Educare 2015.indb EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 8(1) August 2015 63© 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com KRIZNA REI M. PALCES, ARTHUR S. ABULENCIA & WENSLEY M. REYES Predicting the Priorities of Multicultural Education in a Philippine Teacher Education Institution: An Exploratory Study ABSTRACT: Multicultural education is a contemporary pedagogy, which prepares academic institutions to combat discrimination and oppression. It also aims to maximize learning by creating an environment that is safe and productive. International academic institutions as well as national institutions must take multicultural pedagogy as the best perspective in handling the reality of a pluralistic society. Multicultural education is quite literally the pedagogy of the oppressed. It is a pedagogy that was born out of the struggle of the oppressed sectors in the West such as the African-Americans, women, homosexuals, religious minorities, atheists, indigenous people, the differently-abled, and others. This is the embodiment of the dreams of those who fought for equality and respect. Since many forms of oppression are still existent in various societies, multicultural education continues to receive support from education sectors in many free countries. This paper describes the diversity of learners in a Philippine Teacher Education institution according to classifications of race, ethnicity, class, religion, and gender with the goal of predicting the priorities of multicultural education. The project started with profiling students using a specialized tool beyond demographics. The diagnostic tool identified categories significant for multicultural education. From the demographic, the researchers analyzed various aspects of multicultural education. The researchers identified the levels of diversity and made necessary recommendations needed for multicultural education. KEY WORDS: Multicultural education, race, ethnicity, class, religion, gender, contemporary pedagogy, diversity of learners, Philippine Teacher Education institution, and levels of diversity. About the Authors: Krizna Rei M. Palces, Ph.D., Prof. Arthur S. Abulencia and Prof. Wensley M. Reyes are the Lecturers at the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences PNU (Philippine Normal University), Taft Avenue, Manila 1000, the Philippines. For academic interests, the author can be contacted via e-mail at: abulencia.as@pnu.edu.ph How to cite this article? Palces, Krizna Rei M., Arthur S. Abulencia & Wensley M. Reyes. (2015). “Predicting the Priorities of Multicultural Education in a Philippine Teacher Education Institution: An Exploratory Study” in EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Vol.8(1) August, pp.63-72. Bandung, Indonesia: Minda Masagi Press and UMP Purwokerto, ISSN 1979-7877. Available online also at: http://educare-ijes.com/07-predicting-the-priorities-of-multicultural-education/ Chronicle of the article: Accepted (June 4, 2015); Revised (July 6, 2015); and Published (August 25, 2015). INTRODUCTION The McEd (Multicultural Education) is a contemporary pedagogy, which prepares academic institutions to combat discrimination and oppression. It also aims to maximize learning by creating an environment that is safe and productive. International academic institutions as well as national institutions must take multicultural pedagogy as the best perspective in handling the reality of a pluralistic society. Multicultural education is quite literally the pedagogy of the oppressed. It is a pedagogy that was born out of the struggle of the oppressed sectors in the West, such as K.R.M. PALCES, A.S. ABULENCIA & W.M. REYES, Predicting the Priorities of Multicultural Education 64 © 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com the African-Americans, women, homosexuals, religious minorities, atheists, indigenous people, the differently-abled, and others. This is the embodiment of the dreams of those who fought for equality and respect. Since many forms of oppression are still existent in various societies, multicultural education continues to receive support from education sectors in many free countries. For where else must a new society be born, but in the minds and hearts of the young. J. Banks & C. McGee Banks eds. (2010), further, defined multicultural education “whose major aim is to create equal educational opportunities for students from diverse racial, ethnic, social-class, and cultural groups” (Banks & Banks eds., 2010). This arm of multiculturalism that has reached through the heart of American and European academes continue to grow and embed itself in other parts of the world, such as the Philippines. American culture, where the original pedagogy, in the historical sense, was shaped from and for, is characterized by a strong inward respect. The McEd (Multicultural Education) in America was technically designed to control an overwhelming nationalism that unfortunately entails ethnocentrism, both normative and epistemological (Gorski et al., 1999). As defined by J. Banks & C. McGee Banks eds. (2010), they said that: (m)ulticultural education is a reform movement designed to change the total educational environment, so that students from diverse racial and ethnic groups, students of both genders, exceptional students, and students from each social-class group will experience equal educational opportunities in schools, colleges, and universities (Banks & Banks eds., 2010:446). In