There are some people that spread the evil propaganda that the La Sallian is a poisonous weed and it ought to be uprooted if not destroyed. Among other things, they say the La Sallian is “radical”, “malicious”, “negative”, and “Communistic”. And their sense of propriety is offended.
Those who uphold this view say that the La Sallian should be “objective”, should strive for “balanced reporting”, and that it should report the facts without interpreting them.
This view is reactionary and should be opposed. It metaphysically sees things in their abstraction wherein things are isolated from each other.
Ferdinand E. Marcos is the present President of the Philippines is a fact. The broad masses of the Filipino people constitute another datum or “fact”. You may report these “facts” but actually you have said nothing.
In the concrete, facts are related to one another. They are inter-connected and do not exist in mutual exclusion of the other. Hence, where there are two main facts, there exists an objective relationship between them.
Is it not true that there exists a relationship between President Marcos and the broad masses of the people? This relationship is one between exploiter and exploited, between fascist dictator and the repressed majority.
If you are objective, you must see things in their relation, in their inter-connection. Hence, it is the duty of the La Sallian to interpret facts, and presently to describe the internal relationships between the contending forces in society.
Some people further hold that the La Sallian is “negative” and “critical.”
These people would rather have the La Sallian concentrate on the “positive” and write about mild and inoffensive things. They would like the La Sallian to take a moderate position, to combine the programs of both radicals and reactionaries, and so diffuse the paper of its stinging radical tone.
This view is incorrect because it does not make distinctions between the old and the new, between what is progressive and what is bankrupt. It sees things in their absolute unity: harmony but not division, unity but not contradiction.
When the La Sallian put forward the slogans of “academic freedom and student power” during the time when the administration adhered to the theory of “in loco parentis“, the La Sallian was first considered a poisonous weed. Then, it was critical because it perceived “in loco parentis” as historically obsolete, the theory being a product of the feudal Middle Ages. Events proved that the critical position of the La Sallian to be correct: the contradiction between the administration and the student masses finally burst open during the great storms of December 6 and November 27, resulting in a great victory for the students and a qualitative change in the nature of the academic community. For the La Sallian to have been innocuous and moderate at that time would have been a grave betrayal of the students’ cause.
If the La Sallian is critical and negative, it is because of the negative character of the system. In the present order of things, the basic evils of US imperialism, domestic feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism constitute a negativity: they deprive the Filipino masses of national independence, economic freedom, and democratic rights. Thus, by being critical of the moribund semi-colonial and semi-feudal system, the La Sallian reveals the positive content of its criticism: national democracy.
Some say the La Sallian is a poisonous weed; others say it is a fragrant flower. This only illustrates that in the world today there are only two approaches, two ways of doing things, two outlooks; one reactionary, the other revolutionary. There is no room for neutrality, no middle ground, no superficial “objectivity.” It is the task of the La Sallian to be an instrument of the new; hence, it must be partisan and revolutionary.
