Debate on homosexuals in the military

Following a 3-yr tradition, my biology class debated 13 March 2008 whether homosexuals should be banned from serving in this country's military.

The government panel that defended the ban consisted of Johann Diaz, Dan Miranda, and Michael Bato. The opposition panel had Angelica Angeles, Kristina Castellano, and Jonas Gonzalez. (In the photo: LR, Kristina, Michael, Dan, Johann, Angelica, Jonas).

Government argued that homosexuals should be banned from serving in the military because of security risks. These risks are divided into two. First, the risk of loss of morale resulting from homosexual behavior among soldiers in the combat units (Government did not include staff and other administrative services, except for the medics, in the ban). Second, was the risk of spreading HIV through homosexual behavior and contact with open wounds.

As evidence, they presented a document on the military code of conduct from the US that expressly forbids immoral behavior. They also presented recent findings showing a physiological and neurological basis for saying that homosexuals were different. They also presented data on HIV prevalence in the military. Having thus suggested that the risky behavior of homosexuals was rooted in biology and were, therefore, givens, they argued that homosexuals should be banned from serving in military combat units as a prudential measure.

Attacking the biological argument, the Opposition pointed out that women--who also differ from men--are NOT banned from serving in combat units (Government failed to show similar biological studies that would suggest that homosexuals and women were similar in brain structure and other aspects of physiology.). Attacking the psychological argument, they pointed out that homosexuality is not considered a mental disease nor as something that prevents correct functioning in battle. They cited evidence of high ranking and highly respected military officials who eventually admitted to having been homosexuals all along. They also pointed out that there is no evidence that an army has ever lost a war BECAUSE some of its soldiers were homosexuals. As to phobias, including homophobia, these potential causes of loss of morale are controllable matters and can be cured.

As to the HIV argument, this was not attacked by the Opposition.

Opposition also argued that all persons who wished to serve should be given that opportunity and not be discriminated against.

Finally, Opposition argued that if we banned homosexuals from the military, such a ban would be a good excuse for anyone who for any reason refused to be drafted; large scale refusal in times of war would be bad for any army. Basing themselves on the government's definition of homosexuality as a "preference" for the same sex, they pointed out that the test for preference was to simply ask the person concerned. Thus, anyone who wanted an excuse just had to say he was homosexual, and he will be banned.

The audience found cause in favor of the Opposition, mainly because they found the physiological basis for homosexuality to be immaterial in functioning. They also thought that the definition of homosexuality as a "preference" does provide a good excuse to refuse service in the armed forces.

Technically, all the debaters were very good speakers. They were aggressive and knew how to sustain a controversy. The audience had a lively exchange with the debaters as well. In fact, the head adjudicator had to step in several times to control the exchanges. The Government appeared to have done more research, but the Opposition was not far behind. Furthermore, at the start of the debate, it appeared that the Opposition actually prepared for the contrary position, and had to switch right after the first speech of the Government.

Is Smeagol Guilty?: A mock trial, 10 March 2008

My class debated this question last 10 March in a mock trial. The main objective of the exercise was to synthesize and use knowledge of neurological phenomena, insanity in this case. Another objective was to give the students a practical exercise in rhetoric.

The defense team consisted of Marc Villaluna (counsel, right photo, standing), Bea Araneta (Dr. R. Wen, psychologist, right photo at the computer), and Adrian Portugal (Smeagol). The prosecution team consisted of Jorenz Perez (counsel, left photo standing), Charmaine Cheung (Shelob the Spider, left photo sitting), and Christina Villanueva (Frodo).

The defense argued for insanity on the grounds that the defendant, Smeagol, did not understand what he was doing, was not aware of his actions, and was under the control of an external and irresistible force. Expert witness Dr. R. Wen tried to show that Smeagol showed evidence of a disturbed mind at the time of the alleged crimes.

