 |
| Photo by Mark Sherwin Vardeleon |
I am not buying the university’s
reason for the installment of the CCTV’s in every street, hallway, and
classroom. According to the report of the Varsitarian (V)
entitled “FMO installs CCTV cameras”, the CCTV’s were
installed to heighten the security in the campus. Probably, the recommendation
of the Management Association of Security and School Officials (Masso) last May
which is to install the cameras in “strategic locations” inside campuses
was also considered. In Camille Anne Arcilla’s article in the V, it was said
that Masso president Eduardo Masangcay verbalized that “student will now think twice about doing anything bad
or illegal if there are CCTV cameras.” Here now sparks a question on whose “security”
Masangcay was referring to. Is it the
university’s property, students, or both?
I understand that the UST is a
public place where basically anyone, including snatchers, hold uppers, etc., can
easily infiltrate but what I cannot comprehend is why do they have to extend it
to the classrooms? Hardly any unauthorized person can enter the buildings as
one has to pay tribute to the presence of the guard by swiping their ID’s
before proceeding. One reason that I see is that probably it is a way of
catching the artistic few (or those who believe themselves to be artistic) who
vandalize the university’s property or the libido incontinent people who do PDA
inside the classrooms.
Installing surveillance cameras
inside the classrooms is clearly a violation of the right to freedom and
privacy of the students. Arguments such as the “if-you-don’t-do-bad-things-you-have-no-reason-to-worry-about”
may be raised but the mere thought of complete surveillance (except in the
comfort rooms. I have yet to find out if they still also plan to install ones
there) is like bringing us back to the Orwellian times.
A friend once told me in the middle
of the hallway that she had wedgie. (Not that we were very indiscreet with
those talks but you get the point) “Why don’t you fix it then?”, I said
quickly. “With the entire CCTV team watching you, fixing a wedgie now is
like fixing a wedgie in PBB where everyone watches you.”, she replied. I
had no problems fixing a wedgie in public but at that time, I saw how some of
the students’ usual activities were limited by the presence of these “wards”.
In a sense, it is a form of controlling the students. Even if the students are
not doing anything wrong, one still needs that little privacy to do those little
innocent things that need not be seen by the camera.
Two days ago, our batch coordinator
posted a status via Facebook reminding the girls to sit properly since a lot
were “nakikitaan” in the CCTV. Since then I had the idea that the CCTVs
actually intend to monitor not only the security of the students but also their
actions. For fairness sake, the “security upgrade” must cover all sectors of
the university which include the faculty rooms, the Dean’s offices, the
administrator’s offices, and the seminary. The implementation of this policy
should not be a one way street but rather must extend to all so that maximum
efficiency may be achieved.
If administrators of UST want to
implement changes as big as this, a public consultation with the entire student
body and faculty would be a good method to hear their opinions regarding the
matter. In another article from V, the UST Faculty Union vice president for
grievances Reynaldo Reyes shared that no consultation with the faculty was done
by the administrators prior to the implementation. In our Law on Persons class
in high school, I’ve learned that a policy cannot be implemented without
promulgating it first. In the same spirit, the administration should’ve
informed all of the changes so that the input from the students and faculty may
be considered. They must be partners that work together to solve the issues and
refrain from being dogmatic in their policy-making.