a country, like the Philippines, that acknowledges its natural cultural diversity, it is quite uncanny how various forms of cultural insensitivity and discrimination thrive unnamed and unnoticed due to a crippling lack of appreciation for cultural diversity. Also the need to contextualize and localize McEd (Multicultural Education) is beyond debate. Since McEd is born of Western concerns, there is, intuitively, a great deal of tweaking involved to make the pedagogy work on the other side of the world – this side of the world, employing an Asian perspective (cf Sarino, 2012; and de Charentenay, 2013). This research aims to: (1) create and try a diagnostic tool that seeks to gather demographic information as needed by Multicultural Education; (2) account the diversity an sensitivities of students and identify categories as priorities in preparing multicultural pedagogy; and (3) provide appropriate recommendations as to how the priority categories can be effectively be handled by a multicultural pedagogy. This study also includes five aspects of multiculturalism regarding race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and social class, which are essential concern of this study. The concepts of race, religion, gender, and social class are defined by Banks, J. & C. McGee Banks [eds], in their book, as editors, on Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives (2010). They said thet “race” is a term that refers to the attempt by physical anthropologists to divide human groups according to their physical traits and characteristics. Consequently, different and often conflicting race typologies exist (Banks & Banks eds., 2010:447). While “religion” is a set of beliefs and values, especially about explanations that concern the cause and nature of the universe, to which an individual or group has a strong loyalty and attachment. A religion usually has a moral code, rituals, and institutions, that reinforce and propagate its beliefs (Banks & Banks eds., 2010:447-448). “Gender” is defined as a category consisting of behaviors that result from the social, cultural, and psychological factors associated with masculinity and femininity within a society. Appropriate male and female roles result from the socialization of the individual within a group (Banks & Banks eds., 2010:445-446). While “social class” is a collectivity of people who have a similar socio-economic status based on such criteria as income, occupation, education, values, behaviors, and life chances. Lower class, working class, middle class, and upper class are common designations of social class in the United States of America (Banks & Banks eds., 2010:448). With all these labels, an in-depth study of EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 8(1) August 2015 65© 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com these aspects are needed to formulate a critical understanding of the multicultural pedagogy. These aspects are suspected elements that are relevant to McEd (Multicultural Education). According to R.C. Zuñiga VI (2010), the rich diversity of the society nowadays is clearly evident in many schools. It is not enough that some of our school children be educated. School educators and the society they serve must work for all and must reflect the cultures of the communities. Multicultural education is an idea which has reached its time. The society we live is a society of mix-culture. Conflicts arise due to lack of understanding of other’s culture, ethnicity, social class, and beliefs (Zuñiga VI, 2010). ASPECTS OF MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES CONTEXT The Philippines boasts of being one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world. Within its more than 7,000 islands, various cultural groups are found. It ranks as the 8th among 240 countries in terms of ethnic diversity. It has more than 170 local languages and dialects and has foreign communities attributed to migration and its colonial past. Though the Philippine state, according to Philippine Constitution Article II, § 22, that “recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development”,1 much should be done to further the thrust of multiculturalism. As for the Philippine setting, these aspects are markers where we could peg our understanding of multicultural education: Diversity in schools poses as an opportunity and a challenge. The Philippine is enriched by the different school diversities. However, noticeably, whenever diverse groups meet and interact, different opinions are shared that sometimes discrimination is evident. Since schools is the place where first formal learning is acquired and where students’ personalities are also mold, school authorities must find ways for their students to learn to respect the diversity of as well as help to create a unified nation to which all of its citizens have allegiance. 