The prosecution tried to argue that Smeagol demonstrated planning skills and was, therefore, aware of what he was doing. Smeagol showed evidence of such skills when he “conspired” with Shelob. Shelob testified to the effect that she was offered food in the form of Frodo and Sam, although she did not specify whether the food was offered dead or alive. Smeagol also showed planning skills throughout the time that he was guiding Frodo and Sam on their voyage to Mount Doom. Frodo testified that he thought Smeagol has planning skills.

The jury (president Gabrielle Cruz) found that there was no evidence that Smeagol killed Deagol; there were no witnesses, and the body was not found. The prosecution was willing to drop the charge anyway. The jury also found Smeagol not guilty for conspiracy, on the grounds that the agreement with Shelob could not clearly be shown to constitute a plan to commit murder; Shelob herself stated that it was not clear to her whether the food to be provided was dead or alive. However, the jury found Smeagol guilty of theft. The jury agreed that he was capable of planning, and that this showed he was aware of his actions and, therefore, not insane at the time of the crimes. Furthermore, the jury thought that ownership of the ring has historically followed the "finders, keepers" rule; therefore, the de facto owner of the Ring at that time was Frodo. Smeagol desired to possess the ring, and he carried out that desire by biting Frodo’s finger off, as Frodo himself testified.

As regards technique, I noted that the counsels were inexperienced in the mock trial format. This was evident in that they did not distinguish cross examination from direct examination. At one point, the defense’s expert witness, who could easily have been discredited, instead controlled the cross examining counsel. The quality of the evidence left much to be desired; the teams had access to the films, but clips showing the sanity and insanity of Smeagol were not presented. The acting was not also very good. Smeagol, for instance, was supposed to act insane but kept giggling to himself in a self-conscious way. Shelob shot herself in the foot by claiming from the start that she thought Smeagol to be insane. More would have made this exciting. I also pointed out to the teams that mastery of the language was more important in a mock trial than in asian parliamentary, because there is more extemporaneous delivery, and greater theatrical possibilities, in the mock trial.

This is the third year the Smeagol trials in my class. It has always been interesting for teams and audiences alike. It is a rather fitting and memorable way to end a semester.

Conversations with Marvin: Is the University for all?

My student Marvin Sy (left) and I had one of those regular conversations over merienda yesterday. The topic of our debate was whether all students in the University ought to be there.

I immediately answered, "No." For I believe that only those with certain skills--abstraction, articulation, and the pursuit of ideas in books, according to Jacques Barzun (The Intellectual Life)--are fit for University work. This does not preclude the fact that there are brilliant people who should not be in University but, instead, would do better to enter specialized schools, because their talents are in practical matters and not in the abstract work peculiar to the University.

The distinction between abstract and practical may be more refined if we group jobs in this world under three general kinds based on the three transcendentals, namely, truth, good, and beauty.

The "truth" professions--if we can even call them professions--include the thinkers whose job is to contemplate and to research the truth. Liberal artists like philosophers and historians, many kinds of scientists, medical doctors (before residency), and lawyers are traditionally trained in Universities.

The "good" professions are those that deal with making things or making things happen. These include the engineers, managers, farmers, soldiers, and manual laborers. Their training consists not in abstractions but in the application of techniques. These are trained in special schools that offer heavy practical apprenticeships.

The "beauty" professions are those that deal with art of all sorts, that is, musicians, painters, architects, actors, and chefs. Again, they are offered many apprenticeships, with the difference that aesthetic talent is more important than practical talent.

The distinction of professions into three areas does not mean the categories are mutually exclusive. What is important, however, is that the way students are trained is matched to their dominant talents and the demands of their chosen profession, be it abstraction, practicality or aesthetics. The specificity of the training argues for a difference in the educational systems designed to implement that training.

Thus, management as a practical subject should not be a University major, concerned as the latter is with the "truth" professions (i.e., the liberal arts, cf. John Henry Newman, Idea of a University). The case of the HEC (Hautes Etudes Commerciales) school in France illustrates the point. This very prestigious school attracts some of the brightest students in the country, but it is not part of the University system. The same may be said of some business schools identified as separate institutions from their mother universities.

