Tag Archives: Ateneo de Davao University

Promoting Honesty in the Classroom

At this time in the history of education in the Philippines, great stress is being put on the importance of promoting true Christian (humanistic) values in our schools. In the light of this fact, I would like to share with you my own experience in connection with efforts I have been making during the past three years to promote honesty in my Religious Studies classes. As far as I can tell, the results have been encouraging enough to warrant this brief report.

Perhaps it might help if I begin by explaining briefly the basic framework within which I work in my Religious Studies classes. I present this framework under the rubric of “General Objective” in the three courses I teach, i.e., RS 21-Jesus and the Kingdom, RS 103-The Church in Philippine Society and RS104-Life Expressions in the Christian Community (Sacraments). In it I explicitate as my main goal to “promote a deeper understanding (in the light of Faith), appreciation and commitment” in the particular area of Christian Life specified by each course as part of “the on-going Dialogue of Salvation between God and Man.” I make it clear, however, that my primary objective, as far as course requirements are concerned, is to promote a clear understanding of the course content. In addition to the importance of solid understanding as an indespensible foundation for a valid appreciation and meaningful commitment to the Christian reality being studied, I explain that the main reason for focusing on the cognitive aspect of religious growth and development is that I believe this is the only aspect that the school can justifiably require the students to address themselves to without violating their freedom in religious matters. It is also the only aspect of religious growth that can be measured and graded. Everything else is deeply personal and deeply personal clearly demonstrates. I just don’t want them to feel that we are forcing them to act against their conscience or interfering in their personal lives. Even my stress on anonymity in the various exercises or activities I utilize in this project are meant to protect the sacredness of their basic relationship with God and personal freedom and integrity. But be that as it may, I do not hesitate to make it clear to them that I consider understanding which does not lead to appreciation and commitment as being of limited — if any — real value. Actually, this is already very clear to many of them as is evidenced by their own support of this little project which they appreciate as an opportunity to “put into practice what we have learned.”

Once the first part of the General Objectives has been sufficiently explained, I give the students the first quiz of the semester. The questions I ask are chosen to give me a basis for pointing out the relevance of the issue of honesty to the general objective and to the process of religious growth. Thus I ask them the following questions:

1. What are the 3 main elements in the process of religious growth and development we hope to foster this semester?
2. Which of the 3 elements do you think is the most important? Why?
3. Which of the 3 will we be concentrating most on this semester? Why?

I point out the relevance of the questions to the exercise later if it is not already clear from what has been said above.

After placing the three questions on the board, I ask them if the questions are clear, and once I feel that they understand the questions I tell them that I have to go out for some important business and that I will return in about 10 minutes. Then I leave the classroom and they are on their own.

Upon returning to the classroom, I give them additional time to finish the quiz if needed. If not, I collect the papers. Then I tell them to take a one-fourth sheet of paper and without placing their names on it to answer three more questions honestly, namely,

1. What did you do while I was out?
2. Why?
3. How do you feel now about what you did? Why?

Invariably, I get a lot of knowing smiles from the majority who realize now that there was really “method in my madness” in leaving the room during a quiz — an experience none of them had ever had before, so they say.

While they are answering the second set of questions, I sit down and place a “10” on every paper without even looking at them and immediately return their graded papers to them. This gets them even more confused as their puzzled looks at one another clearly show. I then tell them that when they are finished with their answers they can pass them to me. As I collect them I make it obvious that I try not to notice who give me what paper so they won’t think I am trying to find out what they write. Once the papers are in, we begin to process what has happened.

