We continue the saga of the University of the Philippines? fight for honor and excellence, and the obstacles that are being put in its way, by no less than its Board of Regents (BOR).

First, a short history: the University Council (UC), composed of faculty members with the minimum rank of assistant professor, allowed a number of students accused of cheating to graduate, without prejudice to the final determination of the case and without prejudice to the appropriate corrective measures to be undertaken by the University should the decision go against them. The Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) subsequently found them guilty of misconduct (e.g., whispering during the exam, looking at each other?s exam papers, passing a textbook around)?and sentenced them to 45 days suspension. The UC then decided to withdraw their graduation, so they could serve their sentence. The BOR, in a special meeting, overruled the UC. The faculty regent, in the next regular meeting (last June 27), moved for a reconsideration of the BOR decision, and was supported by the UP president, the staff regent, and the student regent. A subsequent tie was broken by the chair of the Commission on Higher Education (ex oficio chair of the BOR), who voted against the motion.

Last July 20, the question in my first column on this matter (?Will the University Council protest what is essentially an infringement by the BOR of its academic freedom?to administer a disciplinary penalty on students? Or will it take this figurative slap in its face sitting down??) was answered. To wit:

?The University Council (UC) of UP Diliman hereby protests in the strongest possible terms the June 3, 2009 action of the Board of Regents (BOR) denying the UC?s earlier decision to discipline six (6) students of the School of Economics found guilty of misconduct by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). We register our protest for the following reasons:

?1. By its decision, the BOR has seriously undermined the principles of collegiality, active participation, representation and transparency that are the lifeblood of democratic governance in the University and enshrined in the University?s Charter?.. (discussion of collegiality, etc., follows?scm)

?2. The Board?s decision is an assault to academic freedom and constitutes an utter disregard of the collective will of the University Council, which is empowered to discipline students and recommend their graduation. It sends a disturbing message and sets a dangerous precedent that renders the University inutile and powerless to discipline students upon their graduation. It validates a method to evade just punishment through procedural delay and therefore contributes to a miscarriage of justice;

?In terms of process and substance, therefore, the Board?s decision has compromised the ideals of the University and rendered the task of teaching and of running the University more burdensome and less meaningful. Left uncorrected, the Board?s decision is bound to have serious implications for the morale, morals, and mores of faculty and students, and endanger the overall quality of education in the University.

?To forestall further damage to the University?s ethical integrity and academic standing, therefore, the University Council hereby RESOLVES: (1) To petition the Board to reconsider its decision and instead uphold the action as the University Council originally recommended, that is, to withdraw the graduation of the six (6) students found guilty of misconduct during an examination in order to allow them to serve their penalty of suspension for 45 days; and (2) To urge all members of the Board to adhere henceforth to the highest principles of collegiality, representation and transparency, so that the University?s faith in its protectors may be re-established, and sound academic governance is restored.?

UP at its best.

Even before the deliberations on the UC resolution, UP School of Economics Dean Noel de Dios, noting that students are not eligible for honors if they underload (take less than 15 units) in any one semester, observed that students found guilty of misconduct should be even less eligible. He then moved that the academic honors of the students involved be withdrawn. And when the UC was apprised (the relevant portions of the SDT decision were read) of the nature of their ?misconduct??which the body immediately recognized as cheating?it voted overwhelmingly (something like 212 -12-8) to withdraw the honors, after seeking counsel from Teddy Te, who is not only a UC member but is UP?s vice president for legal affairs. Te opined that the UC has the sole authority to confer (withdraw) academic honors. A purely academic matter.

One would have thought that the BOR, faced with the (righteous) indignation of the highest academic body of the University, would at least reexamine its decision. But no. Seemingly drunk with power?either that or acting with the courage of its ignorance?the BOR, during its regular meeting on Friday (July 31), not only paid the UC no heed, but overstepped its bounds even more: it effectively usurped the UC?s academic authority with regard to the conferment of honors, and on its own (its opinion had not been asked), decided that the students found guilty of grave misconduct could keep their honors anyway.

Nota bene: during its deliberations Friday, the BOR did not consult the University?s legal experts.

Hubris on top of ignorance. Fight on, UP.