Disciplinary Office of De La Salle University
Letter of Complaint
July 4, 2012
I, a student of De La Salle University, want to complain about the promulgation of new policies of the university. I understand ignorance is not an excuse for violation. Currently, my third minor offense is being processed, two of which due to ignorance.
This is a trouble of mine, and I assume for many others. On behalf of all those who have gotten offenses because ignorance, I send this complaint, a gateway for better—and more effective, policy implementation.
The university has issues with the students, and the students issues with the university. According to the disciplinary officer who caught me earlier today, the university has an issue with smokers around the university perimeter. This term, the road from Agno to the Enrique Razon Sports Complex, is officially a non-smoking area. Noncompliance, and the student gets a minor offense. I said I was unaware of this new policy. He got my I.D. number and said it was announced on the website. Unfortunately, I—like many others—do not religiously check the DLSU website. Does the university presume each student has internet access? Do they presume students read all the emails they send? This is more convenient for the arbiters than the students themselves.
The D.O. said he had been warning people from the beginning of the term. This reached a small demographic—just like those caught for their violations. Therefore, I propose a more explicit manner of reaching all students of De La Salle University: SIGNS.
I have been a victim of the absence of signs twice. To support my proposal, two personal instances:
1) Last academic year (2011-2012), I was caught drinking coffee on the ground floor of SJ (diagonal to the Disciplinary Office). I occupied one of the desks, while two students had their lunch on the parallel table to mine. This area is not air-conditioned and there are no signs that say it is a study area. When the D.O. took my I.D., I asked why there were no signs to signify the place as a study area. There are “No Smoking” signs around the campus. Why? Everyone knows students cannot smoke INSIDE the campus. Why are these signs present? Why are there no “No Eating/ Drinking” signs in these areas?
When I filed my case, D.O.’s were distributing cookies among each other, some eating them. With all due respect, for someone penalized for drinking coffee in a non-air-conditioned place to see this happening in the air-conditioned office, I had a right to feel a sense of injustice. I did not complain about this before, but now that I have been accused of ignorance, I feel the need 1) for “No Eating/ Drinking” signs in these designated areas; 2) for D.O.’s to practice what they preach.
2) Earlier today, July 4, 2012 (approx. 12:50), the D.O. took my I.D. for smoking in front of Nomi. This area is where people have moved since Agno—not the university—declared their area a non-smoking area. Students and professors respected that and smoked elsewhere. My friend was smoking right in front me and the D.O. stood beside her. I did not know anything wrong was going on because this where we typically smoke anyway. Right in front of me, he told my friend to go to the place where she could smoke without taking her I.D., and got my I.D. instead. Why did he let her go? I asked about the cigarette butts on the road; he said he did not see them so he could not catch them. Right when the officer left, others came by and smoked exactly where he caught me. Why? No signs. Not everybody knows about this policy and I propose they make it explicit if they expect cooperation. Perhaps some know of the policy but insist on smoking in this area because no D.O. is present. Must this attitude be permitted? No. The website is not enough. Warning a couple of students is not enough.
Check out how the government works. They are all about signs. If the road does not say it is a one way road, a driver can go without violating the “counter-flow” policy. No jay-walking signs? Walk across the road. Policies are not as commonsensical as arbiters might think. Not everybody reads the entire constitution, not everybody reads the declaration of human rights, not everyone checks the DLSU website. New policies must scatter as fast as the declaration of class suspension, or must be explicit to assure the cooperation of all those affected by such policies.
The university must promote awareness and integrity. Offices in the university must work for the betterment of the students—in record and development.
With concern and respect,
Monica Jose N. Kaluag
36 replies on “Letter of Complaint: Disciplinary Office of De La Salle University”
Good points raised. Having said that, the students – more than the offices – have a greater responsibility to know and follow rules. Allow me to explain why.
There are more than 10,000 students and obviously less than a hundred discipline officers in the employ of the school. It is impossible for them to enforce the rules on every offender BUT the law of probability means they WILL enforce rules on some. If you were unfortunately caught, honestly, you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Signs are helpful, yes, but we know this does nothing to deter smokers. Multiple signs on the walls of the parking lot ARE present and yet people still smoke there. So signs at Agno do not, if at all work. The point is moot.
1. In response to: “[if] you were unfortunately caught, honestly, you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time”, that is a good point generally speaking, but in this specific case, the complainant was singled out even though her friend was right there.
