MOST people attend review sessions expecting answers. One aspiring teacher left with more questions. What began as a discussion about the drug war eventually became a conversation about discernment, human dignity, and the example being set before future teachers.
I have never believed that teachers should leave their political views at the classroom door. They are citizens too. They vote, they care about public issues, and they are entitled to their convictions. That is not what concerns me.
What gives me pause is when personal loyalties start crowding out the deeper obligations of teaching. Future educators need to see that good teachers do not fear difficult questions. They welcome them because that is often where the best learning begins. Education is not about defending personalities. It is about helping people understand the world more deeply and humanely.
You are expected to bring sound judgment.
You are expected to bring intellectual honesty.
You are expected to bring respect for human dignity.
You are expected to bring professionalism.”
Those were the first words that came to mind after reading an article written by my former Calculus student, Arniel Clarite, a newly graduated educator and former Editor-in-Chief of The Sea Treasure, our campus school paper. His piece was not a political manifesto. It was not a personal attack. It was not even particularly angry. It was something far more unsettling. It was the account of a future teacher who asked a question in a review session and found himself disturbed not by the answer alone, but by what that answer seemed to reveal.
As Arniel tells the story, the incident happened during a Contemporary World review session. The discussion reportedly included the lecturer’s support for former President Rodrigo Duterte and her favorable view of his anti-drug campaign. That alone should not alarm anyone. At the right venue, citizens are free to support leaders they believe in. The concern arose from what followed and what it appeared to suggest.
What disturbed Arniel was not only the answer but what seemed to lie behind it: the suggestion that children who died could be casually presumed guilty or reduced to collateral damage. Once innocence becomes secondary to a political narrative, something essential is lost. If that is an accurate account, then the issue is no longer about political preference. It becomes about how we value human life and what future teachers are being taught to accept as normal.
What struck me most was not the answer itself but the setting in which it was allegedly given. This was not a political rally. It was not a partisan gathering. It was a review session for future teachers. And the subject being discussed was Contemporary World. Of all courses, it should be comfortable living in the gray areas. The real world is rarely black and white, and neither are the issues it explores. From globalization and governance to inequality and human rights, the course is meant to help learners understand complexity, not escape from it. It should challenge simplistic thinking, not reward it.
Paulo Freire, one of the most influential educational thinkers of the twentieth century, warned against what he called the “banking model” of education. In that model, students become containers into which approved ideas are deposited. They are expected to receive, memorize, and repeat. Freire believed education should do the opposite. It should develop critical consciousness. It should help students think beyond easy answers and ask better questions. Education is not about obedience. It is about understanding. (To be continued)/PN
