Whether or not student activism should be discouraged?

Necessity: This house believes that student activism should be discouraged among students

Initially, the creation of the academic institution is to instill knowledge and skills among its students
through effective teaching and application of learning. It is the establishment where children are
entrusted by their parents in the pursuit to inculcate intellectual excellence, social development and moral
ascendancy. Thus, it is also significant to consider that the Constitution puts emphasis on the relevance of
education under Article XIV, Sec. 1 “That the State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to
quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education to all”. Clearly, in
that logic, the primordial consideration of the State is to engage citizens only in acts which concern mainly
on purely academic and educational activities.

We, on the affirmative side, firmly believes that student activism should be discouraged among students.
Arguing for the necessity proposition, I will postulate our contention raising three important arguments.
First, on the matter of academic freedom under Article XIV, Sec. 5. In the case of Miriam College vs. CA,
the Supreme Court held that academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for
itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save
possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restrain; SC has upheld the right of the students
to free speech in school premises; However, this right is not absolute. It must always be applied in light of
the special characteristics of the school environment; the power of the school to investigate, like the
power to suspend or expel, is an inherent part of academic freedom of institutions of higher learning
guaranteed by the Constitution. It must be remembered that the acts of the student always represent the
reputation and impression of such institution, and in order not to be tainted with political and religious
disdain.

Second, the primary purpose of the educational institution. With the compelling rationalization that all
of us are granted freedom of speech and expression, this does not mean that such privilege, is at all times,
absolute. Knowing that it is under the subject and jurisdiction of the academic institution, such
establishment has the sole discretion to promulgate its rules and regulations that will preserve and protect
the interest of its students. Primarily, the purpose of the educational institution is to foster its student to
engage on activities which are indubitably academic in nature. Again, this is not a suppression of their
right to free speech but a clear manifestation that clarification can be done by not resorting to activism.
To encourage the students to get involve activism posed a great threat in their safety and welfare

Third, the mobilization of student activism to join communist groups. History recalls that a huge number
of student activists joined the underground opposition, the New People’s Army, after the declaration of
Martial Law in 1972. With that being said, discouraging student activism may somehow lessen the number of
people who are incited to join rebel groups due to inconsistent ideology and beliefs that they consider to be
politically just and correct. The Communist Party most immediate concern was cadre recruitment and training;
being a party composed of practically urban intellectuals and students who lacked revolutionary experience
but made up for it with their idealism, among others. With the universities’ academic freedom, its prerogative
to disallow student activism gives credence to imminent threat to what the law sought to be prevented.