2. Deterrence is not exactly the point. It helps, but the main issue is accountability.
What do I mean by this?
Deterrence: “Don’t smoke”
Accountability: “If you smoke, you will get a minor offense from the University”
In an ideal world, No Smoking signs stop people. We can agree that this is not an ideal world. People have their own reasons for wanting to smoke, and we respect that, which is why we give them smoking areas.
However, we deserve to be informed when laws are passed. We need to know when we will get punished if we do something that is in a moral gray area.
Similarly, although society frowns upon it, premarital is permissible, but only in certain areas.
I agree with your first point; that WAS unfair and props for calling that out. Still, I stand with my point that being in the wrong place at the wrong time is sometimes the only reason students get caught doing things not necessarily permitted within an academic campus.
You’re right, it is the freedom of smokers to smoke but here’s the funny thing with freedom in general: once it invades the freedom of others (in this particular case, non-smokers) it’s no longer freedom but dictating personal choice and will upon others. STILL, yes, there are designated smoking areas but (and you brought this up) assigning areas still do not raise accountability, not enough to work at large anyway. Example would be the Agno parking lot area with its numerous “no smoking” signs – and yet still find many people having a YB there.
Oh, and I am in no position to address the last line comment 😛
You’re missing the point.
There are always grey areas to everything- it’s easy to defend why people should not smoke, and then you can go liberal and say you must respect individual decisions like smoking in an open area- but where do people draw the line?
People must know where to draw the line.
You give us the example of Agno parking lot. It has numerous ‘No Smoking’ signs. If someone gets punished for smoking, then they can’t really complain can they? They’ve been informed.
University/whichever authority was accountable for making it known that it is wrong to smoke there.
Hence, smoker can be held accountable for smoking there.
In this case, we have accountability.
In the case of Ms. Kaluag, she shouldn’t have been held accountable.
Signs: easy to put up, easy to read, easy to point at (for the DO, when people do not obey)
In addition, the complainant raised some irrelevant posts.
1. Not everyone checks the DLSU website.
True. But whose responsibility is that? It is far too easy to check Facebook, Twitter, 9Gag, tumblr, and so many more entertainment sites… And yet can spare no time to check the website where you could save yourself trouble and offenses just by checking?
2. Not everyone has Internet access.
Flawes and untrue argument. The university has multiple computer labs free for access to any student with Internet connection. The campus is fully wifi-enabled. With all due respect, EVERYONE IN DLSU HAS INTERNET ACCESS.
:no:
I’ve been a victim too of what I’d call “poor dissemination of information” when I was unaware of the deadline for my Graduation Fees. I learned this by word of mouth, and when I found out it was too late. I had to choose between having to wait for the next scheduled march or to pay Php2000. Well imo Php2000 isn’t worth paying for something that isn’t wholly my fault.
I don’t see any signs around, nor was I informed by our thesis adviser, no text, nothing but a single email in the MLS, that I don’t open because of tons of things that I find irrelevant. Heck, if I enrolled as Graduating for that term they could’ve done something special with my ID, or maybe sent me a text, or handed a notice as I claimed my EAF.
Call me naive, but I don’t think it’s my responsibility to check the DLSU website everyday, esp. if the purpose is to check for new implementation of policies. Putting signs would be easier, much effective and straightforward. Also, if there would be new policies imo they should give at least a week to make everyone aware (unless it’s some sort of epidemic), and give those that would be affected time to raise their concerns if there are any.
Hi, thanks for commenting!
I wish we could both agree that “putting signs would be easier” but we will have to concede to the fact that we can plaster the campus with signs and there will still be students who will find fault with those. Please remember that the student community of DLSU numbers over 10,000 students and reminding a good number of these PERSONALLY would be inefficient, ineffective, amazingly time-consuming, diverts manpower from original responsibilities, and will overtax our already worked-to-the-bone discipline and formation officers.
I know, in a perfect world, school admin would cater to every student’s needs – but we are (well, I was :P) in a good school to do two things (and in this order): get an education and have some fun. If we are spoon-fed every little bit of information we need, DLSU would need to hire 9970 more discipline and formation officers – and that would be far too embarrassing for us Lasallians. Our privilege of education comes at a cost: to arm ourselves with not just academic knowledge but pro-active involvement in knowing and understanding how the school admin works so we can better enjoy Part #2, have some fun.
Regards, and thanks for the opinion.