1See, for example, “RA (Republic Act) No.8371: The Indigenous People Rights Act of 1997”. Available on- line also at: http://opapp.gov.ph/resources/indigenous- peoples%E2%80%99-rights-act-1997 [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. The imbalance of power between the dominant and the dominated cultures has created years of arm conflicts, aggression, and resistance. The case of Christian-Muslim conflict in the Philippines is a typical example of imbalance in cultures’ appreciation. It is the lack of understanding of other cultures that weakens the society. The practice of multicultural education is but one of the many answers for peace. Approaches to multicultural education need to be given emphasis in searching for answer for cultural diversities (Zuñiga VI, 2010). The Philippine population is predominantly described as browned-skinned people with a mixture of foreign blood. It is unusual for Filipinos not to have features of being short, flat-nosed, and relatively colored-skinned. Nonetheless, the colonial experience for hundreds of years also resulted to frequent display of mentality with preference to Caucasians.2 Regionalism and ethnic pride are strong in the local level. One’s accent and language are definite indicators about one’s origin or ethnicity. But, major ethnic groups like Tagalogs, Cebuanos, and Ilocanos continue to contend. Manila-centrism has always been the rule. Also some provisions in Philippine Laws support Multicultural Proficiency. Seeking promotion for ethnic rights and protection is grounded in the Philippine Constitution, as seen in Article 2, Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. RA (Republic Act) No.8371 was enacted as an act to recognize, protect, and promote the rights of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples, creating a national commission on indigenous peoples, establishing implementing mechanisms, appropriating funds therefor, and for other purposes.3 The Philippine state recognizes the separation of the state and religion and the freedom of religion. The Philippine 2See “Philippine Participation at the National Multicultural Festival 2013”. Available online also at: http://www.philembassy. org.au/philippine-participation-at-the-national-multicultural-festi- val-2013.html [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. 3See also “Understanding Best Practices in MTB-MLE in the Philippines”. Available online also at: http://actrc.org/projects/ understanding-best-practices-in-mtb-mle-in-the-philippines/ [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. K.R.M. PALCES, A.S. ABULENCIA & W.M. REYES, Predicting the Priorities of Multicultural Education 66 © 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com Constitution, Art.III § 5, stated that (n)o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights (Bagares, 2003). But Catholicism stands adamant of more than 300 years of dominance since brought by colonizers. Catholicism is a major portion of Christianity. The hegemon that is Christianity extends its influence over the Philippine society. Even today where there is a separation between the church and the state, many government compounds have displays of Christian, specifically Catholic, images such as the crucifix. It is also evident that some public areas host Catholic chapels and are maintained and funded by public funds. Public offices in the Philippines usually employ Christian/Catholic prayers in official activities (Bagares, 2003). As for gender, gender equality may grounded since, according to Philippine Constitution Article II, § 14, the state recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men (Banks & Banks eds., 2010).4 Also, there have been laws being revised or implemented to pursue the equality of men and women. Yet Filipino culture remains quite misogynistic. In rape and sexual abuse cases, women are still being unjustly blamed for “dressing in a provocative way” or “being a flirt” (cf Kassian, 2012). A culture of sex tapes grows, which is largely in favor of men and at the great shame of the women. The ultra-conservative virtue of virginity continues to apply only to women. Unfaithful men are more easily forgiven over unfaithful women. Initiatives from feminist groups are met and blocked by religious conservative groups, such as the RH Bill and other pro-women movements.5 4See also “Philippines Officially Enacts Legislation for Gender Equality”. Available online also at: http://www.unifem. org/news_events/story_detailfab5.html [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. 5See, for example, “Philippines Introduces Gender Equality Law”. Available online also at: http://www.figo.org/content/ philippines-introduces-gender-equality-law [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. But given all of these gender related situations, the Philippines have ratified the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), on 5 August 1981, without reservations. Awareness on homosexuality has also been growing with popularization of songs and independent films promoting a more liberal perspective on homosexuality and gender differences. Popular celebrities openly admit their gender orientation. Advocacy political parties like of Ladlad party-list continue to assert equality laws through legislation. Homosexuality is tolerated in so far as it provides entertainment, but is immediately taboo once it asks for acceptance or equal recognition (Limbago, 2015). There is a quiet acceptance of the glaring degree of economic inequality in society, and this quiescence perpetuates the economic divide in the Philippines. The poor are sensationalized in reality and game shows, and the poor are ever willing to display no pride and showcase their poverty in exchange for favorable attention. This poverty extends most obviously to public schools, where facilities are below standard, if there is even any. Educational equity seems to be one more bridge away, when sufficiency of supplies and facilities is still an issue. Students in public schools are at an immediate