On September 30, we published in this Leaf the article “Battle Campus”, a warning about the dangerous escalation of violence in Brazilian universities. On this occasion, we have compiled a series of incidents committed by groups, both right and left, occurring in the space of a short month, some of which resulted in physical clashes and injuries. We close this reflection by calling on the university community to reject all forms of violence, whatever its origin.
The text sparked a reaction (“Campus de Batalha?”, 24/11), in which Professor José Szwako stressed that attacks from the far right should not be confused with divergence of ideas or freedom of expression. In addition to emphasizing the electoral nature of these actions, he cited new episodes of invasions, unauthorized filming and intimidation perpetrated by right-wing groups – tactics camouflaged under the rhetoric of freedom of opinion.
The author argues that there is no equivalence between these practices and left-wing actions, which would remain within the limits of legitimate debate and the struggle for rights, without resorting to physical violence. For him, by evoking cases on the left as well as on the right, we would have incurred a “false symmetry” and assumed a position of neutrality which, in practice, would favor exclusion and harm the defense of diversity.
A true dialogue requires correctly and fairly representing the interlocutor’s arguments. Unfortunately, the response misrepresents our position, because we have been incisive in repudiating the practices of right-wing provocateurs who torment campuses – actions that can never be confused with free speech. For us, using this principle to justify intimidation is not exercising it, but violating it.
However, the biggest flaw in the response is turning a blind eye to the documented reality: by omitting the clashes initiated by the left-wing groups mentioned in our article, the claim that these groups are fighting only for rights, without resorting to violence, is not empirically supported and does not stand up to scrutiny of the facts.
The author of the article cites as proof of harassment the invasion of Unicamp by a right-wing councilor who filmed without permission to protest against trans quotas. The act is indeed reprehensible. However, he is unaware that recently a group of UnB students organized a demonstration in favor of these same quotas, brandishing a club and uttering threats of violence. The harassment and threats, whoever their protagonists are, are the portrait of a debate that has collapsed.
The answer is incorrect in asserting that we establish an equivalence between right and left. What we have done is maintain that violence, wherever it comes from, must be condemned with the same rigor. We do not compare motivations or measure severity: we simply note that acts of intimidation and coercion, regardless of who commits them, compromise the academic environment as a free space for the debate of ideas.
The argument of “false symmetry” cannot become a rhetorical refuge to avoid criticizing the excesses committed within the political field itself. Condemning left-wing authoritarianism does not mean condescending to right-wing authoritarianism. The university must renounce all violence, under penalty of betraying its historic mission of hosting controversial debates, an essential condition for pushing the frontiers of knowledge.
TRENDS / DEBATES
Articles published with a byline do not reflect the opinion of the newspaper. Its publication aims to stimulate debate on Brazilian and global issues and reflect different trends in contemporary thought.
About The Author
