In a 28 May 2011 interview with the Manila Bulletin, University of the Philippines’ (UP) President Alfredo Pascual said that “whatever changes we’re seeing outside, we also see in UP.” Here we have UP with permeable boundaries, yet by logic, distinct from the whole—straddling the ivory tower of pedants and the activists’ redoubt. “UP is a microcosm of the larger society. It should be a great source of solutions.” That is how UP Diliman Chancellor Caesar Saloma, for his part, envisions the university in his 13 May 2011 address to the general assembly of the Small Enterprises Research and Development Foundation. Such exaltation depicts UP as the perfectible part of an imperfect whole. The 2010 draft of the UP Student Code tried to apotheosize “Tatak UP,” a brand bearing an enumeration of supposed principles and practices of what and how it is to be UP. Moreover, Tatak UP has been utilized as a marketing brand. UP, as a source of solutions, has become a factory of patents and copyrights. These images of UP compete and are all laden with ideology that seeks for perfection in the university. When preferred over the others, each has practical and policy consequences. Yet what cannot be denied in all these competing images and tropes is the claim that the university is a public good. But is it? Which image of UP then matters?
Forty years after UP has been declared the national university by then National Board of Education, and having been fortified by a new charter during its centennial, UP boasts of what former UP President Jose Abueva quoted from the UP Alumni Association: “a century of ‘excellence, leadership and service’.” This provides too easy an assurance of UP’s past and potential contribution to Philippine society. It may even attest to Scott Welsh’s critique of academic institutions as “fantastically blind,” i.e., “synthesizing the inherent antagonism between rhetorical reflection and political agency.” In this case, UP knows best, with its “reparative fantasies” for Philippine society through the symbol of the Oblation in service of the nation. This public forum series therefore posits that UP must have not only the acumen to grapple with intractable public issues; UP must, in equal measure, demonstrate the fortitude to open its campuses to scrutiny—its own and that of the public.
This public forum series will put into question: (1) UP’s role in contentious environmental politics as public service university, (2) the new forms of surveillance and security measures in UP, (3) UP’s commitment to equity, if not for the poor and deserving students in need of stipend; (4) the stance of UP towards the LGBT community; and (5) UP's role in nationalism discourses in the country.
The public forum series aims to bring together public intellectuals from different sectors of society with critical consideration on UP’s role as the premiere state university. Each topic will be an interrogation of the assumption that UP is indeed a microcosm of Philippine society. In analyzing what may be referred to as the synecdochic relationship of UP with Philippine society, the public forum series hopes to outline the answers to what former President Abueva’s posited in his UP centennial lecture:
If UP is [supposedly] great by virtue of her extraordinary status, role, and achievements as the National University, what is wrong with and lacking in UP?. . .Kung UP ang pag-asa ng bayan, ano naman ang kalagayan ngayon ng ating Lupang Hinirang?
May Tubo ba ang Pagtulong ng UP?
What Counts as Public Service in the National University
Gwardya, Kamera, Aksyon?
Surveillance and the University's Unsafe Spaces
Photos used in this poster are by Paolo D. Nacpil and gerry328 of dpreview.com.