disadvantage, since there is a lack of teaching materials and opportunities such as lack of internet connectivity, LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) projectors, air conditioning, and even chairs. The question of sensitivity has long ago escalated to equity in the Philippines, with the evident inequality among its population’s income. Developing the Diagnosis Tool. The research started with formulating a diagnostic tool that could help in the identifying the demographic character of the target population as well as the level of multicultural sensitivity and biases of participants. The composition of the Diversity and Sensitivity Tool is an important aspect of the research. The tool needs to be designed in consideration of its target respondent, the first year students of the PNU (Philippine Normal University). The tool is also meant: to be a basis of EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 8(1) August 2015 67© 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com future multiculturalism diagnosis tools; and to substantiate expected trends or discover new ones. This tool was created and was further validated by experts. It was designed to survey the first year students of PNU and aims to gather data on diversity and sensitivity in race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and class – the five aspects of multiculturalism. This research has also included suspected variables that are relevant to McEd (Multicultural Education). For “race”, the variables are hair color and type, skin color, eye color and type, height and nose. For “ethnicity”, questions were designed to probe provincial and foreign cultural influences. Language and accent are very important variables as well. In “sex”, correspondents are given more than the usual number of choices to peg their gender, namely male, female, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual. In “religion”, the correspondent’s religion is asked, as well as the dominant religion in one’s family and neighborhood. People who follow multiple religions are also identified by questions probing multiple religious interests. In “class”, the study has pegged PhP (Philippines Peso) 20,000.00 as the average household income. Questions were designed to identify how far from the average income do correspondents fall into. The expenses are also probed to provide a more precise analysis of the family’s economic capability and status. Further questions to precisely assess the correspondent’s economic status are included such as residential ownership, and family income stability. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Demographic Profi le and Diversity of Students. The total number of respondents is 545 students from the first year level of the PNU (Philippine Normal University). According to the official data from the Office of the University Registrar, there are 764 students during the first trimester of SY 2014-2015. This gives us a strong percentage coverage of 71.34%. The sampling is valid and adequate. The average age of the respondents is 16 years old. This is the expected age of first year college students across the universities of the Philippines. Race and ethnicity are tied to physical traits. It is therefore important for the study to probe on the physical make-up of the respondents which has predominantly black hair at 85%; brown at 11%; blonde at 1%; other colors at 2%; and no answer at 1%. The skin color of interest is dark at 13% of the respondents. Fair is at 77%; light at 8%; no answer at 2%.21% of the respondents are regularly mistaken as someone form another race. About 74% do not; while 5% have no answer. The top two races that the 21% have been mistaken as are Indian at 27%, and Chinese at 19%. Among the respondents, 75% are female, while 25% are male. This is consistent with the male-female percentages of the target population. With respect to gender, among the respondents, 92% are heterosexual: males at 2% and females at 70%. Bisexuality is at 3%; male homosexuality is at 5.9% among males; and female homosexuality is at .4% among females. About 2% withheld information regarding their sexual orientation, and 2% are still undecided about their gender. There is a dominant 69% Catholic composition among respondents, followed by 26% Christian groups; Protestants at 2%; others at 1%; and no answer at 2%. There are diverse sects among Christian groups. Iglesia ni Cristo tops the herd at 3.7%, followed by Born Again Christians at 2.6%, and Baptist at 2.2%. There are only 15% who has an average or above average family income. There is an alarming 22.5% who only receive a maximum of 10,000 Pesos per month as family income. Most of the respondents’ family expense is between 10,000 to 15,000 Pesos at 23.3% and between 5,000 to 10,000 Pesos at 22.2%. Majority of the respondents preferred not to disclose that information at 25.9%. About 5% of the respondents are working students already at their first year of college. Data from the Diversity Diagnosis Tool allows us to identify the dominant culture per aspect in the university. Dominant is here defined based on quantity alone. For “race”, the dominant racial feature is Malayan. For “ethnicity”, the dominant culture is the urban capital of the Philippines, Manila. For “gender”, the dominant category is female heterosexual. For “religion”, the dominant K.R.M. PALCES, A.S. ABULENCIA & W.M. REYES, Predicting the Priorities of Multicultural