The processing begins with my reading out loud the answers written on the papers they give me. Their reactions to what they hear are very revealing. After reading each paper I comment on the various answers to get them to reflect on what they hear and what they themselves did while I was out of the room. For example, I point out how expressions of guilt feelings on the part of those who cheated in my absence and feelings of joy on the part of those who resisted the temptation to cheat reveal the significance of the decisions that they made in the face of that temptation. I make sure that they understand that they have either compromised or enhanced a very important part of their personal being in the free choices that they made. They are thus enabled to see the importance of their conscience and the limited nature of their freedom. In some instances however, a student would admit copying and say he felt nothing. I try to help them to see the danger of getting into such a state of insensitivity. Another issue that surfaces during the reading of the third answer is the level of awareness or feeling manifested in what evokes the feeling reported. Some are more inclined to feel good or bad about how they fared in answering the questions than in how they got their answers, i.e., whether they were the result of their own personal study and honest effort to answer or the result of copying from a neighbor or their notebook. It manifests to some extent which level of personal growth is a priority with them, the cognitive or behavioral.

The answers to the second question provide an occasion to reflect on and discuss reasons for being honest and reasons for cheating. Those who try to be honest express their own esteem for honesty and integrity and their serious desire to show their faith and reverence for God by trying to be honest It is clear that for many, honesty Is a-value no matter how often they may fail. This is also true in the case of many or even most of those who cheat. The most common reason, of course, for cheating is the failure to study seriously for the quiz. But “peer pressure” often enough, is what “forces” some to go against their conscience. Their express intent of “helping a friend”, or their fear of “hurting a friend” gives us a chance to discuss the real meaning of friendship as the effort one makes to do what is best for the other. In the course of the discussion it becomes clear to them that asking a friend to help one cheat is really a violation of the nature of true friendship and that the refusal to help another cheat might be the “friendliest” thing to do. Another fairly common answer given for cheating is simply the desire to get high grades “by hook or by crook” and this answer leads into the next phase of this exercise of “fostering honesty in the classroom.” But before actually moving on to the next phase I point out to them that every quiz situation involves two tests, one regarding their level of understanding and the other the degree of personal integrity they have attained. I help them see that all three levels of religious growth and development were involved during the quiz and that their behavior revealed not only what they know (cognitive level) but also what kind of persons they are or are becoming (behavioral). When I ask them which of the two tests is more important, they spontaneously acknowledge their own recognition of the priority of the latter (behavioral). With that clarified we move on to phase three of our exercise.

This third phase starts with my going around and asking several of the students what grade they got for the quiz. All of them answer “10”, of course. When I ask them how they feel about the grade they got, most say they are happy. When I ask them why, they say because they got a perfect score. When I ask them what that means they say the got all the answers correct. When I point out to them that I obviously gave the grade without even reading their answers they show signs of being more confused. When I ask them what they think my motive was in giving everyone “10” without checking the answers some say they think it was because I believe they all studied hard and are very bright (honestly!). Others say it was because I want to give them a good start for the semester. But the majority do not really know what is going on. At this point we undertake a discussion of the purpose and meaning of grades.

In our discussion of the matter of grades, I explain to them that grades are a form of feed-back to both student and teacher as to how each is performing in the matter of promoting or growing in understanding of the course matter. I try to get them to see that a grade which doesn’t measure their level of understanding is meaningless, at least it is meaningless to those who come to school to learn. For those who come just for grades, high grades no matter how attained, are meaningful in a functional, if not, a moral or academic sense. In the light of this discussion, I ask them once again how they feel about the grade that they got. They realize that actually their “10” has no real value or meaning. I then invited those who really want to know how they did on the quiz to return the paper to me so that I can grade it properly. Needless to say, all do return their papers to me.

Once I have clarified the reasons behind my rather mysterious behavior as an attempt to help them see what their performance on the quiz revealed to them about their level of understanding of the matter, the level of their moral development and their basic motive for coming to class, I introduce them to the Honor System and explain my intention of implementing that system for the rest of the semester. I tell them that I will follow the same procedure in future quizzes that I followed in the first quiz, i.e., after placing the Questions on the board and clarifying anything that needs to be clarified, I will leave the room and let them answer the questions on their own without the presence of any proctor. I try to deepen their understanding of the reason and value of having such a system by pointing out the need to cultivate the value of honesty and integrity now as a means of preparing for the challenges and temptations that they will be faced with later on in life in matters of greater moment than grades on a quiz. By pointing out the moral dimensions of many of the problems facing the country today and appealing to their own desire to contribute to the creation of a better world, I invite them to take advantage of this opportunity to begin to change the world by changing themselves here and now.