1. In response to: “[And] yet can spare no time to check the website where you could save yourself trouble and offenses just by checking?” That does not logically follow. In the same breath, I could respond with an equally unsupported complaint: “it is far too easy to post in the DLSU website, yet the DO can spare no time to have it spread on Facebook and Twitter?”
It should be the University’s responsibility to disseminate information when it comes alterations in the rules; the operative word is ‘alterations’. As far as we know, the lecture on the Student Handbook we’ve been given during our Freshmen days should have already included everything. We’re not even aware that the rules can change depending on the whims of the DO. We’re not even aware that these changes are posted on the DLSU website.
Why? No one said so.
Should it then be our responsibility to nag the DO officers in the SJ building: “hey, what can we do to make sure we don’t commit a minor offense?”
We already have a lot of responsibilities. And it’s okay when someone punishes us for not respecting those responsibilities because we’re made aware of them.
And the DO has already set a precedence for information dissemination when it changes rules.
When the Dress Code policy and the ID policy were revised, the DO took it upon themselves to spread it on Facebook.
This leads us to believe that alterations will be made known to the public through social networking sites whenever they are made.
Updates on important University Issues are the reasons why we join our batch’s Facebook group, why we become friends with USG, why we read the Lasallian even.
2. In response to “EVERYONE IN DLSU HAS INTERNET ACCESS”, access should not equate to responsibility.
Hey, thanks for the comments!
I think when it comes to information dissemination, which seems to be your main argument here, we have to understand that the university website is totally different entity from the various social media accounts associated with our school. You will agree with me I think when I say there are FAR TOO MANY “De La Salle University [insert group name here]” that we don’t check updates and information anymore due to overload. Having said that, I know exactly how you feel – students have SO MANY responsibilities & keeping track of changes are tough.
Which is why in 2009, I experienced my first Minor Offense. I was a victim of the literal interpretation of a rule, and you know what? It’s not the end of the world; troublesome to stay updated? Yes. But totally worth the effort.
I would have to disagree with “access should not equate to responsibility” as this was a point brought out by the complainant, i.e. the internet access for all issue 🙂 If you have the means to find out something but not use it for your own self-information, well then. That’s it.
Thanks for the discussion, you brought up some very good points.
No, I cannot agree with you with “we don’t check updates and information anymore due to overload.”
Everyone was made aware of the changes in the Dress Code and the ID Policy. It was spread through the internet. There was only one image. Everyone knew the importance of disseminating information, hence it was passed around.
Why should the University Website be an entity that stands by itself? Aside from issues already mentioned, enrollment dates, though posted in the Website, are also passed through social media.
Jason Cruz. Stfu please. He’s speaking for the majority.
For the majority? I don’t think so.
For Someone and 109, we cannot determine ‘majority’ because we have no empirical proof. So both of your statements are both true and false. 🙂
It is kind of funny that you did not comment on the DO’s faults.
Good point. Let’s be unbiased as possible. 🙂 Biases are present but we must try to lessen (or to indicate as well)
Not really funny that he didn’t comment; Jason’s argument is sensible. In any case, would it help if he commented on how the SDFO can be, no, IS, inconsistent with who it apprehends?
@Jason Cruz: The point of the complainant’s argument is the clear and concise distinctions what illegal or offense worthy actions are. Take for example her previous offense, a couple of meters away, people are eating, and she was enjoying a beverage, yet she was apprehended and charged. A minor offense is not as minor as you think. Three minor offenses constitutes a MAJOR OFFENSE, hampering you with not just graduating with honors, but also preventing you to run for any kind of official position in any organization, and preventing you to participate in any foreign exchange programs or any major academic programs or benefits. Her argument is flawed in the sense that she accuses the lack of dissemination of rules and regulations, but it is not flawed in the sense that the implementation of rules is biased, unfair, and downright inconsiderate. wouldn’t a warning be enough? wouldn’t a “please maan, you cannot smoke here” be sufficient to prevent a person to smoke in that designated area?
and flaws in Jason’s argument:
1: the problem is not “the wrong place or the wrong time” or “impossible for them to enforce the rules on every offender”, but how the DO do their work.
2: You cannot assume that the aforementioned complainant is capable of checking these social websites. though you may deem this impossible, i have known and met many lasallians incapable of affording even a desktop of their own, so how can you even assume she can suck up some of the wifi juices in DLSU. I CANT EVEN DO THAT PROPERLY!
