Taking on the Phil. Code of Ethics for teachers (2) 05-09-04

	NORDIS WEEKLY September 4, 2005
Home \| To bottom	Previous \| Next
Taking on the Phil. Code of Ethics for teachers (2)
*Drunken Master: the moral role of the teacher* By JHOANNA LYNN B. CRUZ According to Gerald Fain, codes are designed to “prove a group’s collective will to hold each other accountable” for their behavior (n.p.). Thus, we have Article III, section 2: “it is his duty to be socially acceptable by keeping himself morally upright, refraining from gambling, abhorring drunkenness and other excesses, and avoiding immoral relations.” At first glance, this section makes complete sense. After all, what parent would want his/her child in the care of a chronic gambler and alcoholic, who is known to have many wives and illegitimate children? The fact that we actually elected someone exactly like that to the Presidency doesn’t seem to matter. We reason that the President is only in charge of the country and not in direct contact with our children. Teachers are different — we impose higher standards on teachers because “educational goals cannot be disentangled from wider considerations and ideals of personal moral development” (Carr 2000, p.186). All teachers, regardless of subject area, have a moral role to play in education. Indeed, there is a professional consensus that education and teaching are inherently moral enterprises, and that teachers in general would be disinclined to deny that much of what they do in the classroom…is liable to have a broadly moral influence on the attitudes, beliefs, and conduct of pupils (p.187). Simply put, students, especially children, tend to imitate and emulate the teachers they like; not just in externally manifested factors, but more importantly in attitudes and beliefs. If a popular teacher openly espouses the “virtues” of keeping a mistress, his students will probably “learn” to believe that it is right. However, there is a world of difference between what we say and what we do. Some people believe that as long as the extramarital affair is kept secret, then it is considered the teacher’s personal business – especially if the teacher is doing his job well. Where indeed, do we draw the line between our professional and personal lives? More importantly, what does it mean to be “morally upright”? In an interview with Dr. Roberto Lazaro, a professor of philosophy and Ombudsman of The Manila Times, he explains that a teacher’s ethical role is three-fold: as an agent of the institution, by which a teacher not just represents the school, but IS the school; a trustee of the people, who is entrusted with the welfare of the students; and as an exemplar of behavior, not just inside the school, but all the time. In other words, in determining the “scandalous” nature of an act, one must take into account this three-fold role. Thus, whether an act is scandalous to you or me doesn’t quite matter; as long as an act is scandalous to some, then a teacher must desist from engaging in it. Yet aren’t we entitled to some measure of private life? The problem of moral philosophy and the practice of teaching is that teachers are human, and as such, have human weaknesses. “They are philosophically problematic in the manner of moral concepts – precisely because they are themselves moral projects” (Carr p.29). While being only human is not an excuse to do evil, I am hard put to accept the Code’s provision exhorting me to “abhor drunkenness and other excesses.” Surely, most people, in whatever profession, would normally abhor wild drunken behavior that culminates in physical violence or shameless disregard for the public; but does this imply that a teacher must never drink or get drunk at all? Or can we cut ourselves some slack and allow occasional drunkenness as long as it is not scandalous? And what is meant by other “excesses”? Can it refer, for instance, to habitual over-eating, which can lead to worse consequences, in the long term, than the occasional drink? Or what about teachers who watch television soap operas excessively, to the detriment of their professional development? And is it more morally right for a teacher to spend $200 on a pair of shoes than to drink in public? (Of course, with a teacher’s salary in the Philippines, this example may be considered reductio ad absurdum.) Fain suggests that “a code cannot be expected to motivate bad people to behave well, nor can a code take the place of the individual’s aspiration for good character or morally reflective practice” (n.p.). But I refuse to see myself as simply a bad person with a bone to pick with the Code. Furthermore, how do we define “immoral relations”? The safest stand might be to follow the Ten Commandments; or if one is not a Christian, the Law. Thus, we might concur, that adultery is immoral, pedophilia is immoral, but what about homosexuality? Is it fair to condemn homosexual teachers by invoking the Code of Ethics? Is the gay man or lesbian necessarily “morally deficient” and thus, ineligible to teach our children? Lazaro explains that in this case, he prepares a “positional grid,” in which there are four possibilities: a gay man may be moral, a gay man may be immoral, while a straight man may be moral, and a straight man may be immoral. Thus, when choosing between a gay teacher who is moral, and a straight teacher who engages in immoral activities, a school head should hire the gay man. But overly conservative parents may be alarmed by their children’s exposure to homosexuality as an exemplar of behavior. “Baka mahawa ang mga bata!” Obviously, we do not live in the Dark Ages anymore and we know now that homosexuality is not a communicable disease. What this “exposure” does is to teach our children to