K
kerouac822
Guest
Private, or public, every organization has to abide with constitutional provisions. This rule might actually run counter to the universal declaration of human rights as it restricts children's rights.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Private, or public, every organization has to abide with constitutional provisions. This rule might actually run counter to the universal declaration of human rights as it restricts children's rights.
S
Silent Killer2
Guest
Numb uaap officials.. Tsk..
K
killmebusy2
Guest
Private, or public, every organization has to abide with constitutional provisions. This rule might actually run counter to the universal declaration of human rights as it restricts children's rights.
Well if they include a release clause then it wouldn't be any different than the soc rivera rule...if that went unnoticed then this should pass. also, technically the uaap has the right to choose who they give scholarships to...remember that this was voted on by the board, not dictated by just one individual. children have every right to study, but those who study for free or for a discount are chosen via the school's prerogative so i don't see any violation there. it's not like they outright bar the students from enrolling...they just have a more stringent way of choosing who the scholars will be now..which again, is the school's right.
K
kerouac822
Guest
Well if they include a release clause then it wouldn't be any different than the soc rivera rule...if that went unnoticed then this should pass. also, technically the uaap has the right to choose who they give scholarships to...remember that this was voted on by the board, not dictated by just one individual. children have every right to study, but those who study for free or for a discount are chosen via the school's prerogative so i don't see any violation there. it's not like they outright bar the students from enrolling...they just have a more stringent way of choosing who the scholars will be now..which again, is the school's right.
You said it yourself: individual UAAP schools have the right to give away scholarships. The UAAP itself does NOT give any form of financial aid to students.
That being said, the UAAP is infringing on the right of every school to choose who will and who will not receive scholarships.
You still haven't answered one of the more salient points in this discussion: why restrict the rule to those who graduated from UAAP high schools? If it was really all about letting students adjust to the rigors of college, why aren't those from non-UAAP schools covered as well? What makes a graduate of NU or FEU-FERN any different from a graduate of Miriam, Claret, or even Pisay?
K
killmebusy2
Guest
You said it yourself: individual UAAP schools have the right to give away scholarships. The UAAP itself does NOT give any form of financial aid to students.
That being said, the UAAP is infringing on the right of every school to choose who will and who will not receive scholarships.
You still haven't answered one of the more salient points in this discussion: why restrict the rule to those who graduated from UAAP high schools? If it was really all about letting students adjust to the rigors of college, why aren't those from non-UAAP schools covered as well? What makes a graduate of NU or FEU-FERN any different from a graduate of Miriam, Claret, or even Pisay?
The UAAP is composed of the said schools...so if they voted in favor then it is the schools themselves who are choosing who to give the scholarships to...it wasn't just one person who dictated the decision, there was a quorum and there were votes.
simple, coz the UAAP has no control on those outside of the UAAP...it's like telling your neighbor's children where to study. Problem is they have complete authority on everyone or every athlete at least within the organization so they have the right to govern them. and like i said, children aren't denied the basic right to study...it's just that now, giving away scholarships are more stringent.
we all really just want a release clause..
K
killmebusy2
Guest
...duplicate
E
Epithetless2
Guest
The UAAP is composed of the said schools...so if they voted in favor then it is the schools themselves who are choosing who to give the scholarships to...it wasn't just one person who dictated the decision, there was a quorum and there were votes.
simple, coz the UAAP has no control on those outside of the UAAP...it's like telling your neighbor's children where to study. Problem is they have complete authority on everyone or every athlete at least within the organization so they have the right to govern them. and like i said, children aren't denied the basic right to study...it's just that now, giving away scholarships are more stringent.
we all really just want a release clause..
Absurd, their right to self-regulate their own athletes is bounded by the individual rights of the said athletes and their families. Look the Philippines has pledged to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this UAAP rule penalizes students (and their families by extension) because their parents chose to exercise article 26 section 3 of that declaration - that parents have prior right to choose what education their children should receive. You claim it does not deny right to education, but by penalizing these athletes who did not even sign contracts or waivers mind you, they are in effect constraining their right to choose.
