Is the XU sale the high road? (2)

Antonio J. Montalván II .

Part 2

OBSERVERS like to compare the intended sale of XU Ateneo’s Divisoria campus to the 1952 transfer of the Ateneo de Manila from Padre Faura in old Manila to Loyola Heights in Quezon City. But the similarities do not necessarily coincide.

That transfer was closely associated with a name familiar to Cagayan de Oro, Fr. William Masterson SJ, who was then Rector of Ateneo de Manila (the title of president came much later in the late 1960s, at which time rector became used only for the superior of the local Jesuit community, not necessarily the head of the institution).

Boondocks! cried many, recalls the late publisher and writer Max Soliven who was Masterson’s secretary. Loyola Heights was boonies, yes. Scarcely major arteries lead to it, let alone public conveyances. Some of Masterson’s fellow Jesuits even concurred with critics. “Only the children of Tarzan would study there,” mocked one Jesuit.

But boondocks can hardly be used to describe today’s Manresa, surrounded by residential and commercial developments. Correspondingly, the argument of distance cannot be used for the transfer to Manresa and even of the agriculture field laboratories to El Gaucho campus in Upper Bugo. As in Masterson’s time, the Aggies will be bused to El Gaucho.

What Masterson argued for was practicality. He was presiding over an Ateneo de Manila in Padre Faura with carcasses of buildings bombarded by World War II. In fact, Quonset huts had to be used for classrooms. The campus was not enormous enough to quarter any future expansion. (Nota Bene: Padre Faura was officially closed in 1976, after which it was sold to commercial development.)

Within the last five years, XU Ateneo desired to introduce a medical technology degree to address a growing demand for the science. Instead, the Board of Trustees was confronted with a dilemma. A medical technology college needed at the very least two floors of building space. No such can be obtained in the Divisoria campus.

The planned transfer to Manresa and the construction of the new Masterson campus can accommodate 27,000 students; the present Divisoria campus can only accommodate 12,000 students.

As we write, criticisms against the transfer continue to be expressed. I reiterate what I said in this previous column article: the buck stops with Father General Arturo Sosa in Rome who will make the final decision because that is what the historical tact of XU Ateneo was designed to be since 1940. In which case, criticisms are not unwelcome.

For instance, appellants have suddenly arisen, with one claiming that parts of the Divisoria campus were donated by his family with a clause that purportedly said “donated only for educational purposes of the Ateneo de Cagayan.” My advice is no different from proving a historical truth: produce documentary evidence. Show the donation papers, if any. If none, then there is nothing to that effect. It is not a game of which lip has the best service.

One valid criticism hypothesizes on the congestion CdO downtown will face with the commercial development of the Divisoria campus. He had argued for the possible proliferation of high-rises around Divisoria and the consequent traffic gridlocks. It is a reasonable concern of sustainability. We are told, however, that Divisoria properties are currently priced exorbitantly and the lot sizes are small for high-rise developments. It is a seller’s market, not a buyer’s one.

Truth be told, there is no doubt the old downtown needs to be decongested of traffic; how the city will address that remains unknown. Some have argued for the phase out of small public transports. But Divisoria was not made for a walking city: the sidewalks are so narrow that some have made a pun out of it – walkways made for sideways walking. Will Cebu Landmasters open the Divisoria campus to traffic? XU Ateneo president Fr. Bobby Yap SJ says the current plans constitute only 10% of what needs to be planned over-all. So much needs to be discussed.

There is finally, the criticism of several alumni regarding the consultations. “The consultations are selective,” more than one has opined. We checked and were told invitations were issued. Perhaps XU Ateneo may wish to consider holding open consultations without invitations. Father General wishes a way akin to the Ignatian process of discernment, which no doubt can have room for an exchange of pros and cons. Aggressive alumni with stirring emotions of loyalty (as is sometimes the case with Xavier U’s) can be tapped for the plan’s improvements. The mission excludes no one.

Otherwise, the XU Ateneo administration will be courting alumni ire which can put them in testy waters. It can learn a valuable lesson from Fr. Masterson. The visionary was criticized severely for the transfer to Loyola Heights, even in the internal Jesuit forum. But he listened and rolled with the punches, and even accepted humiliation. It was said he was banished to Ateneo de Cagayan for that. But it was in Cagayan de Oro that he rose even more, earning the luminary of being a Ramon Magsaysay Award laureate. To deflect voices of angry alumni is not within the ambit of the wishes of Father General. Alumni are also mission partners. The Archbishop of Cagayan de Oro, the Most Rev. Antonio Ledesma SJ DD, has also spoken against the sale. Lucky for him though, he will speak his mind in an incoming meeting of Ateneo schools. But for alumni who do not have that forum, XU Ateneo cannot isolate critical alumni from the “dialogue and discernment” that Father General has prescribed. The means to reach the output is more critical.