and the BOR to grant Prof. Sarah Raymundo the tenure she truly deserves.