Eic Controversy

Published on November 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 47 | Comments: 0 | Views: 190
of 2
Download PDF   Embed   Report

UPLB Perspective Opinion article [Under Scrutiny column]

Comments

Content

opinion under scrutiny gino paolo diño draft 2 eic_controversy.rtf word count: 512 suggested titles:  controversy vs. transparency  just another matter of transparency  due process and transparency

the perspective has had its history of controversy concerning the editor in chief (eic) examinations and selection. there were protests against conspiracy and intervention in the past, against soiling a supposedly untainted process and tradition of appointing the next individual to handle the university’s official student publication. and now, yet again, there are issues concerning the appointment of the new eic. the eic of the perspective is not only responsible for informing and educating the uplb studentry, he also has the duty of upholding excellence in the publication, as it is the flagship paper of the whole southern tagalog region. he, as the leader of a most critical and balanced institution charged with observing and regulating even and especially government bodies, is bound by oath and chained by obligation to serve in light of truth and responsible journalism. he should represent the paper and all that it stands for. a task of such weight should not be laid down on shoulders that lack strength to carry it. that is why, in the process of selection, a simple complication should cause much clamor for clarification, a modest mishap should make way to a major predicament. it would seem that in the strict and controlled system governing the process of the eic selection—from the eic examinations to the interviews and actual appointment—there arose a matter that required a special course of action. in the end, the one who was deemed most qualified was chosen and appointed to the

post. although that was not the happy ending it was supposed to be. putting it out in the open: after the eic examinations, the computations of the candidates’ respective scores, and the panel interview of each candidate, the five member ad hoc committee (responsible for conducting the examinations and the panel interview) submitted their report to chancellor luis rey velasco. therein were the tabulated scores of all seven candidates who took the exams, but no recommendation on who to appoint. upon this event, the chancellor decided to summon the ad hoc and the top two candidates, and then they conducted a second interview. immediately after the interview, the ad hoc deliberated and verbally recommended one of the two candidates to the chancellor. now the only issue here is whether the steps taken in appointing the new eic were legal or not, that is to say, that course of action did not violate any regulations governing the eic selection process. it is that simple. the issue is not as much about conspiracy as it is about transparency. something happened, and something was done about it. now the only question is, was that something the right thing to do? such a matter that directly concerns and affects the students should be kept clear and transparent for the students. now if there are qualms, worries that one thing or another had gone against due process, then review it, present it to everyone. we are all for due process and transparency here. all that we need is to know that it was done properly—for all our sakes.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close