I have no words . . .

. . . to describe just how disappointing it is that some faculty members (I won't name names here because my source will get into trouble) and students of the law school choose to nitpick instead of 1) being constructive or 2) simply getting out of the way. (For perspective, go to Lobit's multiply site for her text exchange presumably with some student who, to her credit, she does not identify; for perspective on the faculty member/s, let us just say that media friends have been houding me for comment on what they have been saying.)

Yesterday, the Dean and some members of the faculty and students issued a statement that was carried over the media. It was deliberately sub-titled "A Statement from the UP Law Community" NOT "An OFFICIAL Statement of the UP Law FACULTY AND STUDENTS" or "An OFFICIAL Statement of UP LAW." To my mind, "community" means a group of people united by some principle or purpose; and those who signed the statement were.

Some have said we should have deliberated--we did.

Was everyone invited? Yes.

But not everyone invited chose to go. And I respect that; I respect your silence on the matter--but I would ask that you respect as well the sentiments of those who chose to participate and sign.

I have my first draft which is radically different from the one that came out to show just how deliberated upon the statement was. Truthfully, and the Dean and the others who were there will tell you--I do not completely agree with everything there. For instance, if that were my statement, it would consist only of the following words--'GLORIA, GET OUT--NOW!!!" But I was writing for a community and, therefore, my own thoughts and opinions and even style of writing would have to be subordinated to what the others felt they wanted.

Were contrary opinions entertained? Yes. I have always held the belief that the Senate investigations have outlived their purpose and should be terminated with dispatch; many who were around did not. So, I respected that and did not put that in the final draft that appeared.

Why did I sign it if it did not exactly reflect what I believed in? Because I believed it was time for UP Law to speak up and because it contained the essential points I wanted said--Gloria must go. Everything else in the statement was a means toward that end.

It is frustrating to see us fighting each other instead of the common enemy right now. That, by itself, is a victory for Gloria and Mike Arroyo and their minions.

Unity cannot be legislated or forced because many times egos get in the way. Would that we were to once again remember what it is that is truly important to us and not be weighed down by minor details like "why call it a law community statement if it did not reflect a majority view?" or even more minor details like "who gets the credit?" or "whose turn is it before the camera?" But I think that might be an even more difficult task than to get Gloria out.