After these exercises and discussions, I give them an assignment to be done at home after they have reflected on their own experience during the previous session. I ask them to answer on a one-half sheet of paper two more questions: 1) Are you in favor of the Honor System? 2) What are the reasons for your answer? I collect their answers the next class and after reading through their papers at home I process these answers with them. I list down on the board the main reasons against the system (very, very few are opposed to the idea) and the main reasons for the system and then discuss each. Among the more common reasons against are fears that some will take advantage of the system to become lazy and dependent on others for their answers since some are clearly only after grades. Some of the objectors claim that the system is unfair because those who study hard and try to be honest may get lower grades than those who don’t work but get by through cheating. To these objections I simply respond that these possibilities and students’ reactions to them are a test of one’s personal values and that these issues will surface over and over again in their lives in the future. I try to help them to see that those who are responsible and honest are the real gainers and that those who are irresponsible and dishonest are the real losers, if we really believe in the values we claim to believe in. One other object ion that comes up frequently is the difficulty of resisting temptation. This gives me a chance to explain that while it is true that the “devil is prowling around, seeking whom he may devour” as St. Paul warns us, the Holy Spirit is also around trying to help us to become better men and better women. Here I have the opportunity to say something about the importance of a serious spiritual life in order to become the kind of persons we all aspire to be. I try to help them see that this is true of every aspect of their moral lives, not just quizzes here in school.

Upon completing our discussion of the objections presented, we take a quick look at the reasons why they favor the system. Among the more significant reasons given are their felt need and desire to test and prove their love of and faith in God. Many see the value of being challenged and of being given a chance to prove that they can be trusted. Some see it as an opportunity to grow In maturity and in their sense of responsibility for their own actions. Still others see it as a chance to develop self-discipline and self-control. So, by and large, their over-all response to the challenge presented by this Honor System reveals in them a real desire to do the right thing on their own and to begin the moral resolution we are all talking about by starting with a conversion in their own hearts. Several even express the wish that this system could eventually be adopted throughout the whole academic system here at the Ateneo. As Unrealistic and impractical as that may seem to be, I can really say that their responses have proven very enlightening and inspiring to me.

This report would not have not be complete if I did not say something about the realization that has developed in me regarding my own contribution to the success of this effort to promote honesty among the students. For it has become very clear to me that if I myself am not honest and open in my dealings with them, I have no right to impose on them the burden of struggling to be honest in their dealings with me. This system has made me more serious and careful in preparing, presenting, and facilitating understanding of the matter that I present to them. It has also made me realize the need to be more reasonable and understanding in my expectations and demands on them, seeing that they are under so many pressures from other teachers and their social and domestic worlds. So I make it a point to assure them that if they prove honest and open with me, I will do everything in my power to be fair in dealing with them. I encourage them to feel free to give me feed-backs —either personally or through the beadle if there is anything I am doing or not doing to their detriment. In this way I try to make it clear to them that I am willing to make my own contribution towards promoting greater honesty in the classroom. I assure them that I am therefore willing to carry my share of the burden involved in our corporate effort to make the world “a better place to live in”, even in the admittedly small way of trying to promote the value of honesty in R.S.

A Study of Students’ Evaluation of ADDU Faculty

Student evaluation of instructors is being used by an increasing number of universities and colleges especially in the United States (Costin, Greenough, and Menges, 1973). On the assumption that evaluation provides an accurate index of instructional quality, many of these universities and colleges base important decisions regarding salary, promotion, and tenure of instructors on it. (Kohlan, 1973).

