p. 19 | Censored Views in the Philippines by S. B. H.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 21, 1911

Censored Views in the Philippines

By S. B. H.

WITH the coming of school-teachers from the United States to connect with the public-school system of the Philippine Islands, there has arisen what seems to some a crisis regarding free speech in that territory. Searching for the source of information upon which the Michigan Presbyterian Synod based resolutions condemning the federal order that required public-school teachers to maintain silence in and out of school hours regarding Protestantism, the following was located:—

“BUREAU OF EDUCATION “MANILA, MARCH 11, 1908. “Circular “No. 32, s. 1908

“RELIGIOUS TEACHING FORBIDDEN “To Division Superintendents. “It appears from one or two cases recently occurring that former decisions relative to religious teaching by teachers are not now generally known by all concerned. In a case arising in 1902, the secretary of public instruction, in forwarding the papers to the civil governor, laid down the following rule:— “‘Criticism by teachers of doctrines

of any church, religious sect, or denomination, and attempts by them to influence the pupils of any public school for or against any religion, are definitely prohibited by law. Under, and by virtue of, the terms of Act 74, Section 16: “No teacher or other person shall teach or criticize the doctrines of any church, religious sect, or denomination, or shall attempt to influence the pupils for or against any church or religious sect in any public school under this act. . . .” The law can not be construed to mean that it was intended to regulate the conduct of the teacher in public only, and that privately, not to say secretly, the purpose of the enactment might be defeated beneath the shadow of his own roof with impunity; and even if it could, the teacher must not hope to escape administrative condemnation for his attempt to circumvent a law whose purpose is so plain and unequivocal. One of the most serious obstacles which the American system of education has had to encounter and is now encountering in the Philippine Islands, is the suspicion of the native inhabitants that the school is to be used to undermine and destroy the faith of their children. That this suspicion is wholly without foundation goes without saying; but the American teacher who fails to recognize that it is a factor to be reckoned with, and to conduct himself accordingly, is a detriment to the service. . . . The first commandment of the insular government is: Respect all religions, war with none, favor none, teach none. The failure to be neutral in religious matters . . . not only seriously impairs his usefulness and efficiency as a teacher, but also hampers the administration in its work of maintaining good relations with the people of the islands, and serves to discredit its frequently announced policy of non-interference in purely religious matters.’”

“In returning the above paper, the civil governor, among other things said:— “‘We occupy a peculiar position in this country in the teaching in public schools, which grows out of the fact that most people in the islands are Catholics, and have been used to the close union of religious and secular instruction. The priests and the people, many of them, are naturally suspicious that the introduction of the new system bodes no good for the orthodox religion. If, now, agents of the government, in carrying on its schools, manifest opinions which are adverse and hostile, either to the church, their ministers, or their religious methods of instruction, they disable themselves from performing the duties which they are employed and paid to perform, and much interfere with their powers for usefulness. The question whether the Bible shall be freely read by the young and the old without the assistance of ministers or others who can explain its texts, is a question upon which churches have differed; and whatever may be thought of it, it is not for the teachers in public schools in this Catholic country either to encourage the study of the Bible—especially of the Protestant Bible—among their pupils, or to say to those pupils anything upon the subject.’”

“In deciding upon a similar case, it was held by the secretary of public instruction in June, 1904, that:— “‘In view of the intimate personal relation of a teacher to his pupils, no religious instruction of any nature should be given by him at any time, even outside of the schoolroom.’”

“It is not believed that anything further can be added to make more clear the attitude of the department and of the administration on this point. The above excerpts are published for the information and guidance of all teachers.

“DAVID P. BARROWS, Director. “Exhibit ‘G.’”

Without doubt, the policy outlined in the above order subserves the interests of the Roman Catholic Church, and indirectly favors the same.

In an act for establishing religious freedom in Virginia, adopted in 1785, the American principle of freedom of speech was expressed in the following language:—

“Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

It must be admitted that teachers of public schools should be debarred from teaching religion in the schoolroom, during school hours; but to restrict a public-school teacher or other officer of the government from exercising the right of free speech outside of the schoolroom or office, should be cause for serious alarm. If the federal government can promulgate and enforce such a rule in the Philippine Islands against the right of free speech on the part of public servants, what assurance have we that a similar order may not be promulgated and enforced in this country?

S. B. H.