Once again, Benguet State University (BSU), is about to face a new season as the university opens its doors to a new administration. As the presidential election draws near, everyone is anticipating for the next name who will take the eight seat, especially the studentry. However, the so-called “student-centered” university seems to have forgotten this motto, as the student’s one and only vote faces a potential loss, a supposedly significant right to represent the said sector in the upcoming election. 

On November 15 of this year, a new president will be elected. The voting relies upon those who are tasked to represent the different sectors of BSU. One of the most essential sectors is the student body. It is just shameful to think that there might be no student representative who will embody the vote of the student population. Why? As simple as no student regent is elected to stand for the collective opinion of the students.

According to the Federation of Supreme Student Government (FSSG) Constitution and By-laws (CBL) Article VIII Section 1, the FSSG Chairperson shall be the representative of BSU students to the Board of Regents (BoR). To proclaim the said position, the general studentry shall be responsible to choose from the various presidents of the three campuses. While we acknowledge the fact that the students are apathetic, it is however the duty of the Supreme Student Governments (SSGs) of the three campuses to create an initiative, especially because they play critical roles in certain occasions, even more so in the voting for the new president.

It is quite disappointing and alarming to note that because no student regent can represent the said body in the upcoming elections for the university President, a good number of students are also not aware of the changing of the new administration. While  one may state the fact that we are students, we should focus more on our academic responsibilities rather than thinking of the administration shift and their presented platforms. It is, however, clear that this shift will greatly affect the future of BSU. From the smallest sector to the entire community. 

The absence of student representation is further compounded as the presidentiables’ platforms seemingly miss the mark by a slight line by heavily focusing on business-centered activities and idealistic visions for our beloved university’s future. While some may argue that Income Generating Projects (IGPs) are indeed essential for the financial stability of BSU given the limited funding or the painstaking process of procuring a budget to the government that may take months to finish, an overemphasis on projects risks taking away the university’s priority as an institution.

Understandably, BSU cannot simply wait for the government funds to arrive especially when the university needs to sustain its needs, as an alternative, IGPs can relieve financial strain which can enable BSU to support programs, improve facilities, and other activities that benefit students, instructors, staff, and the like. However, there is a thick line between responsible income generation and excessive commercialization. We do not want our university to be so consumed by such projects that people, not just the students but also the community, dub it as “Business State University” as it becomes overshadowed by its financial pursuit.  

Nevertheless, whether a student or a community member, it is necessary to constantly recognize that BSU is still an educational institution not a mere seller of properties, trader of services, and lender of facilities. Overdependence on countless IGPs may surely compromise BSU’s role as an institution as the current and future students or employees may feel the shift in priorities such as the diversion of goals towards successful educational outcomes to more profit goals. 

Of course, the presidentiables are eager to offer solutions not just for the budget increase via IGPs but to the other dilemmas of the university, some proposals are heavily ideal and seem to lean toward something that lacks practical considerations. If the university plans to build more classrooms and facilities and procure equipment, will soliciting funds from the alumni be enough to cover the expenses? How can one be so sure that everything that BSU plans to build is a help sought from the alumni? How can one be so sure that fresh graduates seeking jobs concerning their degrees or other professions will take the catch to learn entrepreneurial skills to contribute back to their alma mater? 

Moreover, the current population of Contract of Service (CoS) is 372. The idealistic approaches to the certainty of becoming a permanent faculty member of CoS or the assurance of salaries of the said workers gives false hope as mentioned when asked how each of the presidentiables will address this. While it is true that downsizing the capacity of students each academic year should be considered, it is the right of every worker, whether CoS or permanent, to be valued and paid on time.

These are just the many missions of the presidentiables that we hope are not just for wooing the crowd but also concrete and attainable plans they want to materialize in a year or more. While the candidates envision transformative changes, they often overlook the limitation of not just the students and employees but the whole university. Their missions need to be grounded in the state and reality of the university’s constraints, not only in the physical aspect but also in the various internal and external affairs. 

 As it is best to learn from past mistakes, BSU should certainly have realistic solutions in dealing with issues and concerns but the people governing or should we say the future leaders of the university should carefully balance their programs to still promote academic excellence and student/ employee welfare. Afterall, BSU should be a home for growth and improvement of every individual in the community, so it is high time to select a leader that will foresee attainable improvement in the next four years or more