11/05/2026
POSITION PAPER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES UP MINDANAO ON THE PROPOSED "REFRAMED GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM" OF THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION (CHED)
The Department of Humanities of the University of the Philippines Mindanao expresses its strong opposition to the proposed โReframed General Education Curriculum Componentโ currently being advanced by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). While the proposal is framed through the language of โresponsivenessโ, โflexibilityโ, and โglobal competitivenessโ, what it primarily advances is a narrow and deeply neoliberal vision of education that reduces General Education (GE) into an instrument of technocratic standardization and labor-market adaptation.
At the core of the proposal is the reduction of the General Education Curriculum to eighteen (18) units, with the humanities displaced from the core of undergraduate education. Courses that once allowed students to engage with philosophy, history, the arts, ethics, and Philippine society are either removed or subsumed under vague formulations such as โProfessional Communication,โ โGlobal Trends and Emerging Technologies,โ and โData, Evidence, and Ethics in a Knowledge Society.โ
Throughout the proposal, education is repeatedly justified through the demands of industry and performance indicators. Students are imagined mainly as future workers who must be trained to adapt to technological change and the demands of the labor market. Education is โreframedโ not as a public good oriented toward critical thinking and social transformation, but mainly as a mechanism for producing compliant and technologically adaptable labor for the global market.
This orientation fundamentally misunderstands the role of General Education. General Education is the foundation through which students learn to interrogate systems of power, engage historical memory, cultivate empathy, and imagine more just social futures. The humanities are indispensable precisely because they develop forms of critical consciousness that cannot be reduced to technical competencies or market viability.
Furthermore, this proposed reduction of GE units must also be situated within the structural crisis in Philippine education. The claim that GE courses merely duplicate Senior High School content oversimplifies the problem and obscures the uneven realities of educational access and quality across the country. The deficiencies of basic education cannot be resolved by further diminishing higher educationโs capacity for critical formation.
The proposed curriculum also risks exacerbating the existing inequalities between students from privileged educational backgrounds and those from underserved regions and public schools. For many Filipino students, particularly those from marginalized communities, General Education courses serve as crucial spaces for intellectual exposure and critical literacy. Compressing these into an eighteen-unit curriculum thus disproportionately disadvantages students who rely on the university as a site of transformative learning instead of merely credential acquisition.
Moreover, the repeated emphasis on โresponsible AIโ, โdigital literacyโ, and โglobal trendsโ throughout the document reflects an uncritical embrace of technological solutionism. While technological literacy is undeniably important, it cannot substitute for historical consciousness, ethical reflection, and cultural understanding. Technologies emerge within structures of power and are shaped by histories of labor, extraction, surveillance, and inequality. Without the humanities, students may learn how to use technology without ever being taught how to question the conditions under which such technologies emerge and operate.
As faculty members committed to the public mission of the national university, we reject the notion that education should be subordinated to the changing demands of the market. Universities must remain spaces where students are taught not only how to adapt to the world as it is, but how to critically imagine what it can become.
We therefore call on CHED to:
1. Reject the reduction of General Education curriculum to eighteen (18) units.
2. Conduct genuine consultations with academic communities across disciplines.
3. Uphold the role of universities as spaces for ethical reflection and critical inquiry.
4. Recognize education as a public good directed toward democratic participation and social transformation instead of labor-market production.
We also call on other colleges, academic programs, and the UP Mindanao administration to take a firm stand and oppose the Reframed GE curriculum. As educators and in the context of Mindanao, no less, we uphold forms of knowledge closely tied to democracy and cultural memory. Therefore, we must oppose all forms of attempts to diminish spaces that promote the development and criticality of discourses on identity, historical marginalization, right to self-determination, peace, and conflict, among others. Humanities, particularly in the context of the regions, promote critical frameworks for engagement and understanding. Thus, a GE reform in this context must primarily be based on the materiality of the communities and not disconnect from it.
At stake in this proposed GE reform is the very meaning of higher education itself.
We, therefore, reaffirm our position that the university and institutions of higher learning must continue to serve as a space where students learn how to think critically, act ethically, and participate meaningfully in a democratic life. At a time when the Philippines urgently needs critically and socially engaged citizens, reducing the humanities in General Education only moves us in precisely the opposite direction.
Department of Humanities
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES MINDANAO