This panel was listed as “Global Perspective on GE” in the conference website and also as “Teaching and Learning GE” in the link that was sent to the moderators. I contend that the first was a more appropriate description for the panel, as the common thread of the papers presented in the panel revolved around universal values such as critical citizenship (through responsible creation, access and use of information), human rights, justice and solidarity.

Prof. Dar Juan shared with us his experience in the teaching of and existing GE course at the School of Library and Information Science. LIS 10 looks at the relationship of Information and Society, highlighting the role of information in human endeavours, especially in an increasingly information-drive society. It is an important GE that covers critical and contemporary issues on the use and abuse of information, and how information shapes society. The GE course was rated highly by the students who find the course relatable, relevant and requisite, thus making the case for the offering of LIS 10 across in all constituent universities.

Prof. Rafael, on the other hand, argued for the importance of institutionalizing a GE course on Human Rights in the University, anchored on a broader perspective and international principles, because according to him, the fight for human rights is a fight for equality (and if I may add, equity). He said the poor human rights outlook in the country is due to a lack of appreciation and valuation of human rights among the general populace, abetted by the government’s singular focus on public order and national security at the expense of due process and respect for human rights. The return to power of another Marcos, he contends, is a reflection of the people’s support for the continuity of the previous administration’s extreme aversion towards advocacy for human rights. He believes the prevailing poor appreciation of the importance of human rights is a result of the failure to institutionalize human rights in Philippine society (and human rights education in the Philippine educational system). While there is HR education in K-12, the way it is handled is within a regulative context that puts premium in obedience and peace and order, not on the normative and cultural-cognitive aspects of institutionalization.

Prof. Cleofas’s input on the other hand provided a general framework on the bigger issue of justice. She asked, what does it mean to act justly? Since our GE program is committed to foster a sense of nationalism and social justice, this is an important question, also because the principle of justice underpins the way we should handle information and our pursuit of human rights. Prof. Cleofa’s suggested that the concept of justice that we should adopt in our GE courses should be one that promotes solidarity or pakikipagkapwa, which to her is critical in building coalitions for social movements. Our GE courses should develop in our students disposition towards building solidarity, because as she argued, acting justly is difficult without solidarity. Thus, there needs to be shift from well-being freedom to well-being freedom as kapwa (how one relates with a fellow human with whom one is in solidarity).

A common thread (or DNA as one of the participants observed) of the three papers was aptly captured by Prof. Cleofas when she talked about the transformative agenda of our GE program - which is to incite critical thinking about the past, the present and the future.

The open forum generated important insights:

• The papers resonate with Freire’s view on the role of education, which is either to maintain or critique the status quo.

• There is a challenge for us to re-view what we mean by Tatak UP.

• How should our GE program contribute to the role of education in liberation and social change, on the role of UP as a social critic?

• More than ROTC, we should instead be institutionalizing more GEs

• Our sense of justice is relational, thus the concept of justice as pakikipagkapwa is appropriate.