develop their moral agency. Carr explains that “full realization of one’s humanity in moral association must be a function of education, of having acquired some measure of that moral insight or understanding which is a sine qua non of wise moral choice” (p.193). We cannot always protect our children from lifestyles that are different from ours; in fact, we shouldn’t. What we should do is teach them how to become persons with a deep understanding and tolerance for other people’s choices. And this goes beyond shrugging one’s shoulders and saying, “as long as it’s not me!” A good education must be able to train the child in moral reflection. According to Paul Tillich, “a moral act is not an act in obedience to an external law, human or divine. It is the inner law of our true being, of our essential or created nature, which demands that we actualize what follows from it” (Agapay 1991, p.55). Agapay calls it PAGPAPAKATAO. In this framework, it is not homosexuality that is immoral per se, it is homophobia that must be banished from our schools. While it is true that many actions can be immediately and necessarily construed as morally objectionable without a shadow of a doubt, and thus should not be condoned, there are also cases that require us to engage in some moral reflection. Even the old injunction to “let your conscience be your guide” may be problematic. It is, after all, only a “proximate norm of morality” (Agapay p.58); it may be the closest we can get, but it requires an “act of practical judgment of reason” (p.58). And this implies some degree of relativity; that is to say, some consciences may be more liberal than others. There are moral circumstances in which schools and teachers must not equivocate, but when it comes to moral dilemmas, it is our duty as well, to be part of the mechanism that allows human society to develop by instilling in our students a sense of moral creativity, which promotes the discovery of new solutions, instead of merely resorting to moral superiority. # R E F E R E N C E S Agapay, R. (1991). Ethics and the Filipino. A Manual on Morals for Students and Educators. Mandaluyong: National Bookstore, Inc. Barrell, G.R. (1981). “A Code of Professional Conduct.” Education Today, volume 31, Number 3, pp. 18-21. Carr, D. (2000). Professionalism and Ethics in Teaching. London: Routledge. Fain, G. “Ethics in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.” http://www.oid.ucla.edu. Lazaro, R. (2005). Interview, Manila. Martin, M. (1995). Everyday Morality. An Introduction to Applied Ethics. 2nd edition. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Jhoanna Lynn B. Cruz is currently the Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City. She has taught English and Literature in De La Salle University, St. Louis University, St. Scholastica’s College, and the Manila Times School of Journalism.
Home \| Back to top	Previous \| Next

	NORDIS WEEKLY September 4, 2005
Home \| To bottom	Previous \| Next
Taking on the Phil. Code of Ethics for teachers (2)
*Drunken Master: the moral role of the teacher* By JHOANNA LYNN B. CRUZ According to Gerald Fain, codes are designed to “prove a group’s collective will to hold each other accountable” for their behavior (n.p.). Thus, we have Article III, section 2: “it is his duty to be socially acceptable by keeping himself morally upright, refraining from gambling, abhorring drunkenness and other excesses, and avoiding immoral relations.” At first glance, this section makes complete sense. After all, what parent would want his/her child in the care of a chronic gambler and alcoholic, who is known to have many wives and illegitimate children? The fact that we actually elected someone exactly like that to the Presidency doesn’t seem to matter. We reason that the President is only in charge of the country and not in direct contact with our children. Teachers are different — we impose higher standards on teachers because “educational goals cannot be disentangled from wider considerations and ideals of personal moral development” (Carr 2000, p.186). All teachers, regardless of subject area, have a moral role to play in education. Indeed, there is a professional consensus that education and teaching are inherently moral enterprises, and that teachers in general would be disinclined to deny that much of what they do in the classroom…is liable to have a broadly moral influence on the attitudes, beliefs, and conduct of pupils (p.187). Simply put, students, especially children, tend to imitate and emulate the teachers they like; not just in externally manifested factors, but more importantly in attitudes and beliefs. If a popular teacher openly espouses the “virtues” of keeping a mistress, his students will probably “learn” to believe that it is right. However, there is a world of difference between what we say and what we do. Some people believe that as long as the extramarital affair is kept secret, then it is considered the teacher’s personal business – especially if the teacher is doing his job well. Where indeed, do we draw the line between our professional and personal lives? More importantly, what does it mean to be “morally upright”? In an interview with Dr. Roberto Lazaro, a professor of philosophy and Ombudsman of The Manila Times, he explains that a teacher’s ethical role is three-fold: as an agent of the institution, by which a teacher not just represents the school, but IS the school; a trustee of the people, who is entrusted with the welfare of the students; and as an exemplar of behavior, not just inside the school, but all the time. In other words, in determining the “scandalous” nature of an act, one must take into account this three-fold role. Thus, whether an act is scandalous to you or