Education 68 © 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com culture is Roman Catholicism. And for “class”, the dominant culture is the lower class. The data comes as what one would normally expect, yet the true merit of the research lies on showing exactly what amount of the population is this or that culture. The numbers will allow designers of McEd (Multicultural Education) curriculum to assess how one culture is over or under represented. Sensitivities and Biases. In table 1 of the tool A, questions were designed to mirror the correspondent’s impression about their educational institution regarding cultural sensitivity (Sensitivity Diagnosis Tool). Two questions were provided for each aspect. While in table 2 of the tool B, questions were designed to mirror the correspondent’s own biases. Two questions were provided for each aspect as well. Table 1 of the tool A is designed to reflect the actual level of multicultural sensitivity in campus, as perceived by the respondents. Table 2 of the tool B is designed to show the biases, beliefs, and perspectives of respondents that will reflect their less observable multicultural stances. The researchers have decided to measure both the actual incidents relevant to multiculturalism, table 1 of the tool A, and the potential or mental attitudes relevant to multiculturalism. The findings are the following: conflicts between religious affiliations and discrimination towards economic classes are rare. There is moderate actual insensitivity towards racial features, ethnicity, and gender. This reveals that specific racial features are being made fun of, a person’s linguistic identity is also being harmed and homosexuals are not being treated equally in the campus. These data affirm an urgent need for McEd (Multicultural Education) initiatives for addressing the insensitivity. Actual events have been witnessed in moderate frequency, the target of McEd is to reduce these events to zero frequency, thus, there is a real cause to design and implement McEd. The respondents perceive a moderate sense of multicultural sensitivity regarding race, gender, religion, classes, and ethnicity from the university. This shows that the students generally do not see lack nor excess in the university’s initiatives for Multiculturalism. It appears that a moderate frequency for promoting McEd is insufficient in preventing Table 1: Actual Multicultural Sensitivity in Campus: Sensitivity Tool A Statements N Mean Interpretation 1. There are campus incidents of people mocking others due to being dark-skinned or flat-nosed. 540 1.654 Sometimes 2. There are campus incidents of people mocking the provincial accent of others. 542 1.755 Sometimes 3. There are incidents of women and homosexuals being discriminated because of their gender. 540 1.685 Sometimes 4. There are campus incidents of conflict due to different religious affiliations. 541 1.081 Rarely 5. There are campus incidents where the rich and the poor are treated differently without due justification. 545 1.200 Rarely 6. There are initiatives in campus that promotes racial sensitivity. 533 1.608 Sometimes 7. There are initiatives in campus that promotes sensitivity towards persons from the province. 536 1.690 Sometimes 8. There are initiatives in campus that promotes gender sensitivity. 545 2.149 Sometimes 9. There are initiatives in campus that promotes sensitivity towards different religions. 535 2.097 Sometimes 10. There are initiatives in campus that promotes sensitivity towards the concerns of poor students. 536 2.278 Sometimes Total 544 1.7186 Sometimes EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 8(1) August 2015 69© 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com conflict and discrimination arising from cultural insensitivity. Thus, there is a need to implement more initiatives to combat prejudice. The findings are the following: the respondents strongly disagree about the trustworthiness of poorer students being less than those of wealthier students. This data is made sensible by the earlier data from the diversity diagnosis indicating that the strong majority of the respondents are from the lower economic class. The respondents collectively disagree on: ethnicity being a hint of academic competence and moral aptitude; on the idea of the superiority of the male sex and the Tagalogs; religion being an issue in compatibility; economic class being a factor in moral aptitude; and racial features being a hint on proper behavior. Regarding the superiority of the male sex, details of the research reveals that 33% of the respondents do not disagree that male is the superior sex. Although the respondents are not dominantly sexist, there is an alarming level of sexism that permeates throughout the population. Considering that the 33% of respondents who does not deny the superiority of males are even greater than the 25% of the respondents who are male, even if one supposes that all males are sexist, one needs to believe that even some of the women are also sexists. This allows us to state that even some of the females are sexists in favor of the men and at the expense of their own sexual identity. The respondents possess a moderate bias against homosexuals and a moderate level of religious ethnocentrism. The gender aspect of McEd (Multicultural Education) is again indicating a need for to be addressed. About 23% or almost 1 out of every 4 individuals think that homosexuality is an illness. Although 23% is a sure minority, that number is too high to allow the existence of a community with gender equality. There is gravity in the thought that 1 out of every 4 individuals would see homosexuality as a disorder. Religious normative ethnocentrism is at an unsafe minority at 43%. That amount is unsafe since it is too close to being half of the population. Thus, there is a strong need to rectify this biased assumption immediately. The following are the results from the Sensitivity Data pertaining to Conflicts, according to chart 1: for “race”, at least 8 out of 10 people have seen incidents of racial insensitivity in campus; for “ethnicity”, at least Table 2: Multicultural Biases: Sensitivity Tool B Statements N Mean Interpretation 1. I think people from Manila are better students than people from the province. 