However, despite the fact that it is widely employed, considerable debate continues over the usefulness of student evaluation of college instructors’ performance. There are those who contend that students are consumers of instruction and as such are best qualified to judge the product being offered to them. On the other hand, there are those who argue that students’ judgment of instructors’ effectiveness reflect popularity and other factors unrelated to teaching performance. In order to decide between these two protagonist, it is first necessary to establish how valid student evaluation of instructor effectiveness is.

The Problem

It was the purpose of this study to determine the validity of the student evaluation of college instructors’ effectiveness in the Natural Science Division at the Ateneo de Davao College of Arts and Sciences.

Specifically, this study would like to answer this question:

Is there a significant correlation between student evaluation and college instructor self-evaluation of teaching effectiveness?

Null Hypothesis:

There is no significant correlation between student evaluation and college instructor self-evaluation of teaching effectiveness.

Significance of the Study

It has been a standard practice in the Ateneo de Davao University, College of Arts and Sciences to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of instructions every semester through student evaluation. But as of date, no attempt has been made to validate evaluation. This study is an attempt to determine the convergent validity of the student evaluation of faculty teaching effectiveness.

Limitation of the Study

This study is limited to the student evaluation of twenty randomly selected college instructors of the Natural Science Division, college of Arts and Sciences; Ateneo de Davao University during the second semester, 1984-1985.

Of the several criteria for validating student evaluation, faculty self-evaluation will be used as the criterion for validating student evaluation in this study. A high correlation between student evaluation and faculty self-evaluation will indicate the convergent validity of student evaluation.

Downie (1952) reported that women faculty received significantly higher rating than men faculty for the extent to which they bought new books and authors in the classroom.

Thomas Miller (1962); Centra (1965); Pambookian (1966) were not able to detect significant difference in the end of course ratings between instructors who received feedback and instructors who did not.

Two studies(Aleamoni and Yimer, 1973); (Aleamoni and Graham, 1974) found no relationship between student ratings and instructors rank, while Villano found that associate and full professors received higher rating than instructors and assistant professors.

Six studies (Blaird, 1973; Costin and Crush, 1973; Elmore and La Pointe 1975; Isaacson, McKeachie and Lin and Mann, 1981) found that teacher warmth is an important variable influencing student’s ratings of teacher effectiveness.

Patricia B. Elmore and John Pohlmann (1977) investigated the effect of teacher, student and class characteristics on student evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Instructor characteristics such as sex, academic rank, and warmth have been studied to determine their effects on student evaluation of teaching effectiveness.

Kulik and McKeachie (1975) concluded that student ratings give teachers information about their effectiveness and such information may be used in course redesign, but there is no convincing evidence that the information helps teachers improve their effectiveness.

Marsh and Overall (1979) mentioned some biases in student evaluation like course difficulty, grading leniency, instructor popularity, student interest in the subject course, course workload, class size and enrollment, required versus elective course.

Barbara L. Goebel and Valjean M. Cashen (1979) found out that across developmental levels, older teachers tended to receive lower ratings than younger teachers. Sex of the teachers appeared to be a more influential factor at grades and 13. Interactions showed that unattractive middle-aged female teachers and unattractive old male teachers frequently received lower ratings.

Herbert Marsh and his companions (1979) made a study to determine if faculty self-evaluation of their own teaching effectiveness would agree with the corresponding evaluation by their students. They found out that validity coefficients were statistically significant for all evaluation factors (median = .49).

These findings which reaffirm the validity of student evaluation suggest the possible usefulness of faculty self-evaluation and should help reassure faculty about the accuracy of the student ratings.

Christopher Owen (1980) made a study, “Student Evaluation of Lecturers As An Indicator of Instructional Quality: A Validity Study.” The Multiple correlation (r – .75) obtained was highly significant. From these results it appears as if the students’ evaluations were a highly accurate indication of the relative quality of instruction provided by various lecturers.

