In Defense
Renato Constantino, February 13, 1940

We were greatly baffled by the attitude of a certain cabinet member who expressed surprise when the University authorities permitted Socialist Abad Santos to speak before a convocation of University professors and students. Contending that the Socialist Supremo’s speech was a ‘virtual insult to the government and that the speech would have been more properly delivered at a private institution rather than at the State University, that department secretary, whose identity has not been revealed, showed extreme narrow-mindedness and excessive conservatism. Such an attitude manifests social cowardice, moreso when he refused to be publicly quoted.

To the broad-minded and understanding constituents of this institution, it is clear that the University in allowing Attorney Abad Santos to address that convocation, was merely encouraging reflective thinking among our students on current problems.

Doubtless, without guidance, some students and professors are apt to form hasty conclusions based on rumors concerning serious topics of the day. In providing the students’ opportunities to hear views representing both sides of any question, our University leaders make possible intelligent, careful deliberations based on actual contacts with the representative conflicting factions of any question. Thus, University students are being prepared to view with impartiality and reflect on problems they are to meet in real life before they are swayed to any side of a big problem.

To interpret this gesture as a ‘virtual insult to the government’ is to misunderstand the real motives of University authorities in allowing Don Pedro to speak before that University audience. This narrow-minded assertion constitutes an underestimation of the foresight of our University constituents.

That the speech could have been more properly delivered at a private institution rather than at the State University is another distorted thought from our critical secretary for we believe that to guide the students properly without necessarily cramping their ideas, the proper procedure is not to deprive them of opportunities to hear the question discussed. On the contrary, the more they hear both sides - the more impartial their conclusions will be. More than any other group, a university audience can better ponder such delicate questions.

If bigoted ideas are to be avoided; if hasty judgments are to be forestalled; if blind following is to be discouraged - then students should be exposed to varied ideas and personalities, radical or otherwise. Only thus, can they be in better position to make comparison, and to choose which are worthwhile. In only such a broad-minded manner can we expect an intelligent reception and discussion of questions of natural import within the academic shades of the University campus.

be striking at the very root of our democratic institutions." This statement we attribute to Regent Guillermo Villanueva whose firm stand on academic freedom and free discussion merits commendation.

To oldsters who, like our unknown cabinet member, invariably lament the impulsiveness of youth, we recommend more careful appraisal and greater moral courage.