In the case of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P), where Marvin studies and where I work, something similar has been done in the case of the Entrepreneurial Management program (EMP).

The EMP exists side by side with a regular business program (MScM), which in its first two years is a liberal arts program and, therefore, part of the University. MScM students move to the more practical School of Management by their third year. In contrast, from day one, EMP students, although they take some liberal arts, are still taught somewhat differently from their MScM cousins. The students are presumed to be different. EMP students are admitted on the basis of criteria that are not applied to MScM students: EM character traits best described as street smarts, intellectual traits best adapted to concrete rather than abstract problems, and pockets deep enough to finance a new business venture as part of the course requirements. Many students now in the liberal arts program may, on the basis of these criteria, be better in EM.

Thus, future MScM students must spend two years in the liberal arts, which in some cases will not match the students' talents. Is this practice counterproductive?

A special school with many business subjects and few liberal arts subjects would turn out great businessmen but weaker humanists. A heavy dose of liberal arts is motivated by a desire to form great humanists as well. But those subjects take away time from business subjects. For a practical man, this might prove boring or repulsive in the short term. In the long term, however, the liberal arts might be an asset, since business nowadays involves abstraction skills taught in the liberal arts; but whether they will, in fact, be an asset depends on whether the man learns those skills, and THAT depends on whether the subject is taught to match his talents.

Thus, if we must teach the liberal arts, we should not teach them in the same way to all students. Perhaps, we should not give them the same teachers. Separating special schools from the University is one way to make this happen.

The question remains: if there is a mismatch now, what do we do? Live with it. I argued that should his liberal arts subjects prove to be always above his head (Marvin being a practical man), he should do his best to fill the deficiencies by some practical exercise, like challenging his teachers to a debate.

And when he debates with me, better over some merienda or beer.

Debate on Sex Education, 6 March 2008

My students in biology debated the position "This house believes that sex education should be required by law in the Philippines". Asian Parliamentary format, modified to include an open forum.

Top: Government (LR) Marvin Sy (rebuttal), Julian de Leon (DPM), Benj de Leon (PM). Bottom: Opposition: Sabrina Tan (LO), Judy Alarilla (DLO), Pam Francia (rebuttal).

The main argument of the Government was that sex education, understood as "informing students about the consequences of sex", was needed to bring down the incidences of these consequences, such as unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and the like. The belief was that badly informed people, acting out of curiosity, tend to act irresponsibly, that is, oblivious to the potential unwanted consequences of their actions. Ergo, informing them--which in no way implies forcing them to follow a norm--would make them act more responsibly. As to the curriculum, it would consist of biological and psychological facts; counselling would be included. References to religion and morality were specifically left out of the proposed curriculum; how to use contraceptive methods was also not to be included.

The Opposition's argument was that any information-based program was either not effective in bringing down these incidences, or else might actually increase them because of natural curiosity combined with "hormones". The Opposition pointed out that that the problems of teenage sex were problems not of information but of values. Furthermore, the Opposition argued that the school was not the proper venue, and that it was in the intimacy of the family home that sex should be taught instead.

The audience, acting as adjudicator, found cause in favor of the Opposition, on the grounds that the Government failed to demonstrate with example that a sex education program based solely on information is effective in bringing down the numbers of unwanted consequences. It was pointed out that statistics existed for various countries such as Holland and the United States, but these were not used by the Government. Furthermore, the Government's refusal to include religion in the curriculum of sex education did not address the main cause of the problem, namely, a deterioration of values among the young.

As to technique, there was very good research on both sides, except for the lack of statistics on the effectiveness of sex education in reducing incidences. On the other hand, there was much information provided regarding the incidences of various sex-related problems in the Philippines.

The best speakers in this debate were Pam, Benj, and Marvin. Sabrina, Judy, and Julian made fine performances also. Pam had a fans club in the audience, which I think is understandable, because she has a rather passionate--I would say, even agitated--way of arguing; rivetting and entertaining.

Thanks to RJ Dino for taking the photos.

Coming up next: Is Smeagol guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder? See the blog on March 10.