K
kerouac822
Guest
The UAAP is composed of the said schools...so if they voted in favor then it is the schools themselves who are choosing who to give the scholarships to...it wasn't just one person who dictated the decision, there was a quorum and there were votes.
simple, coz the UAAP has no control on those outside of the UAAP...it's like telling your neighbor's children where to study. Problem is they have complete authority on everyone or every athlete at least within the organization so they have the right to govern them. and like i said, children aren't denied the basic right to study...it's just that now, giving away scholarships are more stringent.
we all really just want a release clause..
Which is why a lot of people see a semblance of mob rule here. But a democracy is all about protecting individual rights, not about giving in to a mob.
Unfortunately for you and your argument, the rule is really discriminatory. A well-informed person can readily see that it does not in any way protect the student; in fact, it restricts a student's freedom of choice.
A release clause is not the solution. The rule (or a non-rule) should apply to everyone; otherwise, it becomes an instrument that schools can brandish about arbitrarily.
K
killmebusy2
Guest
Which is why a lot of people see a semblance of mob rule here. But a democracy is all about protecting individual rights, not about giving in to a mob.
Unfortunately for you and your argument, the rule is really discriminatory. A well-informed person can readily see that it does not in any way protect the student; in fact, it restricts a student's freedom of choice.
A release clause is not the solution. The rule (or a non-rule) should apply to everyone; otherwise, it becomes an instrument that schools can brandish about arbitrarily.
I never said it was meant to protect the students...point is, the UAAP is not taking away any scholarship...they are merely being moved from one unfortunate student to another more fortunate one...so how did that become unconstitutional when in fact they do have the right to choose who they give scholarships to in the first place?
the release clause is actually the best solution...the blue chippers will still get their scholarships from other schools since they are the most sought after despite the 2 year red shirt rule...like the pingoy case. While those other athletes are free to accept scholarship offers, if any, or tryout for any other school if they want to without restrictions.
A
arkuo142
Guest
Which is why a lot of people see a semblance of mob rule here. But a democracy is all about protecting individual rights, not about giving in to a mob.
Unfortunately for you and your argument, the rule is really discriminatory. A well-informed person can readily see that it does not in any way protect the student; in fact, it restricts a student's freedom of choice.
A release clause is not the solution. The rule (or a non-rule) should apply to everyone; otherwise, it becomes an instrument that schools can brandish about arbitrarily.
if the argument was just based on being private or not, then the UAAP wins because it is, at the end of the day, a private institution. If a golf club declines your membership because it's board of trustees find you unfit to play in their lawns, then boo-hoo. they aren't stepping on your constitutional rights of your freedom to play golf. sure you can play golf, just somewhere else.
Now would your dad go to the Philippine Senate and argue your rights or freedom to play golf in the same way Pinggoy's dad stirred a senate hearing? Heck, if the Baguio Country Club kicks you out, then you drive to Villamor and stretch those arms you got, you don't picket and hold a rally along Kenon Road. No one's stopping you to do so. Same goes with the UAAP. As far as casinos go, the house always wins.
E
Epithetless2
Guest
I never said it was meant to protect the students...point is, the UAAP is not taking away any scholarship...they are merely being moved from one unfortunate student to another more fortunate one...so how did that become unconstitutional when in fact they do have the right to choose who they give scholarships to in the first place?
the release clause is actually the best solution...the blue chippers will still get their scholarships from other schools since they are the most sought after despite the 2 year red shirt rule...like the pingoy case. While those other athletes are free to accept scholarship offers, if any, or tryout for any other school if they want to without restrictions.
The blue chippers are still penalized by forgoing competitive competition for two years, unjust that they should be penalized for exercising a fundamental right. A release clause just makes the oppressive rule selective which might be worse for promoting unequal treatment. The only cure to an oppressive rule is to revoke it, and find some other way to curb piracy..one that actually addresses the cause preferably.
K
killmebusy2
Guest
Absurd, their right to self-regulate their own athletes is bounded by the individual rights of the said athletes and their families. Look the Philippines has pledged to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this UAAP rule penalizes students (and their families by extension) because their parents chose to exercise article 26 section 3 of that declaration - that parents have prior right to choose what education their children should receive. You claim it does not deny right to education, but by penalizing these athletes who did not even sign contracts or waivers mind you, they are in effect constraining their right to choose.
Do you really think it's the students who get to choose where they get their scholarship from? the pingoys and ravenas of the world maybe but for the other 99%, no. Bottomline is scholars are chosen by the schools themselves...and it's the schools themselves who chose to go on with this rule. If senator cayetano or anyone else wants to start a foundation which gives free education to those who got snubbed then go.
