Prof. Sarah Raymundo answers allegations against her. Read it here: http://tenureforsarahraymundo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/sarahs-reply-to-minority-report.pdf
How about reading her appeal letter to Pres. Roman? http://tenureforsarahraymundo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/sarahs-appeal-letter-to-up-pres-roman.pdf
Please sign the online petition supporting Prof. Sarah Raymundo’s appeal for tenure: http://gopetition.com/online/32122.html. Thanks! 🙂
Read the November 24, 2009 RUUP Faculty Statement on Chancellor Cao’s Flawed Decision: http://tenureforsarahraymundo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/final-ruup-omnibus-statement.pdf
Read CONTEND-UP’s Statement: http://tenureforsarahraymundo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/final-contend-statement-on-sarah-nov1.pdf
Read Chancellor Cao’s Flawed and Unjust Decision: http://tenureforsarahraymundo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/chancellor-cao-memo-on-sr-tenure.pdf
Read Chancellor Cao’s Flawed and Unjust Decision with Annexes: http://tenureforsarahraymundo.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/complete-chancellor-cao-memo.pdf
zineulat 
I would like to be clarified on this, if I got this right –
The first round of voting should’ve earned Prof. Raymundo her tenure, right? And assuming that all issues and concerns with Prof Raymundo have been discussed prior to that first voting, the 7-3 decision granting her tenure represents the net effect of all the discussions.
Then why is there another round of deliberations after the first balloting?
hi sj! in fact, dun sa first round of voting (7-3), her basic papers recommending tenure to Sarah have already been signed by the department, college & even the Academic Personnel Fellowship Committe of the university. the reason behind all these irregularities is the instruction of Vice Chancellor Lorna Paredes to the sociology department’s majority to justify why it recommended Sarah’s tenure despite the “minority report” by three sociology profs and by then dept chair clemen aquino. this is of course highly irregular since the justification attached to sarah’s basic papers clearly states that thorough deliberations have already been done as regards issues by the minority of three against sarah’s “political commitment”. so what happened is a case of the minority overturning the majority, with all the traditional and parochial politics you can imagine.
of course the worst part is chancellor cao’s unjust and flawed decision. imagine him upholding baseless allegations against sarah. you can read all the documents related to the process here: http://tenureforsarahraymundo.blogspot.com. thanks sj! 🙂 sign the petition 🙂