The obliteration of cultural academics

ALTHOUGH I try my best to be calm most of the time, there was recently a viral video of me getting a little bit, in Filipino, “nag-aalat,” on the issue of the proposed reframing of the General Education (GE) curriculum, particularly the merging of the subject of Philippine History with the Republic Act 1425-mandated Rizal course, into a single subject called Rizal and Philippine Studies. General Education are subjects in college taken by everyone, regardless of the chosen course of study, to make a person a whole human being rather than a robot or a specialized ant, so he can understand his society better and deepen his humanity and identity as a person with other people.

I do hope our friends in the Commission on Higher Education do not take this against me. This video was taken last Tuesday, May 5, after I listened online to their public hearing about the proposed GE. They were cutting down on GEs so college can be taken in three and a half years, which is a very, very attractive proposition to most people. They even said some of these GE subjects had already been brought down to senior high school (SHS), including Philippine History, which is the crux of my reaction.

You see, since 2022, it was already being proposed that college be cut down to three years, focusing on major subjects. Apparently, the Congressional Commission on Education (Edcom) had recommended it too. Probably because it was claimed to be just a proposal, we were shocked to learn that it will soon be piloted without the wide consultation they claim to have done. Looking at the list, it seems Philippine History is being dropped, the Rizal course remains; but at times they say, Philippine History is not being dropped, it is to be integrated into “Rizal and Philippine Studies.” In all the other GEs, streamlining was what they did, becoming inter-disciplinary subjects. But then I also heard that Philippine History is really not there because it was brought down to SHS — wait a minute!

I was a consultant of the Department of Education for the drafting of the Araling Panlipunan (AP-Social Studies) curriculum. When I was consulted for this SHS subject, “Pag-aaral ng Kasaysayan at Lipunang Pilipino” (PKLP), we did not have an idea, or at least I did not have the slightest idea, that this was already the process of transferring Philippine History from college to SHS. If we had known, we would have crafted it a different way, not as a supplement to the Philippine History subjects for AP Grade 5 and AP Grade 6. So, I said in that Pandesal Forum of Wilson Lee Flores at Kamuning Bakery organized by Carl Balita, “Why did I not know about it, am I stupid? Pinagmukha niyo akong tanga doon?”

If there was wide consultation, why didn’t any of the four historical organizations — Philippine Historical Association (PHA), Philippine National Historical Society (PNHS), Adhika ng Pilipinas, and Bahay Saliksikan ng Kasaysayan-Bagong Kasaysayan Inc. (Bakas) — know about this? I mean, we have acquaintances in the GE committee! Everyone was shookt.

Do not take my reaction against me, please. I guess I was only expressing what many educators felt that day.

Other points: Although some major universities merge the Philippine History and Rizal course, this I believe is not compatible with Republic Act 1425, which only mandates the teaching of the life, works and writings of our national hero, José Rizal. These are two different animals and should not be mixed. Readings in Philippine History should not be taken out, but in its present form must be recalibrated to remove the document-focused way it is taught which makes it a bit trivial, to more of documents-analysis that leads to understanding the whole narrative of Philippine history, and should also include the implications of AI and the digital world for the writing of it.

In wanting to mix all these subjects together, or in wanting to be interdisciplinary, by skipping a step, we end up being anti-disciplinary. We end up diluting the disciplines altogether. You cannot be multidisciplinary without solid disciplinary grounding. “Lahat lalabnaw.”

We heard the terms cost-cutting and employability a number of times during the consultation. This is a neo-liberal approach which makes education really just about getting jobs and not learning to be a well-rounded person. It also gives a hint that we do not want to spend more on education as a state. GE subjects are designed to deepen the thinking and humanity of people. To impose the burden of learning skillsets in GE for employability is not right because that should be the focus of major subjects and the whole K-12, not that we do not teach skills, but just saying. In Philippine History, I was reminded by my ninang, Dr. Ma. Florina Orillos-Juan, that we can learn not just critical thinking but cognitive skills as well needed for everyday analysis. Provided of course that the course is taught well.

As I said, a three-and-a-half-year time in college is attractive, as done in places like Singapore. But they already have a solid basic education and we are just starting with our reforms. We also have a “nationhood” problem and still reeling from colonial mentality. We’ve had so many gains in history research only to lose a platform to teach it. Also, although this is only secondary, what will happen to history, social science and humanities academics who will lose their bread-and-butter job of servicing GE subjects. If they will lose their jobs or slide down to SHS with so much more workload, expect the decrease of academic production in culture.

This is an existential crisis for us, the cultural academics. We will be obliterated.