It is in light of recent events regarding the discrimination case in the Department of European Languages (www.upbabaylan.blogspot.com) that we, as students of the university, choose to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the matter and express our views.

Since the second semester started in November, the French 30-31 and EL 181 class of Ma’am Nikki have had the freedom to address Hender Gercio aselle (she). Hender’s classmates initially called her il (he) and Hender corrected them, telling them to call her elle. Ma’am Nikki did not stop this or call attention to this. In fact, in Ma’am Nikki’s EL 181 class, there has been little opportunity to refer to one another in the third person. According to the students in this class, they usually addressed each other directly, using the second person pronoun vous/tu (you).

Furthermore, according a student in her French 30-31 class, Hender has not experienced prejudiced treatment in class and that bigotry does not reign in the classroom. Moreover, the student testifies that Ma’am Nikki has a high regard for Hender’s opinions in their discussions.

While it is true that Ma’am Nikki is the authority figure in the classroom, she has never used her authority to influence the class or Hender herself. Her own address of Hender as il did not stop the rest of the class from referring to Hender as elle and, again, neither did she try to. As the semester progressed, Ma’am Nikki was uneasy being the only one who did not address Hender as elle, and felt that Hender at least deserved an explanation for this.

Language and speech have immense power. For Hender, not being addressed as elle is the denial of her identity, her sense of self, the sacredness of her belief, whereas for Ma’am Nikki the words that she chooses, the words that come out of her mouth, this same address of Hender as elle, is a violation of her own sense of self as an evangelical Christian, which puts above all else the authority of the bible. If we don’t understand either of these beliefs, if we think one or the other is ultimately wrong, we attempt to inform each other. Failing conversion on either side, we agree to disagree.

Sacredness cannot be weighed or measured, and no one has a monopoly of what is sacrosanct. Mutual respect ends the moment someone imposes her belief on another, the moment one seeks the punishment of the other. There is no judge qualified to preside over this matter and no judgment that can be passed, if the intention is to determine who’s right and who’s wrong. Freedom of space does not exclude fundamentalists—it’s why it’s called free space. We get frustrated and angry, we write about it, we further our cause, we attempt to educate, but what we can’t do is impose or require. We listen to all sides. We don’t become intolerant towards those who hold different beliefs from ourselves. We don’t insult. We do not ourselves become bigots.

We are taught in this university to listen to all beliefs and convictions, to the people who espouse them—and most of all, we are taught to respect them. All of this began with a stalemate between the insistence and resistance of two people who represent a multitude of beliefs and ideas. Let it end at an impasse. Let it remain so.