LAST week, the Technological University of the Philippines (TUP) Manila received online backlash after releasing a dress code for students that included bans on long hair for men and cross-dressing. While there were many students who expressed contempt for the policy, I have also seen comments from netizens defending the state university's policy as part of student discipline.

In the academic setting, both the students and the university have rights that are protected by the Constitution. For institutions of higher learning like the TUP, they are guaranteed the exercise of academic freedom, free from external pressure and outside control. Jurisprudence on education laws has long established, since the influential case of Sweezy v. Hampshire, that the dynamic term academic freedom shall include the freedom of the university to determine on academic grounds who shall teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who shall be admitted to study. Relevant to the issue of TUP is its freedom to determine its own students' admission and disciplinary policies. The Constitution likewise provides the role of educational institutions in student discipline to, among others, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, and encourage critical and creative thinking. On the other hand, the Constitution also provides that every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.