All Institutions have a “Reason for Being”. And when this ceases to exist, those, sooner or later, succumb. This is just another uncomfortable and inexorable Truth. However, something even more disturbing can happen: an Institution dies even if its “Raison for Being” continues to live. It seems paradoxical, however, a little reflection is enough to find good explanations for this, for example: incompetence in fulfilling the Mission, poor management, lack of human and financial resources, superior decision to close, etc. Here, however, I will focus on the reason that I consider pressing in the case of the University: betrayal. I'm not talking about the kiss of Judas. Nor to a deliberate or intentional action. I want to bring to light a subtle, I would even say well-intentioned, type of infidelity.
The pressure on any human institution is, in reality, exerted on people. In the University, from the rector, through the members of the various university councils, to the last employee, no one escapes lobbying . Promoted by multiple interests and proclaimed by different agents, the most pernicious temptation is to neglect the very "Reason for Being" in favor of other agendas [2]. Exogenous pressures, in general, are legitimate because no one is obliged to know the ultimate purpose of the University. It is up to each individual in the academic community, in a polite, irrefutable and non-subservient way, to clarify the misunderstanding and firmly reject it. On the other hand, it would be naive not to recognize that, when the siege is carried out by hierarchical superiors, refusal becomes particularly delicate and costly. Hence the need for everyone to be well-prepared in order to resist and preserve the institutions [4]. Resistance, except in rare cases, does not require any heroic act; it is sufficient to state the obvious [3]. Certainly, the decision to acquiesce, in exceptional circumstances and without compromising the purpose of the University, is not ruled out. This is clearly a “divergent problem” [5]. The Solomonic choice will be up to personal discernment. However, it is urgent to overcome inaction [6] before the “point of no return” is crossed. It is worth remembering that, although to varying degrees, everyone is responsible, from the rector to the last employee.
These reflections occurred to me after reading the text “Much Ado About Nothing” by Prof. Marcos Aparecido Lopes, published in this space on 05/01/2024 [7]. The title of the article does not at all suggest its relevance. The author used a controversial and symptomatic theme to bring to light another even more fundamental one. I highlight only the passage that led me to meditate for several days: “ A silent collapse of the institutional pact that delimited the fields of action of each segment in the public university, legitimized the authority of the teaching profession and established liturgical rites to sanction values dear to the community is underway. The principles of excellence, critical pluralism and intellectual integrity are at risk of being mere words, without any correspondence to academic reality. The greatest risk is not that a list of books is not representative, but that the university sees itself as an NGO, a political faction or a church, endowed with moral superiority. ”
That said, I return to the beginning. There is a nefarious combination that can, unfortunately, materialize: excessively strong pressures and weak individuals. In this fateful scenario, betrayal becomes almost inevitable. The University abdicates its “Ratna des Existe”, which remains alive, and meddles in activities alien to its Nature. The outcome is known. More than two thousand years ago, Someone stated: “ vos estis sal terræ quod si sal evanuerit in quo sallietur ad nihilum valet ultra nisi ut mittatur foras et conculcetur ab hominibus ” [8], and, more recently, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his prophetic pronouncement at Harvard (8/6/1978), admonished: “Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?” [9]
This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Unicamp.
[1] The ancients wisely taught us that the devil never seduces us to do evil, but rather convinces us that it is a good thing.
[2] Agendas, sometimes more important and urgent, but outside the scope of the “Reason for Being” of Universities.
[3] I just wrote that stating the obvious is not heroic, and I already regret it. Around the age of 10, I heard the story "The Emperor's New Clothes," and I always imagined myself in the role of the boy who shouted: "The Emperor has no clothes!" How could it be otherwise? Would I believe my own eyes or the fantasies of others? It took many decades and profound cultural changes in society for me to grasp the nuances of the story and also identify myself with the common people. And after a sincere self-examination, I confess, between contrite and ashamed, that I was, most of the time, the "silent crowd." I conclude, correcting myself: depending on the circumstances, even stating the obvious becomes a heroic act.
[4] The University is not the only Institution (or Being) under “ ontological siege”.
[5] As defined by EF Schumacher in his book “A guide for the perplexed”.
[6] An attitude immortalized in the character Bartleby from the story of the same name by Herman Melville (author of “ Moby Dick ”).
[7] https://www.unicamp.br/unicamp/index.php/ju/artigos/marcos-lopes/tudo-barulho-por-nada
[8] You are the salt of the earth. If salt loses its flavor, what will its flavor be restored with? It is good for nothing except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men (Mt 5,13:XNUMX).
[9] https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-apart
