Impala on Antartica

A college is run by a dean. A dean is described by the university’s General Statutes (Chapter II, Article 13) as “…the chief administrator of a faculty, college, or school.” In specific cases, the dean needs the concurrence of a Faculty Council in: (1) recommending for approval by the authorities concerned the courses of the study and the curricula, and their suppression or change; (2) recommending to the Rector the appointment, promotion, or separation of the members of the faculty; (3) recommending to the Rector the distribution of assignments to the members of the faculty for each semester; (4) FORMULATING EDUCATIONAL POLICIES FOR SUBMISSION TO THE RECTOR; and (5) recommending educational policies for submission to the Rector.

Furthermore, the General Statutes provides (provision 2) that the dean shall consult the Regent on important matters affecting the faculty, college, or school.

In the same chapter of the General Statutes (Chapter II, Article 15), the regent’s role is defined. His duties include: (1) SUPPORT the dean in execution and implementation of all decisions, policies, directives of the Rector and other governing bodies of the university; (2) TAKE CARE OF THE SPIRITUAL WELFARE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY, OF THE STUDENTS, AND OF THE NON-ACADEMIC PERSONNEL, AND IN COORDINATION WITH THE VICE RECTOR FOR RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, INITIATE AND COORDINATE RELIGIOUS AND APOSTOLIC ACTIVITIES; and (3) coordinate and supervise instructions in Theology and Professional Ethics in cooperation with the Vice Rector for Religious Affairs (ECE, Gen. Norms, Art. IV, part 5).

The university statutes are very clear as to who MUST initiate policy formulation in a college, which, I presume, is entrusted to the Dean by virtue of him being THE CHIEF administrator of a college. The word CHIEF must have been placed there for a reason.

While the regent is bestowed nothing more but the power to SUPPORT the dean in policies, and mostly to take care of the spiritual affairs of the college.

A TWO-FRONT BATTLE

In many colleges that confront the issue of haircut, a battled is waged on two fronts; first, a battle is waged against those who make the policy, while another is waged on those who are supposed to represent us. Both are important.

A policy may be seen by its proponents as a sound one. Many colleges that espouse the haircut regulation policy presume that the way we do our hair is reflective of our decency; of our value sets. We can’t blame old, almost obsolete brains for formulating this, for hair length, during their time, may have determined how moral they are. But as far as I can remember, we stepped onto the 21st century nine years ago, where gender, philosophies, political beliefs, and moreso, HAIRCUT, do not really define us as a person. It is not even a measuring tool to gauge our intellect. There are those with well-trimmed hair but with a duller mind, MORESO, less values than those who sport long hair. I know long-haired fellows in Fine Arts and in other disciplines that exude the most moral behavior; putting forward the welfare of others ahead of theirs. In fact, Jesus, the Messiah, sported long hair, yet he performed the most ultimate sacrifice for mankind.

Perhaps what I am trying to say is that hair length must not be an issue. You can be competent, a law abiding student of the university even if you have long hair. In previous academic years, negotiations have started and it was agreed upon that long hair shall be sported with a pony-tail, an acceptable deal. Nobody broke it. Why change it?

The other, more important front is what have been keeping us on the victim side of the story. We continue to elect men and women in public offices called STUDENT COUNCILS who do not even have a scrotum large enough to stand up and defend us. They stay subservient, following without question. They do not know how to consult both sides of the spectrum (students and administrators). Today they are used for no other purpose in Beato Angelico but to litter their 7th floor office, and stand close for instructions of the GODFATHER. I can’t blame them. Just like many of their professor supporters, they are afraid to lose their jobs, or their academic standing. Fear gets in the way of objectivity, of doing proper things. And for many years, from the fiance of the President now, up to the President now, the SC’s greatest achievement was ensuring that less clearance get lost year after year.

If they cannot perform their functions well, might as well abolish it. After all, the college has been in anarchy for years.

It is shameful and very depressing to hear that academic standings are affected by the hair. And amid the urgence to encourage them to cut it just for this baloney to be over, I can’t. After all, the policy has no rationale, no wisdom. I think the only part of buildings that know the policies are the front doors.

Hair must not be an issue. It is never an issue. EDUCATION IS A RIGHT AND ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT PREVENT YOU FROM THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT, OR ANYTHING THAT IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF INSTITUTIONS MUST BE FOUGHT AGAINST, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE.

Peace. I remembered, Jesus had long hair, too.