Methodology

The instrument used in this study was the faculty evaluation form developed by a committee composed of department heads and division chairmen of the College of Arts and Sciences, Ateneo de Davao University. The faculty evaluation form contained forty items divided into the following factors for evaluating teaching effectiveness: Knowledge of the course material, techniques and methodology, classroom management, and procedure and personality.

Twenty college instructors in the Natural Science Division were selected at random. The faculty evaluation forms were sent to these teachers two weeks before the end of the second semester, 1984-1985. They were asked to evaluate themselves with a set of items identical to those used by students. They were asked to rate their own teaching effectiveness and not to report how students would rate them.

Three out of six classes taught during the second semester of these instructors were randomly selected totaling to sixty classes. The students were asked to evaluate their instructors using the faculty evaluation form three weeks before the end of the second semester. The total number of filled-up evaluation forms was one thousand six hundred.

The mean of the individual evaluation items from the student’s evaluation and the instructor’s self-evaluation were computed. Convergent validity was determined by a correlation between the same evaluation factor rated by the students and the instructors. To determine the correlation between student evaluation and faculty self-evaluation, the Pearson-Product Moment coefficient of correlation (4) was computed. To determine the significance of the coefficient of correlation (r), the t-test was used.

Results and Discussion

SUMMARY OF MEAN EVALUATION RATINGS OF STUDENTS AND FACULTY
[refer to PDF file page 2]

The faculty rated themselves higher than the students in all the evaluation factors. There is a close agreement in the evaluation ratings of students and faculty in the following factors: 1) exhibits thorough knowledge of the subject matter; 2) employs effective teaching aids; 3) attends class regularly; 4) starts and ends class punctually; 5) uses time efficiently. Probably, these evaluation factors are concrete that they are easily perceived by both students and faculty. Thus, the close agreement.

There is a disagreement in the evaluation of students and faculty in such factors as 1) makes clear the purpose and objectives of the lesson for the day; 2) presents explanations clearly; 3) uses a variety of methods; 4) evaluates students fairly; and 5) informs students of their academic performance and how it is evaluated.

It is possible that college instructors presume that the introduction of the lesson already includes the objective of the lesson. On the other hand, the students may expect the instructor to state verbally or write on the board the objectives of the lesson. Thus, the disagreement in the perception of this factor.

There may be some college instructors who believe that college students can be effectively taught by the lecture-discussion method alone. There may also be a number of college students who prefer a variety of teaching methods in order to learn effectively. Thus, the difference between student evaluation and faculty self-evaluation on this factor.

There are many variables that enter into the evaluation of student academic performance. These variables must be made clear to the students at the start of the semester to minimize feelings of inequity and injustice. It is possible that the reason behind the disagreement between student rating and faculty self-evaluation on this factor is the lack of proper orientation on the grading system. The highest evaluation rating by faculty was on their classroom management and procedure. This was also the factor given the highest rating by students. Techniques and methodology were rated lowest by both students and faculty.

The data revealed that there is a high positive correlation between student evaluation and faculty evaluation in all the evaluation factors. These data indicate that the student evaluation exhibits convergent validity.

The coefficient of correlation (r) of .52 revealed that there is a high positive correlation between student evaluation and faculty self-evaluation regarding teaching effectiveness.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. There is a significant correlation between the student evaluation and faculty self-evaluation of teaching effectiveness.

a. Administrators are encouraged to look closely into the student evaluation to gather some insights into the planning for faculty development programs.
b. A further study to determine teacher variables like sex, age, rank and educational qualifications that may influence student evaluation of teaching effectiveness.
c. An expansion of the scope of this study especially to include the whole College of Arts and Sciences of Ateneo de Davao University. A study using other criteria for validating student evaluation like final exam grades, peer evaluation.
d. A study using other criteria for validating student evaluation like final exam grades, peer evaluation.