That's why the release clause is a great idea, the choices will remain for the average athlete. We'll all get used to this new rule like what happened almost a decade ago with soc rivera.
E
Epithetless2
Guest
if the argument was just based on being private or not, then the UAAP wins because it is, at the end of the day, a private institution. If a golf club declines your membership because it's board of trustees find you unfit to play in their lawns, then boo-hoo. they aren't stepping on your constitutional rights of your freedom to play golf. sure you can play golf, just somewhere else.
Now would your dad go to the Philippine Senate and argue your rights or freedom to play golf in the same way Pinggoy's dad stirred a senate hearing? Heck, if the Baguio Country Club kicks you out, then you drive to Villamor and stretch those arms you got, you don't picket and hold a rally along Kenon Road. No one's stopping you to do so. Same goes with the UAAP. As far as casinos go, the house always wins.
Irrelevant analogy, the right to choose an education is a fundamental human right, by penalizing the act of choosing another member school the UAAP is effectively constraining this right. Golf clubs pride themselves in exclusivity, playing on them is a privilege not a right. Being a private entity is irrelevant if an institution, private or no,t is perceived to go against the right of others any citizen may petition the Senate to conduct an inquiry, it is up to the Senate to decide if it merits an inquiry.
K
killmebusy2
Guest
The blue chippers are still penalized by forgoing competitive competition for two years, unjust that they should be penalized for exercising a fundamental right. A release clause just make the oppressive rule selective which might be worse for promoting unequal treatment. The only cure to an oppressive rule is to revoke it, and find some other way to curb piracy..one that actually addresses the cause preferably.
though i agree that piracy should still be addressed...the fact that they would need to 2 sit for years while still having that scholarship intact is already a blessing since the school still chose said athlete despite the rule. On the other hand, while they sit out 2 years of residency the team would need to replace him/her with someone else and hand that person another scholarship. So now, since teams are required to submit a full roster they are forced to hand someone a team A scholarship for at least 2 years...like what i have been saying all along - someone's loss is another's gain but in this case dalawa pa ang nakinabang.
A
arkuo142
Guest
Irrelevant analogy, the right to choose an education is a fundamental human right, by penalizing the act of choosing another member school the UAAP is effectively constraining this right. Golf clubs pride themselves in exclusivity, playing on them is a privilege not a right. Being a private entity is irrelevant if an institution, private or no,t is perceived to go against the right of others any citizen may petition the Senate to conduct an inquiry, it is up to the Senate to decide if it merits an inquiry.
That's why the next few weeks leading to the UAAP would be interesting. If the Senate pressures the UAAP board to a point that they abolish all residency rules (inlcuding the Soc Rivera and filam residency rules), babaha ng fil-ams sa Lasalle as early as Season 76! Anton Montinola would then result to people power protests! What's next?
E
Epithetless2
Guest
Do you really think it's the students who get to choose where they get their scholarship from? the pingoys and ravenas of the world maybe but for the other 99%, no. Bottomline is scholars are chosen by the schools themselves...and it's the schools themselves who chose to go on with this rule. If senator cayetano or anyone else wants to start a foundation which gives free education to those who got snubbed then go.
That's why the release clause is a great idea, the choices will remain for the average athlete. We'll all get used to this new rule like what happened almost a decade ago with soc rivera.
If Pingoy received an offer from competing schools he should have the option to choose freely where he goes, if he is a minor his parents have the prior right. Now if it was only FEU who offered then he has to choose them if he wants to play and study for free. If he really wants to study in Ateneo, but they did not offer, either he pays or try out and hope he gets accepted.
And as if a player like Pingoy and Ravenna will get totally snubbed, UAAP is not the only game in town.
A
arkuo142
Guest
Irrelevant analogy, the right to choose an education is a fundamental human right, by penalizing the act of choosing another member school the UAAP is effectively constraining this right. Golf clubs pride themselves in exclusivity, playing on them is a privilege not a right. Being a private entity is irrelevant if an institution, private or no,t is perceived to go against the right of others any citizen may petition the Senate to conduct an inquiry, it is up to the Senate to decide if it merits an inquiry.