3: The only open access computers in DLSU are in the library (nook, 2nd, and 3rd floor), and probably some hidden ones in dlsu. Most computers are used for lab classes or such and are not always available, and most of the open access computers are used by many others. 10000 students, around 3 dozen computers. even if you can assume only 1% of the said students don’t have computers, they would still have a hard time accessing the internet.
FYI, 3 minor offenses of the SAME NATURE or 5 minor offenses of DIFFERENT NATURE constitutes a MAJOR OFFENSE. The offense that she committed was 3 minor offenses of DIFFERENT NATURE.
Take the initiative and check about the rules in your area, whether they are practical or otherwise. I know DLSU tuition is high but don’t expect to be spoon fed like a baby. I understand that some of the rules are not based on common sense, like the areas where to eat and smoke, but you don’t seem that inept based on your writing ablity to be able to find out.
PS
Smoking is a disgusting habit, take up drinking instead. It has less long term negative side effects if taken on moderation and could be a source of inspiration. I had one classmate who would take tests drunk and he would always get a perfect grade.
This complaint would have had more merit if the complainant questioned the implementation of the policies, the inconsistencies in the handling of cases. While the complainant had mentioned that, her other arguments practically made her point moot.
I support your “signs not emails” warnings as these directly reach those concerned, not only for policies but for very important announcements.
Your “No Eating/Drinking” experience also somehow supports your idea, however cmiiw I remember it’s stated in the handbook that you can’t eat anywhere else besides canteens and those places with stone tables and chairs… still that’s a bit vague especially for frosh, so putting signs would save them from the “ignorance” but housekeeping prolly says that’s out of design.
For your smoking experience, the thing about your friend is quite questionable. He should’ve taken your ID with your friend’s. About the others not being caught though, that’s just luck. Though you might say “they can have a D.O. stationed at the area to catch everyone” that doesn’t seem to be right, or to most might seem as limiting their freedom. I mean, catching one or two by surprise is good enough, that those uncaught develop the sense of the rule on their own. But for that particular incident with your friend, meh. Also, cmiiw even if Agno didn’t make the No-Smoking Policy, the area is still within the measurements stated in the handbook.
Agno is outside the measurements stated in the handbook. Check section 13.5.2 for clarification on what is considered to be ‘university premises’: “within a radius of five (5) meters from gates,
fences or dividing walls of buildings”. This is the reason why people say it’s okay to smoke in Agno. As for Nomi, the complainant seems to have the misfortune of being in the part of Nomi less than five meters away.
http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/offices/mco/publications/student_handbook/SY0912/Section13.pdf
Too much for the victim attitude. Blaming won’t get you anywhere. Take responsibility for yourself and your actions.
As an alumni of DLSU and a previous writer for the school paper, I cannot see why you would waste a space on the school paper or on the website for these rants.
It is your responsibility as a student to be informed. Much less from someone that writes for the paper that should know what has been happening in the school. If you cannot keep yourself up to date with the current changes how can you spread news that will be irrelevant or no longer up to date?
POINT 1: “Does the university presume each student has internet access?”
COMMENT 1: Precisely why they have wi-fi and cybernooks scattered around. Being admitted in DLSU automatically places a responsibility among students to know the rules of the University.
POINT 2: “Do they presume students read all the emails they send?”
COMMENT 2: Ideally yes, in reality of course not. That’s what the student handbook is for. For any new regulations, the argument MAY carry some weight if it is not properly disseminated.
POINT 3: “…With all due respect, for someone penalized for drinking coffee in a non-air-conditioned place to see this [DO distributing cookies] happening in the air-conditioned office, I had a right to feel a sense of injustice.”
COMMENT 3: Agreed. A sense of partiality can be construed from this scenario. Perhaps a little discretion on the part of our honorable disciplinarians would’ve sufficed. Still, rules are rules.
POINT 4: “…Right in front of me, he told my friend to go to the place where she could smoke without taking her I.D., and got my I.D. instead. Why did he let her go?…right when the officer left, others came by and smoked exactly where he caught me.”
COMMENT 4: Assuming the veracity of this person’s statement, this would’ve been the lone issue raised which carries a strong argument.
POINT 5: “Not everybody reads the entire constitution, not everybody reads the declaration of human rights, not everyone checks the DLSU website. New policies must scatter as fast as the declaration of class suspension, or must be explicit to assure the cooperation of all those affected by such policies.”