Address Ateneo de Davao University

Mabuhay! I cannot begin to tell you how happy I am to be here in Davao with all of you today. Your beautiful city and the ocean so near are a pleasure for anyone who has come from Chicago which is just beginning to recover from the winter cold. Ka’-mi po’ ay nag-pa’- pa’-sa-la’mat sa in-yo’ ng ma-pa’g-ma-hal na pa’g-tang-gap sa a’min! (We are very grateful for your warm welcome.)

For many years I have wanted to visit the Philippines, and, so, I was very happy when Cardinal Sin invited me to preach the homily for the Mass commemorating the 25th anniversary of his episcopal ordination. This gave me the opportunity to visit a number of places other than Manila. When the President of your university invited me to come here to receive this honorary degree, I eagerly accepted his invitation. I am delighted to share this commencement celebration with all of you. Thank you for inviting me, and thank you again for the honor of this doctorate which you have graciously bestowed on me.

In a very special way, I wish to bring the greetings of the bishops, priests, religious, and laity of the Archdiocese of Chicago to Archbishop Antonio Mabutas, Archbishop of Davao.

The Philippine Islands are truly a tropical paradise where a visitor, like me, could easily get spoiled by the natural beauty and your internationally known hospitality. Americans call the Philippines the Pearl of the Orient, and all the natural beauty which I see here convinces me that the title is no exaggeration!

But how do you ever count all these islands? As I flew here from Manila and Cebu, they seem to be everywhere! Each island appears to be different from every other, but all of them reflect the beauty that is ultimately found in God.

Although I only arrived in Davao last evening, I might as well confess to you that I have a problem. I have not yet gotten up the courage to eat the Durian fruit. Everyone tells me that it is very delicious, but my nostrils tell me to keep away. Perhaps some time when I am distracted by the grandeur of Mt. Apo, someone will quietly give me a slice of Durian, and I will find another reason to want to return again to your lovely city!

Although I could continue to rhapsodize about the natural beauty of the Philippines and the warmth that everyone has shown me since I arrived, I wish to speak to you this morning about a serious topic: justice and peace. When I hear what is being done to destroy this paradise, I am — like  yourselves, I am sure — very troubled, and I assure you that many of your friends around the world are also very concerned. In particular,  I am painfully aware of the unrest and violence which have plagued Mindanao and Davao during the past decade. I speak to you from my experience as a pastor, not as a politician or statesman. As you may know, I chaired the U.S Catholic bishops’ committee which drafted a pastoral letter on war and peace, entitled The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response. The U.S. episcopal conference approved the final text in May, 1983. While we devoted considerable time and energy to studying the intricacies of the nuclear debate, we also came away from our extensive research, consultation, and discussion with some firmly held convictions about the vital importance of justice and peace in contemporary life. Indeed, a major portion of the pastoral letter dealt with the ways in which we might shape a peaceful world. Now that the nuclear threat has subsided, it is that section of the pastoral letter that is more relevant to our times.

I am convinced that we are living in a “new moment” in the world today. That is no less true of the Philippines. At the same time, I firmly believe that a new, just international order can only be built on mutual respect among individuals, communities, and nations. Every human life —  from conception to natural life — from conception to natural death, and in all its circumstances — is a sacred gift from God and has its own innate dignity and worth. There are no exceptions! Because every human being is made in God’s “image and likeness”, we must defend and protect, nurture and enhance each life. We are all brothers and sisters, children of the one God, and we are our brother’s and sister’s keeper! Every community has its own traditions, heritage, and aspirations, but in the contemporary world, communities need to find effective ways to live in harmony and share the limited resources of this earth with one another. When they fail to do this, competition for scarce resources breeds unrest, violence, and, ultimately, tragic destruction of precious human lives. Wherever human life is considered “cheap” and easily “wasted,” eventually no life is safe, and the future of civilization itself is in doubt.

Moreover, in an increasingly interdependent world, every nation needs to learn how lives in justice and harmony with all others. No nation can isolate itself from others, nor can or should one nation any longer dominate the others. Brutal force cannot prevail in the long run. We have seen that in the past two or three years with the dissolution of the Soviet bloc and the collapse of the former Soviet Union. It remains to be seen how long brutal oppression can keep citizens in check in other parts of the world. But the handwriting is already on the wall: Ultimately, the people will prevail!

