The running contention against commercial use of UP lands takes several directions. One objection is that MultiNational Corporations(MNCs) will be closely linked to the academe. Yet another issue raised is that some MNCs are too nationally centered, hence, too concerned with their mother countries to invest in the academe here. There are protests against the incoming funds from tie-ups with certain corporations because some say they pose a danger to the subsidy the government provides. Yet there are raised fists against the shortage of tie-up funds coming through. This is not the first time several arguments against the same thing have moved in different, seemingly opposing directions. But since both sides of the argument are being played, one has to wonder about what those who protest want, and, equally important, did the arguments against commercialization come before, or after, the decision was made to stand against incoming funds from MNCs?

Certainly, there's reason to worry about the lines between the academe and MNCs being blurred, as it contributes to the brain-drain, and entrusts power external to the academe. There's a reason to worry about the amount of funds coming from MNCs, because power relationships are volatile. There's a reason to worry about the decrease in the UP budget, and it might be linked to commercialization in that the government is trying to make state colleges and universities self-sufficient. Those are certainly legitimate concerns.

However, not only are these threats difficult to handle, they are impossible to fully gauge. Really, when is the industrial world meddling intolerably with academic affairs? When they decide Information Technology should be given more priority, because that is where they hire? When they build Science and Technology parks for profit? When they exert pressure to add certain things in the curriculum that, in their view, would make the students some plan to hire more competent? There is a complex set of considerations for each, and to lump there together, as has been done before, and call all of it evil is as irresponsible as it is wrong.

And the groups among the studentry who make assertions, if they are to make a difference, have to be grounded on clear-cut logic. That the state subsidy will be diminished because UP receives ten thousand in rent from several institutions does not cut it.

Certainly, people can speculate. However, when one protests because the revenue derived from commercialization might drive the state to give less subsidy, that person isn't protesting against something he or she knows to be happening. The person isn't even protesting against an overwhelming likelihood of the thing happening. That person is protesting against something to which the question of whether or not it will happen is anybody's guess. If groups in the studentry hope to make a point, there has to be a significant likelihood of evil before a ruckus is raised.

Lastly, the dangers of commercialization have to be taken on a case to case basis.

Academic units (land used for the development of the academe, i.e. Math Building, College of Science, etc.) should, by principle, be given the most priority in land use. However, the commercial development lands and technology park lands, which both generate revenue, use up more space than do academic units.

There's a concern. If we treat standard leases that help fund buildings, equipment and the like the same way we treat the land allocation imbalance, we do the latter injustice. Can they still be lumped together? Sure. But don't expect results. That is the nature of the changing world, the changing academe. In this arena, you either make your distinctions, or you bury your cause.