COMMENT 5: Improvement of communication lines among the D.O. – Students is valid. As for the issue of ignorance, the legal maxim cuts through the chase: “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.”
PERSONAL NOTES: I am not a smoker. Though i frown upon the act of smoking due to its deleterious effects to one’s health, I am not in any way curtailing anyone’s right to exercise his/her free will. The student complainant must be wary however, that given the University’s stringent policies, particularly against drinking and smoking – he/she should have known better to DOUBLE CHECK first if the place carries any restrictions in terms of smoking/eating. Being uninformed may be one thing, but lacking prudence especially in terms of situations like these can bite us all in the end. The University is a training ground to prepare students for the real world, complying to it’s rules is one step towards being a more responsible citizen.
That’s totally cool. Follow me on Twitter (@jsncruz), and check out my blog (jsncruz.com) for more opinions you will not like from me.
“…inconsistencies in the handling of cases.” – good point brought out. This would have made for a rock-solid argument, if used in the first place.
@Batumbakaljoe
Sorry mate, can’t seem to reply directly to YOUR reply. Thanks for your comments.
You are correct; a warning should have been given first. Let’s get this our of the way too: I DO have a Minor Offense, and I carried that painfully up to graduation, knowing honors wasn’t possible. In any case, yes, she could have received a warning first, but on the other side of the fence, how many students do you think DOs warn on a daily basis? Plenty, I guarantee you.
As to my ‘flawed arguments’:
1: We cannot make a judgement on how DOs do their work because as I said, the sheer student:DO ratio is, just mathematically speaking alone, impossible lopsided. I’m sure a solution is possible, but until we can merge the resource-capability of the university (in terms of increasing manpower, for example) and student accountability (which is nigh impossible to measure) we need to work with what we have – and it seems to be doing fine for a hundred years already.
2: Yes sir, I can assume the complainant can check websites and social media sites. Let’s talk about the complainant and only the complainant here: if she does NOT have the capacity to check websites, I would gladly issue a personal and public apology to her.
3: My computer access argument is NOT invalid; how do you think students enroll? 🙂 For several weeks a trimester, each and every single Lasallian accessed the Internet – and to deny this fact is to say access to computer labs are impossible.
Let’s all be honest here and put ONE argument to rest, i.e. the Internet access issue because EVERY Lasallian CAN and DO access the Internet.
Thanks for the points, good stuff to think about.
Oops, the follow on Twitter post is for “Someone”. Follow ah!
The homepage of the web browsers in the cybernook would be…. uhhh the DLSU website.
ONE MAJOR CONCERN: Check the website. http://www.dlsu.edu.ph
Where’s the new smoking policy?
There are three updates on the General Bulletin, the latest last May 28, 2012 and the oldest, one year ago.
There appears to be no column for the DO.
Try searching for ‘smoking policy’ in the Google search. There appears to be no revisions.
concerning the nomi issue,she should say next time that she is not a student of DLSU. thereby,inhibiting the D.O. from getting her ID. wrong move girl,wrong move.
Hey good evening, these are just my thoughts on the article.
Good point, i understand them and see them fit for your arguments. I too have had my fare share of info dissemination mishaps in the past. But I’ m sorry, i have to agree with Jason, whose responsibility is it after all to know the information? Ideally it is us, the students, responsibility to know. There are so many ways of info dissemination and I have to agree that FB and (as much as I hate to admit it) Twitter are good avenues for info dissemination but we cant forget that the best way of info dissemination is a question.
We’ve all forgotten the statement “When you don’t know, ask, ask the right questions” I don’t really know who said it, but it makes sense. We have forgotten that asking is the best way to get answers. And it goes the same with info dissemination, you need to ask the right questions to the right people to get the right information. AVOID relying on the internet, on the different avenues of info dissemination and START asking those who really know.
Say time is a problem? Well isn’t is everyone’s? But if you really wanna know, then ask.
Responsibility is a good concept, and it should indeed be practiced.
Question is, where and when do we have to ask? There are so many things we don’t understand completely and we usually try to find out. But in this case, we’re not even aware there’s something new to know. We’ve been told of the rules as they are. We follow those rules; we don’t know there are changes to them.
And yeah. It’s not really in the website. Check.
Did Ms. Kaluag pay The LaSallian to have her complaint published? I really don’t get the point of publishing it in a student paper. I can’t help but think that maybe The LaSallian holds some grudge against SDFO…