Almost five years ago, I wrote a letter to Sergio (Gerry) Cao, then chancellor of the University of the Philippines Diliman. It was the only letter I wrote, in my more than 40 years as a faculty member, to a UP official. I am reproducing it in toto below because in my quixotic attempt to “protect” the university at the time, I may have not only allowed an injustice to be ignored but also implicitly encouraged even more wrongdoing by my failure to blow the whistle, as it were. With 20-20 hindsight, I can see that UP would have been better off if the issue had been brought out in the open.
Although the letter is self-explanatory, a little background on the persons mentioned is in order. At the time I wrote the letter, Marla Endriga, a brilliant young lady, was an instructor at UP Diliman’s Institute of Biology. She accused her boss of sexual harassment and won her case, but her appointment was not renewed. She fought valiantly against the injustice, bringing it up to the UP Board of Regents, but became a victim to bureaucratic atrophy—her life was in limbo, and she did not have the financial resources to wait it out (she would still be waiting at this point). Her father, Joe Endriga (now deceased), was a former dean of the College of Public Administration, as well as a former vice president for public affairs, and her mother, Dolly, is a former dean of the School of Urban and Regional Planning.
“Dec. 7, 2007
“Dear Gerry,
“I write this as a personal and confidential letter rather than an official one because I am loath to make it of public record on the very eve of our Alma Mater’s centennial. But the double outrage perpetrated against Marla Endriga—first, by being sexually harassed and second, by being punished by her senior colleagues for speaking out against it—must be redressed soonest.
“Marla Endriga’s parents, Joe and Dolly, have served the University of the Philippines faithfully and very well for a combined total of at least eighty years. If only for that, one would have thought that the renewal of Marla’s appointment as an instructor at the Institute of Biology would have been a foregone conclusion. Because let’s face it—an instructor’s appointment is not exactly of world-shaking significance.
“But you and I, as well as anyone with the slightest objectivity, know that Marla, on her own merit, stands head and shoulders above most of the instructors (and for that matter, a lot of our assistant professors) in the academe. She deserves, at the very least, a renewal of that instructor’s appointment.
“She has a sterling record: A scholarship in Germany, where her thesis was so good that she received a travel grant to present her work at an international conference, and then won a second-best poster presentation award at the National Bioinformatics Conference. High marks as a teacher, as evaluated by her students. A scientific article published every year (in spite of the fact that she had a full teaching load and no research load). Frankly, I wonder how many of her senior colleagues can match that publication record.
“That she is a member (and twice president) of Mensa Philippines—my understanding is the only way one qualifies for membership is if one scores within the 98th percentile or higher of any approved standard intelligence test—indicates that she not only is very bright, but that she has leadership qualities. That she was invited by the Department of Education to be a plenary speaker in a National Science-Mathematics Congress indicates that she is obviously highly regarded by the wider world outside the University.
“And yet, Marla Endriga—with an intelligence, teaching, and research record that is hard to match—an obvious asset to the University, was not renewed as an instructor at the Institute of Biology. This cannot be an indictment of Endriga, because her record speaks for itself. This has to be an indictment of the Institute—or rather, the people who sat in judgment of her capabilities and tried to cast aside one of our best, brightest, and principled.
“Shameful.
“Who are the people who must be held responsible for this? It has to be obvious. The chair of the committee who judged her unfit to be an instructor is also the man she accused of sexual harassment and who was found guilty of such a dastardly act. And three of the other members of this seven-person committee were his defenders in the case. In their seeming arrogance, they did not even bother to inhibit themselves from passing judgment on her, so that what should have been an Academic Personnel Committee meeting must have turned out to be more like a star chamber.
“I understand the Board of Regents, after having been made aware that the letter from Perry Ong justifying her nonrenewal contained gross factual inaccuracies, asked you to create an independent fact-finding or investigation committee. That was end October 2006. It is now December 2007. I cannot imagine why it should take so long for that committee to recommend that Marla should not only be reinstated, but that she is owed an apology, at the very least. Any other result has to be unacceptable.
“I look to you, Gerry, to see that justice is done, and soonest. Merry Christmas.”
I wrote the letter at the end of 2007. As far as I know, Gerry Cao never made or gave a report to the BOR (I called him, and he is checking). That’s what I mean by bureaucratic atrophy (not just delay). In any case, Marla remains a victim of injustice. Cry, my beloved UP.