me doesn’t quite matter; as long as an act is scandalous to some, then a teacher must desist from engaging in it. Yet aren’t we entitled to some measure of private life? The problem of moral philosophy and the practice of teaching is that teachers are human, and as such, have human weaknesses. “They are philosophically problematic in the manner of moral concepts – precisely because they are themselves moral projects” (Carr p.29). While being only human is not an excuse to do evil, I am hard put to accept the Code’s provision exhorting me to “abhor drunkenness and other excesses.” Surely, most people, in whatever profession, would normally abhor wild drunken behavior that culminates in physical violence or shameless disregard for the public; but does this imply that a teacher must never drink or get drunk at all? Or can we cut ourselves some slack and allow occasional drunkenness as long as it is not scandalous? And what is meant by other “excesses”? Can it refer, for instance, to habitual over-eating, which can lead to worse consequences, in the long term, than the occasional drink? Or what about teachers who watch television soap operas excessively, to the detriment of their professional development? And is it more morally right for a teacher to spend $200 on a pair of shoes than to drink in public? (Of course, with a teacher’s salary in the Philippines, this example may be considered reductio ad absurdum.) Fain suggests that “a code cannot be expected to motivate bad people to behave well, nor can a code take the place of the individual’s aspiration for good character or morally reflective practice” (n.p.). But I refuse to see myself as simply a bad person with a bone to pick with the Code. Furthermore, how do we define “immoral relations”? The safest stand might be to follow the Ten Commandments; or if one is not a Christian, the Law. Thus, we might concur, that adultery is immoral, pedophilia is immoral, but what about homosexuality? Is it fair to condemn homosexual teachers by invoking the Code of Ethics? Is the gay man or lesbian necessarily “morally deficient” and thus, ineligible to teach our children? Lazaro explains that in this case, he prepares a “positional grid,” in which there are four possibilities: a gay man may be moral, a gay man may be immoral, while a straight man may be moral, and a straight man may be immoral. Thus, when choosing between a gay teacher who is moral, and a straight teacher who engages in immoral activities, a school head should hire the gay man. But overly conservative parents may be alarmed by their children’s exposure to homosexuality as an exemplar of behavior. “Baka mahawa ang mga bata!” Obviously, we do not live in the Dark Ages anymore and we know now that homosexuality is not a communicable disease. What this “exposure” does is to teach our children to develop their moral agency. Carr explains that “full realization of one’s humanity in moral association must be a function of education, of having acquired some measure of that moral insight or understanding which is a sine qua non of wise moral choice” (p.193). We cannot always protect our children from lifestyles that are different from ours; in fact, we shouldn’t. What we should do is teach them how to become persons with a deep understanding and tolerance for other people’s choices. And this goes beyond shrugging one’s shoulders and saying, “as long as it’s not me!” A good education must be able to train the child in moral reflection. According to Paul Tillich, “a moral act is not an act in obedience to an external law, human or divine. It is the inner law of our true being, of our essential or created nature, which demands that we actualize what follows from it” (Agapay 1991, p.55). Agapay calls it PAGPAPAKATAO. In this framework, it is not homosexuality that is immoral per se, it is homophobia that must be banished from our schools. While it is true that many actions can be immediately and necessarily construed as morally objectionable without a shadow of a doubt, and thus should not be condoned, there are also cases that require us to engage in some moral reflection. Even the old injunction to “let your conscience be your guide” may be problematic. It is, after all, only a “proximate norm of morality” (Agapay p.58); it may be the closest we can get, but it requires an “act of practical judgment of reason” (p.58). And this implies some degree of relativity; that is to say, some consciences may be more liberal than others. There are moral circumstances in which schools and teachers must not equivocate, but when it comes to moral dilemmas, it is our duty as well, to be part of the mechanism that allows human society to develop by instilling in our students a sense of moral creativity, which promotes the discovery of new solutions, instead of merely resorting to moral superiority. # R E F E R E N C E S Agapay, R. (1991). Ethics and the Filipino. A Manual on Morals for Students and Educators. Mandaluyong: National Bookstore, Inc. Barrell, G.R. (1981). “A Code of Professional Conduct.” Education Today, volume 31, Number 3, pp. 18-21. Carr, D. (2000). Professionalism and Ethics in Teaching. London: Routledge. Fain, G. “Ethics in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.” http://www.oid.ucla.edu. Lazaro, R. (2005). Interview, Manila. Martin, M. (1995). Everyday Morality. An Introduction to Applied Ethics. 2nd edition. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Jhoanna Lynn B. Cruz is currently the Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City. She has taught English and Literature in De La Salle University, St. Louis University, St. Scholastica’s College, and the Manila Times School of Journalism.
Home \| Back to top	Previous \| Next