Read the full article

Dear Professor Jorge Cajazeira,

I deeply respect your trajectory and dedication to higher education, especially as a colleague at UEFS. However, I feel compelled to respond to the points you raised, highlighting that the public university is an invaluable asset of Brazilian society, playing a crucial role in the production of knowledge, intellectual development and the promotion of diversity of ideas. As in any institution, we recognize that there are exceptions and mistakes, but these isolated cases cannot define the university as a whole. The contribution of public universities to society, whether through scientific, technological or social advances, is indisputable and must be valued. It is not fair to allow your personal ideological bias to delegitimize heterodox and unusual research, serious and dedicated work by thousands of researchers and professors committed to academic excellence.

Since its founding, the role of the university has been to develop both individual and collective intellect. It is unquestionable that Brazilian public universities have fulfilled this role, producing cutting-edge knowledge and training professionals who play fundamental roles in the country’s progress. You express frustration with theses awarded by Capes that address topics considered “unorthodox” or “low impact”. However, it is important to value the diversity of approaches in academic research. And I want to remember that the task of researchers is precisely to examine these contexts, and it is natural that different ideologies and worldviews permeate academic debates.

The university should not be an aseptic space of total neutrality, as the production of knowledge is always linked to social, cultural, economic and political contexts. Science advances precisely by exploring new territories and challenging what is considered conventional. Reducing these studies to a superficial perception devalues ​​the hard and meticulous work of countless researchers. It is worth remembering that the Federal Supreme Court has already invalidated the thesis of the infamous “school without a party”.

Public universities are responsible for the majority of scientific research in Brazil, the results of which benefit society as a whole — from technological innovations and advances in medicine, including the fundamental role they played during the COVID-19 pandemic, to the understanding of social phenomena that directly impact the lives of citizens. The absence of Nobel Prizes does not diminish the relevance of Brazilian scientific production. International recognition depends on several factors, such as available resources and global visibility, especially in a context of attacks, funding cuts and persecution faced under the last government. Despite these challenges, Brazilian researchers have resisted and continue to stand out in several areas, contributing significantly to the progress of global knowledge.

The human and social sciences are fundamental to understanding the complexities of society. Studies on social dynamics, identities and behaviors, however unusual they may seem, offer valuable contributions that can guide public policies, company actions and most importantly, promote social inclusion. The university is the ideal space for questions and reflections that do not find a place in other sectors. Reducing these themes to a simplified view is ignoring the value of academic research in building a broader understanding of reality.

Regarding the role of social justice at universities, it is essential to recognize that education is, indeed, a legitimate means to promote inclusion and equity. Public universities, by offering fair and transparent selection processes, ensure that people from different backgrounds can contribute to building a fairer and more diverse society. This does not mean lowering the academic level, but ensuring that everyone, regardless of class, color or gender, has access to knowledge and science. Diversity strengthens scientific production, broadening perspectives and enriching academic debate.

I agree with you that the plurality of ideas and the questioning of paradigms are the soul of academia. However, caution is needed when criticizing what he calls “ideological mold.” The university will never be a completely neutral space, as the production of knowledge is always immersed in social, cultural, economic and political contexts. The important thing is to guarantee scientific rigor and respect for plural debate, where different views can coexist and enrich knowledge. The university is so plural that it welcomes different theses without the risk of persecution, recognizing that all ideas, including yours, are legitimate and deserve space in academic debate.

Your concern about the use of public resources is valid, and society does have the right to demand that the money invested returns in tangible benefits. However, reducing the value of academic production to its immediate usefulness ignores the role of science in fostering deep and long-term questions. Public universities generate advances in areas such as health, exact sciences, human and social sciences, arts and letters, whose impacts are not always measurable in the short term, but which are fundamental for the nation’s development.

Finally, we recognize that the expansion of private higher education has brought challenges, such as a drop in quality in certain courses. However, this cannot serve as a justification to discredit public higher education, which remains a reference in academic training and knowledge production. The solution to the problems of higher education in Brazil is not in restricting the diversity of topics or excluding certain approaches, but in strengthening scientific debate and guaranteeing the autonomy of institutions.

So, may God help us and save us from superficial academic production — but, of course, without forgetting that the apparently most eccentric studies are often those that pave the way for innovation in a plural and democratic society. After all, who knows, perhaps the next great scientific advance will come from research into something as “unorthodox” as… “ideological mold”?

*Carlos Augusto Lima Ferreira

PhD in Education UAB/Barcelona