Silencing Students Only Fuels Dangerous Narratives

Student journalists from the publication of the University of Mindanao, The Primum, reportedly stepped down from their editorial posts after the university administration imposed restrictions on their coverage. The directives allegedly instructed the student publication to avoid politically inclined content and limit reporting strictly to university-related activities. The situation further escalated when the publication’s official social media page was reportedly deleted, raising concerns among observers about the state of campus press freedom.

This development has sparked controversy that should concern more than just the university community. The incident raises broader questions about how institutions respond to dissent and what happens when young voices in journalism feel that their space for expression is being curtailed.

Repression Is Never the Answer

Repression, or even the appearance of repression, is never the right response to student dissent. Universities are meant to be spaces where ideas are debated, questioned, and challenged. Students are expected to think critically and express their views responsibly. When their voices are restricted, it can create the perception that institutions are unwilling to listen.

And that perception can have serious consequences.

When Silence Becomes a Recruitment Tool

In the Philippines, the communist movement led by the CPP–NPA–NDF has long relied on narratives of injustice and repression to recruit young people. When students feel that their rights are ignored or their voices silenced, these narratives suddenly become easier to believe.

Recruiters thrive on such situations. They portray institutions as oppressive and the system as incapable of addressing grievances. When young people begin to think that peaceful avenues for expression are closed, the argument that “armed struggle is the only solution” becomes easier to sell.

Dialogue, Not Suppression

This is why heavy-handed responses should be avoided. The answer to criticism is not silence, it is dialogue.

Student publications exist to provide an independent platform for discussion and critique. Their opinions do not automatically represent the official position of the university. As long as they operate within the law and institutional rules, there should be room for them to speak and voice out their grievances.

Allowing students to express themselves does not weaken institutions, it strengthens them.

Protecting Dialogue Protects the Youth

Young people who feel heard, respected and included in conversations about their community are far less likely to embrace narratives that portray the system as unjust, hopeless or irredeemably oppressive. They are more likely to engage constructively, to seek reforms through dialogue, and to remain invested in democratic processes.

Suppressing voices, on the other hand, risks pushing frustrations underground, where resentment grows and misinformation thrives. When dialogue exists, frustration can be addressed through conversation, reform, and participation, not anger and alienation.

Universities must therefore be careful not to create the very conditions that recruiters exploit. Institutions must deny communist-terrorist recruiters the very conditions they need to spread their narratives.

Issues like this can and should be resolved through open communication, transparency, and mutual respect. When institutions listen instead of silence, where criticism is answered with transparency, and where fundamental rights are respected, they close the space where dangerous ideological lines and narratives grow.

In the end, protecting student voices is not only about press freedom. It is about ensuring that our youth remain engaged in democratic dialogue, not pushed toward paths of conflict. It is about safeguarding the future of our youth and ensuring that they remain active participants in societal discourses, not recruits in armed conflict.