About a week ago, the alumni association of the University of Santo Tomas conferred on UST alumna Presidential Communications Assistant Secretary Mocha Uson its Thomasian Alumni Award for Government Service. Uson was given the award at appropriate ceremonies.
Shortly after the award was given to Uson, the social media carried numerous adverse commentaries against her and her award. Reports reveal that the UST student council and the campus student publication opposed the laurel given to Uson. The campus paper even demanded the resignation of the officials of the UST Alumni Association responsible for the award.
A number of UST alumni protested. Two previous alumni awardees threatened to return their awards to the alumni association to express their disapproval.
In addition, the UST administration announced that the university had nothing to do with the awards given by its alumni association.
Days later, in an interview he gave on national television, alumni association president Henry Tenedero clarified that morality and uprightness were not among the criteria for the award given to Assistant Secretary Uson. He said that it was enough that the awardee for government service is actually working in the government.
On the other hand, Malacañang was pleased that Assistant Secretary Uson was honored by her alma mater.
A few days ago, however, Tenedero resigned his post in the UST alumni association. This was followed by Uson’s decision to return her award to the alumni association, with appropriate thanks and appreciation duly conveyed by her.
Supporters of Uson resented the protests of several UST alumni and described the critics’ adverse public remarks as bullying tactics directed against the outspoken communications official of President Rodrigo Duterte.
Critics of Uson may not realize it, but their tirades against her are more damaging to the UST Alumni Association, than to Uson herself. In fact, their anti-Uson efforts have opened a can of worms, so to speak.
The disclaimer by the UST Alumni Association (which was prompted by the intense anti-Uson statements in the social media) to the effect that morality and uprightness were not among the criteria in giving the award to Uson, and Tenedero’s explanation that the government service award can be given to any alumnus or alumna who happens to be in government service anyway—is a cheap and clumsy attempt to pacify Uson’s critics, especially those among the alumni of UST.
If morality and uprightness were not even considered at all in the giving of the alumni award for government service, the UST Alumni Association should not have called it an “award” in the first place. What is the use of conferring an “award” when it is supposedly given under the rather superficial criterion suggested by Tenedero? The awarding ceremonies would have been an utter waste of time and money for everyone concerned.
Following Tenedero’s “disclaimer” and “explanation,” the “award” should have been called a mere “statement of fact.”
Actually, Tenedero’s lame excuse devalued whatever honor is supposed to go, not only with the “award” for government service given to Assistant Secretary Uson, but to other similar “awards” given to other UST alumni. Tenedero’s excuse is, to say the least, insulting not just to Uson but to the other UST alumni who were awardees on earlier occasions. Thus, the UST alumni who threatened to return their previously conferred awards to their alumni association have valid reasons to make those threats, not so much because Uson got the same award this year, but because of the award’s alleged superficial criterion cited by Tenedero. It’s no surprise why Uson decided to return the award.
Despite the insults hurled her way by Tenedoro and her critics among the UST alumni, and despite Tenedero’s disclaimer, Uson was courteous enough to convey her thanks to the alumni association upon returning the award.
Likewise, Uson’s detractors may have created an unsettling precedent. What they did to both Uson and their alumni association will certainly embolden others to follow suit. For reasons fair or foul, many alumni of other universities will begin to protest awards given by the alumni associations of their own universities. Enemies of potential awardees will have a heyday assassinating the character of the potential awardees the moment the award or the nomination for the award is made public. Those enemies can come from anywhere, including the envious, as well as those who were nominated or considered for the award, but did not get it.
Since the saying “you can’t please everybody” is true, even the most deserving university alumni who are bound to have their own share of critics and enemies, will be terrified at the mere prospect of getting nominated for an alumni award. That scenario will be a nightmare for all university alumni associations in the country. Good grief!
Incidentally, this is not the first time a UST graduate made it to the public eye.
Back in 2001, the UST expressed its displeasure with retired Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, a UST alumnus, for the latter’s decision to defend then President Joseph Estrada in the latter’s impeachment trial in the Senate. The Narvasa family and the UST eventually reconciled in 2013.
In January 2012, the UST conferred upon then Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona a doctorate degree in civil law, summa cum laude. Almost overnight, news reports from Rappler triggered questions on whether Corona deserved a doctorate degree which the UST was allegedly not even authorized by the Commission on Higher Education to confer in the first place.
The controversy added to the furor against Corona, who was later impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. His conviction led to his ouster from office. Corona died in April 2016.