|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
The UP Forum |
Volume 11 Number 3
May-June 2010 |
 browse the archives
|
< Back To UP Forum Home
|
The U.P. FORUM ROUNDTABLE on Reproductive Health |
|
|
Q: Should a secular university take the initiative to inform its students about alternative forms of contraception?
Abdulwahid: The University of the Philippines, as the National University and as an institution that pioneers in research and influences public opinion, should be a vehicle for massive information dissemination about socially relevant topics such as alternative forms of contraception. The secular nature of UP should not impede academic and intellectual discussions and debates about such an important social concern. Students, the biggest stakeholders of the University, must be informed of concerns which, in one way or another, affect them. The University should provide venues in the form of fora, seminars, and the like for students to understand and appreciate the intricacies of alternative forms of contraception.
The matter is not only an issue of religion. It has political, scientific, health, legal, social, economic, and moral implications. The University must be at the forefront of engaging all parties concerned to examine the issue from contrasting points of view.
Bagro: Without a doubt, the University must take the initiative, not in merely informing its students of “alternative” forms of contraception, but in formulating a holistic reproductive health education program that provides its students with options for both curriculum- and non-curriculum-based reproductive health learning.
A number of reasons support this assertion. First, the nature of a secular university itself mandates it to provide academic space for subjects that it deems appropriate, regardless of religious value. Given the recent upsurge of debates on the reproductive health bill, the University must provide an enabling environment where propositions may be raised, argued about, and tested. In so doing, UP reaffirms its tradition of secularism—a historical movement which insists on the independence of state policies from religious beliefs.
Second, UP has a social (not to mention moral) obligation to the country to weigh in on, and provide nuance to current debates involving national policy-making. As a people-funded academic institution, it has the unique responsibility of ensuring the relevance of its scholarship to the public.
Given the evils spawned by a population ignorant of their reproductive choices—overpopulation being one of them—it becomes imperative for UP to promote an atmosphere where the diversity of opinion is elevated to a debate on public policy and not merely private morality. Although the exercise of one’s reproductive capacity is largely within one’s personal and private sphere, it has a powerful social function, especially given the intricate relations between population and development.
Finally, as the National University, UP must assert its historical role as a pioneer in academic advocacy. In times when the supposed secular stance of dominant state agents (on account of the ideal church-state division) are unduly emasculated by non-secular interest groups, UP must be steadfast in grounding any discussion on reproductive health in the public good. This does not mean, however, that UP should prefer alternative over primary forms of family planning, or that it should prescribe any particular form. What matters is UP’s efforts to maintain conditions that enable a healthy exchange of ideas, where no single body of thought monopolizes truth, wisdom, or logic.
Espina: As an entity that embraces the value of both practical and theoretical knowledge, a university should teach anything that can potentially benefit the population. Whether or not it is a secular university, an educational institution should be a credible source of information. It should not be beholden to any religious creed that, upon closer inspection, champions ignorance and quick judgment in the face of perceived social taboos. The campaign to make awareness on reproductive health and contraception more commonplace should be tailored to the population exposed to it.
It is very likely that the reasonably sophisticated UP student body is already attuned to such information, and an extensive and mandatory course on the matter would be something akin to overkill. The minority who are still not privy to the information may be addressed through information drives involving more informal and less confrontational media like reading materials and student support groups. Students also have access to references in the library and the internet for information on reproductive health.
There is a need to make the approach specific to its audience due to the relatively sensitive issue at hand. It is not a topic that most students would necessarily want to attend classes for; and forced attendance wouldn’t be that productive due to the potential apathy of the audience. The subject is also something not all people would readily discuss in the presence of a big group and in a classroom setting; thus, a more intimate setup may be needed to make the students more at ease and protect their privacy.
This strategy is by no means a concession to the archaic and myopic views of the Church. If the University goes for a shotgun approach through mandatory courses, it would be to the detriment of the vulnerable parties. A more private and informal setting may be more conducive to openness and effective communication.
Montes: Sex is a taboo topic among Filipino families. Filipino parents avoid discussing it with their children, and if they do, the discussion is only about not having sex, which doesn’t really help the young in making well-informed decisions. As a result, many young Filipinos are ignorant when it comes to contraceptive methods.
Being a secular university with an active involvement in issues regarding its immediate community, UP should inform its students about such options. It should serve as a source of reliable and accurate information.
|
|
|