543 2.239 Disagree 2. If there is a possible harmless therapy, homosexuals should be cured and become men/women again. 538 2.675 Neutral 3. I think a person’s religion can give clues whether that person is someone I can effectively work with or not. 539 2.445 Disagree 4. I think upper class persons have a better sense of morality than lower class persons. 541 1.821 Disagree 5. I think that a person’s ethnicity/cultural background determines whether he/she is a good person or not. 541 2.124 Disagree 6. It is a good thing for non-Tagalog students to behave more like the Taga- logs. 539 2.419 Disagree 7. I think that male is the superior sex. 539 2.113 Disagree 8. I think it is correct that a Christian prayer is in every campus activity. 538 3.370 Neutral 9. I think students from low-income families are less trustworthy than stu- dents from high-income families. 540 1.483 Strongly Disagree 10. I think that a person’s physical traits indicate that person’s tendency to behave or misbehave. 539 2.115 Disagree Total 544 2.2767 Disagree K.R.M. PALCES, A.S. ABULENCIA & W.M. REYES, Predicting the Priorities of Multicultural Education 70 © 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com 8 out of 10 people have seen ethnic insensitivity in campus; for “gender”, at least 8 out of 10 people have seen gender discrimination in campus; for “religion”, at least 6 out of 10 people have seen religious conflicts; and for “class”, at least 6 out of 10 people have seen class discrimination. Since our target is to reduce incidents that reflect cultural conflicts to zero, these numbers are significantly high. There is a very strong need to design McEd (Multicultural Education) activities that would decrease the instances measured above. The following are the results from the Sensitivity Data pertaining to Initiatives, according to chart 2: one out of five people have not seen initiatives for racial sensitivity; at least 1 out of 10 people have not seen initiatives for ethnic sensitivity; 1 out of 10 people have not seen initiatives for gender sensitivity; at least 1 out of 10 people have not seen initiatives for religious sensitivity; and 1 out of 10 people have never seen initiatives for class sensitivity. There is a moderate amount of initiatives for multicultural sensitivity in the campus. Relating this data to the preceding chart implies that a “moderate” amount is insufficient to promote and sustain cultural sensitivity. Below is the summary of the Indicators of Prejudice. They are grouped according to McEd (Multicultural Education) aspects. Each aspect has at least two indicators of prejudice, as seen in the design of the table in the questionnaire. For “race”: at least 1 out of 10 people would be willing to judge a person through his physical appearance. At least 1 out of 10 is willing to judge a person based on their ethnical background. For “ethnicity”: at least 1 out of 10 people believe that non-Tagalogs should be more like Tagalogs. They display regionalism in favor of the Tagalogs. At least 1 out of 20 people believe Chart 1: Sensitivity Data (Condensed) Chart 2: Sensitivity Data Pertaining to Initiatives Chart 3: The Prejudices Detected that Manilenos are superior students over Provincianos. For “gender”: at least 1 out of 10 people are androcentric. At least 1 out of 5 people think EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, 8(1) August 2015 71© 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com that homosexuality is a disease or an illness. For “religion”: at least 2 out of 5 people see nothing wrong with a Christian prayer in a secular institution. This is normative ethnocentrism. Approximately 1 out of 5 people believe that religious affiliation defines one’s morality. This implies epistemological ethnocentrism. For “class”: 1 out of 20 people believe that the rich are more moral than the poor. Only a very few believe that the rich are more trustworthy than the poor. As the chart 3 reveals, among the prejudices detected, religion is the most prominent with an average of 3. Followed by gender, race, ethnicity and class, in that order. CONCLUSION According to the results of the survey, there is low diversity in all aspects of McEd (Multicultural Education) among the respondents. The target population has been identified as dominantly Malayan by race, mostly Tagalog (Manileno) by ethnicity, largely heterosexual, dominantly Christian (Roman Catholic), and mostly of the lower economic class. Incidents of conflict and discrimination arising from cultural insensitivity have been witnessed in campus: moderately observed are racial, ethnic, and gender discrimination; while rarely