EDITORIAL | Protect Students From Armed Recruitment, Too

If the UP Diliman Committee on the Protection of Academic Freedom and Human Rights is forceful in condemning the false labeling of activists as recruiters for armed struggle, former rebels believe it should be equally forceful in condemning those who actually encourage young people toward that form of struggle. We remind the committee that protecting students also requires confronting those that threaten their safety and appeals that lead them toward armed conflict.

On September 21 in commemoration of martial law, Anakbayan national chairperson Mhing Gomez told young people at a rally: “Sa atin pong pagkilos, ang panawagan sa mga kabataan ay hindi na lamang maging aktibista.”

He followed this with the challenge, “Tumungo po tayo sa kanayunan kung saan tayo pinakailangan!”

Gomez urged them to follow the footsteps of Alyssa Alano, Maureen Santuyo, Eugene Joaquin Hilaus, and Enrique Dayandante, whom he called Anakbayan’s “martyrs.” It must be noted that all these young people died as members of the New People’s Army in armed encounters with government forces. He then called for advancing national democracy toward a socialist society and, ultimately, a communist order throughout the world.

The appeal culminated in a chant. Gomez called out, “Sagot, sagot, sagot sa kahirapan!” The crowd answered, “Digmang bayan!” 

These exhortations could not have escaped the notice of the committee. It would be naive for anyone, least of all the committee, to insist that these words are benign. Those words constitute an appeal toward revolutionary armed struggle. 

To be sure, the committee is right in pointing out that activism is not terrorism. Criticizing corruption, organizing workers, defending land rights, and demanding public services do not automatically make anyone a terrorist. Students must be able to dissent without intimidation or unsupported accusations.

But that principle does not settle what happens when an organizational leader encourages young people toward warfare. A defense of activism becomes intellectually inadequate when it fails to distinguish peaceful political participation from appeals to armed struggle.

The committee’s September 28 statement condemns alleged red-tagging and intimidation. Its silence, however, that recruitment towards armed struggle is happening in schools and universities leaves a question that the committee should now answer: will it examine public encouragement toward armed struggle with the same seriousness it brings to accusations of red-tagging?

A committee within a university committed to critical inquiry must extend the same seriousness to people whose experiences challenge its position. If it hears those who report red-tagging, it must also hear parents, surviving family members, and former rebels who describe the consequences of recruitment into armed struggle. That includes families in the Hands Off Our Children Movement, whose accounts deserve examination rather than dismissal through assumptions about their political associations.

The same scrutiny must apply to public pronouncements by leaders who condemn red-tagging while endorsing armed struggle as a means of changing society. It is true that “going to the countryside” can mean research, immersion, organizing, or voluntary service. Gomez, however, coupled that appeal with advancing people’s war. The committee should confront that connection directly and ask what young people are being encouraged to do.

What does following the footsteps of these “martyrs” require? What risks are being explained to prospective followers? What responsibility does a leader accept when presenting armed struggle as a path others should take? 

The committee must know that calling the dead “martyrs” gives their sacrifice political meaning. Asking another generation to follow them turns remembrance into an appeal for action. Families must have room to question that appeal, recount their losses, and challenge the portrayal of those losses as sacrifices others should repeat. Their grief and testimony should receive the same attentive hearing the committee extends to allegations of intimidation.

Academic freedom should make room for those uncomfortable accounts, including accounts that challenge the organizations with which a university community may sympathize. Listening to former rebels and their families does not require abandoning criticism of government. It requires applying the same curiosity to competing claims.

The university community need not choose between opposing red-tagging and opposing recruitment into armed conflict. Students, faculty, alumni, and parents who hold both positions should speak openly. They can demand protection from intimidation while challenging leaders who portray warfare as the necessary fulfillment of youthful commitment.

Rally, organize, dissent. Demand better government. None of these requires accepting that young lives must be sacrificed to an armed revolutionary project. Public service offers many paths, and students deserve the freedom to consider them without having sacrifice measured by willingness to enter a war.

The UP Diliman Committee on the Protection of Academic Freedom and Human Rights should demand accountability from anyone who endangers students, including those who encourage them toward armed conflict. 

Again, former rebels ask: will it examine public encouragement toward armed struggle with the same passion with which it condemns accusations of red-tagging? The protection of young lives warrants a clear answer.