A Dispute for Academic Freedom: Ramifications of the NPU Bill
State universities and colleges (SUCs) provide an education that aims to cater to the youths who need extra assistance to continue their studies since the circumstances to further their learning are unfavorable. One of the prime institutions to illustrate is the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), which has over 20 campuses and branches that offer a wide range of expertise, such as communication, mathematics, business, science, and arts. This matter prompted the academe to administer about 80,000 students for a single academic year, making them one of the largest SUCs in the Philippines in terms of student population.
Despite that, there has been an ongoing discussion to amend the system of PUP by starting to change its name to National Polytechnic University (NPU).
Familiarizing with the NPU Bill
Presidential Decree №1341 is in the process of revision through the NPU Bill, which was sorted into three House Bills (HB) — distinctly HB 8829, 8860, and 9060. The amendment centers on increasing the budget of PUP and being the lead and foundation for other institutions to follow in terms of their professional careers and practical programs, as PUP prioritizes both. Moreover, the bill seeks for the institution to adjust to the evolving modifications in the education sector since the administration prefers to provide more competent workers for the ruling class for the welfare of the conglomerates.
In addition, Reganit (2023) presented that additional millions of budget, solely for the university, could be added once the bill was implemented. For this reason, there will be a representative from the private sector governing the university, but will still function as a fiscal autonomy. It is important to note that while the bill is under governmental discussions, there has been a budget cut for each academic year, and the requested fund by PUP has never met with millions of the decreased amount.
On the other hand, making PUP a privatized university has been a goal since 2019 by various bureaucratic bodies, and it may be possible to happen now since continuous discussions are happening in Congress.
Current Status of the Bill
Comprising the timeline of the NPU Bill is how the former 16th President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Roa Duterte, vetoed it last September 2019 — where he returned the bill to the senate without his signature. Cigaral (2019) noted that Duterte blocked it since PUP needs to reassess its standing among the other SUCs in terms of performance nationally and how fiscal autonomy may cause a disparity in the government’s budget.
In lieu, the current Congress wants to continue the postponed approval of the bill by undergoing thorough hearings inside the House of Representatives (HOR), which is now under committee-level hearing. Correspondently, since the bill is under the process of amendment in the HOR, it is closer to reaching the current President, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., and deciding, once again, about the fate of thousands of students and their families.
Blowbacks Overshadow the Beneficence
Keeping in mind that the bill will increase the budget of PUP might be a considerable agreement for the personnel, faculty members, and students and their families to settle with the proceeding of making the university into a national one. PUP has been deprived each academic year of a justified budget that can make the education experience of every scholar easier by making them feel the quality education promised to them, but this is feeble to achieve because of consistent neglect. Furthermore, since an impressive amount of allocation is presented, it is unchallenging to persuade people about the facets that may encompass the bill since the forefront to them is the budget increase.
Regardless of that, and the privatization policy in the country, making an academic institution fall under a matter like the NPU Bill is not feasible in the long run. As per Mirza and Nisa (2020), education becomes a “lucrative business for corporates” since they have the power to manage these institutions for their particular intentions, and will be a disadvantage for the students and professors. The authors also highlight how privatization will negatively impact the quality of education that the students may receive since the private regents can decide on what courses and programs the university can offer. The perils of these possible matters will further affect the type of learning students can acquire with limited resources, hindering their progress and creative path since the university will limit their potential.
Restriction on Communication Programs
The NPU Bill has the potential to significantly impact humanities programs, particularly communication programs, in several ways. According to the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), liberal arts education, which often includes communication studies, is crucial for developing skills such as critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving (AAC&U, 2018). However, under the NPU Bill, there could be a shift in the curriculum of communication programs, possibly emphasizing areas deemed important by the government or reducing the flexibility of course offerings. This could limit students’ exposure to diverse perspectives and topics within the field.
PUPians’ Collective Stand Against the NPU Bill
In response to the proposed bill, the PUP Community is organizing protests, engaging in advocacy efforts, and calling on policymakers to reconsider their stance. They remain committed to defending the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, which they view as essential for advancing knowledge and developing a democratic society.
PUPians argue that the bill, if passed, would undermine the role of universities as independent centers of learning. They are concerned that the bill could lead to increased government interference in academic affairs, potentially compromising the integrity and quality of education.
The advancement of this bill threatens to impose a restrictive academic environment, imposing limitations on the diversity of subjects that can be taught and explored. De Boer, Enders, and Schimank (2007) found that government intervention in the governance of university systems in several European countries limits universities’ autonomy, restricting their ability to innovate. It could also result in decisions being made based on political considerations rather than academic merit, potentially harming the quality of teaching at the university. Research by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has shown that political interference in academic decision-making can compromise the quality and integrity of higher education (AAUP, 2018).
Additionally, the bill could limit PUP’s ability to innovate and adapt to changing educational needs, hindering its ability to provide a high-quality education to its students. A report by the World Bank on higher education reforms highlights the importance of institutional autonomy in fostering innovation and improving the quality of education (World Bank, 2021). Altbach (2007) discusses the concerning worldwide pattern of diminishing academic freedom, pointing to potential ramifications for institutions like the Polytechnic University of the Philippines if the proposed legislation is implemented.
Call for Policy Reconsiderations
The decline in academic freedom could restrict PUP’s capacity to evolve to changing educational landscapes, as academic freedom is often closely linked to the ability of institutions to explore new ideas and approaches. Without this freedom, PUP may face challenges in keeping pace with evolving educational needs and may struggle to maintain its reputation as a hub for innovative education.
The PUP community asserts that the bill overlooks the genuine challenges confronting higher education in the country, such as funding shortages and quality assurance, viewing it as a politically motivated measure with potentially far-reaching negative consequences for the entire education sector.
Now is the time for the PUP community to stand together in defense of these fundamental principles. By collectively and firmly opposing the NPU Bill, they can safeguard PUP’s legacy as a beacon of academic excellence, intellectual freedom, and inclusive education, ensuring these values endure for future generations.
REFERENCES:
Altbach, P. (2007). Academic Freedom in a Global Context: 21st Century Challenges. Retrieved from (PDF) Academic Freedom in a Global Context: 21st Century Challenges (researchgate.net)
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2018). LEAP: Making the case for liberal education. https://secure.aacu.org/AACU/PDF/LEAP_MakingtheCase_Final.pdf
Cigaral, I. N. (2019, September 7). Duterte vetoes bill granting ‘national polytechnic university’ status to PUP. Philippine Star. Retrieved February 21, 2024, from https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/09/07/1949842/duterte-vetoes-bill-granting-national-polytechnic-university-status-pup
De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5831-8_5
Mirza, M., & Nisa, Z. (2020, April 6). Privatization of Higher Education: A Study on Students’ Perspective. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3569511
Reganit, J. C. (2023, September 6). Solons file bill seeking amendments to PUP charter. Philippine News Agency. Retrieved February 21, 2024, from https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1209359
World Bank. (2021). Tertiary education. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/tertiaryeducation