observed are religious and class discrimination. The respondents have acknowledged a moderate amount of initiatives for multiculturalism from the university. The research has consistently identified the aspects of religion and gender as most challenged. There is a significant amount of prejudice in the aspects of religion and gender. Chief concern is the almost half of the population who display normative ethnocentrism in the aspect of religion. Of significant concern is the perpetuation of the belief in the pathology of homosexuality among 23% of the respondents. Of equal concern is the andro-centrism prevalent among the respondents at a rate of 33%. The fact that there is a decent amount of multiculturalism initiatives from the university, yet, there are still moderate incidents of discrimination prompts us to investigate the source of this prejudice. As multiculturalism is a national effort, other aspects of the community may have contributed to the insensitivity among the respondents and have negated the university’s decent efforts. Upon evaluation of results the research team made the following recommendations: (1) an investigation on the sources of discrimination is recommended; (2) the data and the conclusion of the research prompt a recommendation for the reinforcement of programs/campaigns that promote religious and gender sensitivity; (3) a study on the detailed manifestations of this prejudice, its nature and source, is also recommended; (4) a similar research to this may be due for the university employees. The university, after all, is composed of more than just the students; (5) an annual deployment of the sensitivity diagnosis tool would be effective in monitoring the progress of the students regarding cultural proficiency; and (6) an official integration of the diversity diagnosis tool into the university’s required documents for freshmen/transferees would be effective in guiding the university in its multicultural education planning.6 References Bagares, Romel Regalado. (2003). “Re-Configuring Our Social Imaginary: A Rightful Place for ‘God- Talk’ in the Filipino Public Sphere”. Available also online at: http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/Bagares_ Church-State_separation.pdf [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. Banks, J. & C. McGee Banks [eds]. (2010). Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. USA [United States of America]: John Wily and Sons, seventh edition. de Charentenay, Fr. Pierre. (2013). “The Dilemma of Multiculturalism: Blueboard by Fr. Pierre de Charentenay, S.J.”. Available online also at: http:// www.admu.edu.ph/news/ls-research-updates/ dilemma-multiculturalism-blueboard-fr-pierre-de- charentenay-sj [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. Gorski, P.C. et al. (1999). “A Brief History of Multicultural Education”. Available online also at: http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/ papers/edchange_history.html [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. 6Statement: Herewith, we have declared that this paper is our original work; so, it is not product of plagiarism and not yet be reviewed as well as be published by other scholarly journals. K.R.M. PALCES, A.S. ABULENCIA & W.M. REYES, Predicting the Priorities of Multicultural Education 72 © 2015 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung and UMP Purwokerto, IndonesiaISSN 1979-7877 and website: www.educare-ijes.com Kassian, Mary. (2012). “To Flirt or Not to Flirt”. Available online also at: https://www.reviveourhearts.com/ true-woman/blog/to-flirt-or-not-to-flirt/ [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. Limbago, Czen. (2015). “Is Homosexuality Generally Frowned Upon in the Philippines?”. Available online also at: https://www.quora.com/Is-homosexuality- generally-frowned-upon-in-the-Philippines [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. “Philippines Officially Enacts Legislation for Gender Equality”. Available online also at: http://www. unifem.org/news_events/story_detailfab5.html [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. “Philippine Participation at the National Multicultural Festival 2013”. Available online also at: http://www. philembassy.org.au/philippine-participation-at-the- national-multicultural-festival-2013.html [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. “Philippines Introduces Gender Equality Law”. Available online also at: http://www.figo.org/content/ philippines-introduces-gender-equality-law [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. “RA (Republic Act) No.8371: The Indigenous People Rights Act of 1997”. Available online also at: http://opapp.gov.ph/resources/indigenous- peoples%E2%80%99-rights-act-1997 [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. Sarino, V.L. (2012). “A Critical Appraisal of Multicultural Awareness in Higher Education Institutions in the Philippines: Towards a Framework for Equity Pedagogy” in LICEJ: Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 2(2). “Understanding Best Practices in MTB-MLE in the Philippines”. Available online also at: http:// actrc.org/projects/understanding-best-practices-in- mtb-mle-in-the-philippines/ [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015]. Zuñiga VI, R.C. (2010). “Multicultural Education: Introduction”. Available online also at: http:// chamzun.blogspot.com/2010/09/multicultural- education-introduction.html [accessed in Manila, Philippines: 16 June 2015].