Come to think of it, isnt the UAAP also positioning themselves as private institutions who are pushing exclusivity? Nobody's barring the kids from studying. But these are exclusive schools with sky high tuition fees. now if events and exclusive restaurants reserve the right to refuse entry, then how are these schools any different? at this juncture, Pinggoy just looks like a kid who was refused entry to a restaurant because they exercised their right to refuse entry. Sure Pinggoy still has the freedom to eat and digest food, he just has to pick another place. Now if he should bring up that restaurant in a senate inquiry is the senate's call. Adds comic relief? Sure. But using tax money that i just filed two days ago for this is a bit of an overkill. just to me at least.
"Sure you can study some place else, but just not here." - That's my take away.
How does Pinggoy's right to study differ from my freedom to eat and drink at a restaurant that refused me entry? It would all go back to that argument with the UAAP being private. Of course there will be parties who will be up in arms. But that's how it is even in the government. The RH Bill had it's share of pros and cons too.
K
kerouac822
Guest
though i agree that piracy should still be addressed...the fact that they would need to 2 sit for years while still having that scholarship intact is already a blessing since the school still chose said athlete despite the rule. On the other hand, while they sit out 2 years of residency the team would need to replace him/her with someone else and hand that person another scholarship. So now, since teams are required to submit a full roster they are forced to hand someone a team A scholarship for at least 2 years...like what i have been saying all along - someone's loss is another's gain but in this case dalawa pa ang nakinabang.
While it is common knowledge that all UAAP schools have Team Bs, not everyone can afford to fund scholarships for those sitting out their residency. At most, they can only afford to give scholarships to basketball players.
But what about those who play other sports, such as tennis, table tennis, football, or fencing? What if a fencer from UE wanted to study business economics at UP and had no assured place in UE's college fencing team? He will be forced to sit out two years, with the possibility of not being able to even study at UP at all due to the dearth of available scholarships there.
While this rule is focused on basketball (and to a certain extent, volleyball), other sports will be affected, some more than others.
G
greenarcher2
Guest
Let Tinola protest till his heart pops out. He can bring with him his supporters from UST and Adamson.
The Pingoy rule is stupid. The Mbala rule is stupid. If they want to enforce residency, it should be a maximum of 1 year. For the Pingoy rule, 1 year + release clause is a reasonable negotiation since total abolition is far-fetched.
If Pia can do something to change the minds of these brainless selfish crabs, then she has the support of the majority. If it's just tax money and time we're talking about, there's a whole lot more senseless and time-wasting hearings that took place in "aid of legislature". Start with all the blue ribbon hearings which did nothing to curb graft and corruption. Pia's actions has some good in it, even if it means just a little good. At least meron. As a taxpayer, this is the 1st time I see my tax going to some decent use.
The Pingoy rule is stupid. The Mbala rule is stupid. If they want to enforce residency, it should be a maximum of 1 year. For the Pingoy rule, 1 year + release clause is a reasonable negotiation since total abolition is far-fetched.
If Pia can do something to change the minds of these brainless selfish crabs, then she has the support of the majority. If it's just tax money and time we're talking about, there's a whole lot more senseless and time-wasting hearings that took place in "aid of legislature". Start with all the blue ribbon hearings which did nothing to curb graft and corruption. Pia's actions has some good in it, even if it means just a little good. At least meron. As a taxpayer, this is the 1st time I see my tax going to some decent use.
E
Epithetless2
Guest
Come to think of it, isnt the UAAP also positioning themselves as private institutions who are pushing exclusivity? Nobody's barring the kids from studying. But these are exclusive schools with sky high tuition fees. now if events and exclusive restaurants reserve the right to refuse entry, then how are these schools any different?
"Sure you can study some place else, but just not here." - That's my take away.
How does Pinggoy's right to study differ from my freedom to eat and drink at a restaurant that refused me entry? It would all go back to that argument with the UAAP being private. Of course there will be parties who will be up in arms. But that's how it is even in the government. The RH Bill had it's share of pros and cons too.
If they are serious in excluding a player from their roster all they have to do is NOT offer a scholarship. Then of course they can't say afterwards that "Oh you chose to go to XY school remember you can't play for two years against us." "What are you saying we can't enforce that? We own you for 6 years not 4 sorry if it wasn't clear when you enrolled."