How do I know this? Not only from the events in Central and Eastern Europe, and in the former Soviet Union. I know this, my friends, because of what you accomplished here in the Philippines. You have a special phrase for it: bayan ko. This was your motto sung during the February 1986, EDSA Revolution in Manila. The whole world cheered as they saw Filipinos kneel on the streets praying for peace. Your demonstration of “people power” was very powerful, indeed. The government was toppled, and you did not fire a shot, nor was there any disturbance of the peace. Bayan ko rang out from your throats, and there lumps in the throats of the rest of the world as people watched you on television. What heroes and heroines you were at that time! The whole world praised the Filipino people, and you came to full stature as a nation — made up of many communities, but one people. You have a proverb which says this very succinctly: There are many people, but there is only one native country.

Today, I urge you, my fellow graduates at the Ateneo de Davao, to adopt once again that same spirit of bayan ko. Dedicate yourselves to making the Philippines the nation that brought all of the rest of us to our feet cheering for you. You are no longer a colony of any foreign power! You are your own free nation! You have the resources, the intellectual leaders, and the ideals which could again make the Philippines the freest and the most productive nation in Southeast Asia. Moreover, by reason of both geography and culture, you can serve as the bridge between East and West, something that is very much needed as the world’s attention shifts to the Pacific Rim of nations.

Let the world look up to you as a model of democracy, decency, and justice for all your citizens. For the benefit of your beloved Philippines use the skills you have learned here in teaching, ministry, commerce, banking, industry, medicine, and all the other major subjects which you have studied during you years at the Ateneo de Davao. Let the poor people on the farms ans in the cities realize that you are dedicated to their welfare so that hunger, poverty, and disease will disappear from the Philippines because of your efforts. Dedicate yourselves to building a just society, and you will enjoy the fruit of justice: civic harmony and peace.

I do not pretend that this will be easy. Living in accord with gospel values is never without obstacles and roadblocks. Injustice and inequality have deep roots. Longstanding enmities among families, tribes, and regions are not easily forgotten or set aside. Evil is deeply entrenched in the world, and worldly values easily distract us from carrying out our counter cultural mission of justice and peace. And, yes, at times, good people lose their lives in this struggle.

I do not say this lightly. On April 7, 1988, Father Carl Schmitz, a Passionist priest from Chicago, who ministered among the Bilaans here on Mindanao, was brutally murdered. For fifteen years he had served his people with great love, compassion, and generosity. Commenting on his death, a Chicago newspaper said that his obituary should have included the words “Survived by 80,000 Bilaans.” Yes, Father Schmitz has been dead for nearly four years, but his voice has not been stilled. The gospel he proclaimed — a message of justice and peace — is still heard in the land.

And you my brothers and sisters, must continue to proclaim that message, especially by the way you live and serve your country. You have your own saint to guide you — Lorenzo Ruiz, a family man from Manila, someone very much like you.

As you build your nation and shape it with the values of justice and peace, I hope that you and I will continue to be friends. Historically, the Philippines and the United States have many good memories together, and some, perhaps, that are not so good. But, together, we have come through many struggles, and I assure you that the American people want to continue to be your friends. The nature of our relationship is shifting, and that is healthy. But let us strive to respond to the “new moment” we both face in such a way that we will dig deep roots of mutual respect and harmony which will preserve and strengthen our relationship.

My dear brothers and sisters, my prayer for you and for the Philippines is that God will help you form a nation firmly built on justice, integrity, democracy, and respect for all human life. As I have acknowledged, this will not be easy. But neither was your February “people’s power” revolution. With bayan ko in your hearts and on your lips, and St. Lorenzo guiding you, you will not fail. You have the God-give capacity to produce another revolution, and, if you do, the world will again both cheer for you and learn from you!