My dear students:
I ask you to read these articles for discussion in class as well as the new Higher Education Act 2010 and the previous Universities Act. We declare a "state of discussion" the first weeks of class of 2011.
UNIVERSITY LEAVE of marasmus
Rigoberto Lanz
"The government
four days ago it was not able to do in eleven years "
MYSELF
Forbidden to forget! We have had the best position to discuss a law on universities and foolishly squandered. When I was Minister of Higher Education Hector Navarro's friend and under the command Egilda friend Maria Castellanos, there was an impressive work around this issue with a high-level team that struggled with an unusual intensity. It is called the good offices of UNESCO-IESALC to join this effort and the same was done with the "International University Reforms Observatory (ORUS) The result was a comprehensive map activities throughout the country (more than 100 meetings everywhere: with authorities, students, nationally, regionally, with agencies, by sector, by type of universities), UNESCO and host ORUS We operate all this work meant a mountain of documents with the most diverse proposals. UNESCO
hired a special team to perform a delicate task of recovery and systematization of this material for several months. Then he hired another legal team to give the material a systematic project. Finally, the friend Claudio Rama formally appropriated to the Minister Bill finished.
From there, neither UNESCO nor ORUS had more responsibilities. The question that followed was very simple: to bring before parliament the normal course of a Law on Universities. Well, that will be in Norway, because among us does a nice slogan that reads something like: "Why make it easy if we can make it complicated." Indeed, there was the disgrace of a change of minister and thus a chain of blunders that ended liquidating this experience.
"The inconsistencies are paid," wrote then (see you in the coming days the amount of this invoice politics) The content of that document, such as the laborious process of discussion that arose around the country, meeting the best conditions to advance a very sensitive matter on which there will never be full agreement. The only thing you can hope for in such cases is to arouse the greatest will be converged and that the conspirators against any change in policy bill pay them (by the way that the friend Ana Julia Bozo and his loyal team at the University of Zulia better organized meeting the many references to time)
Where are we today? The bad news is that the atmosphere created that opportunity was lost. I rather think the electoralización of all that pollution makes any discussion. The good news is that the text of the new Universities Act largely reflects what was already in the document issued by ORUS and UNESCO. This means that you have saved part of the immense effort made by so many people involved.
now on that counts is to give life to a legal instrument that by itself can not handle the tremendous obstacles of a university system - almost - untransformable. A new legal framework may help push the changes, but there. Changes will be if people who think outside the paradigm of simplicity and powerful interests outside of classes, groups and mafias, some programs fail to converge innovative and attractive to many people. Would be ridiculous that "misplaced heads" be committed to a "university Chavez" or similar dislocations. The university is also the State, therefore, as in any other area of \u200b\u200bpublic life must be preserved fully the diversity of looks, the pluralism of ideas, the legitimate differences are the essence of any emancipatory project.
The agent is entitled to disagree. That is not a concession but a key democratic coexistence. Of course, this right does not mean inability to make decisions because there are any objections. The legal framework expresses clear rules to determine how far to go. The rest is straightened on the road. --------------------
UNIVERSITY: Something is wrong
Rigoberto Lanz
"Having always on edge of reason in the passion and the passion always present in reason. "
EDGAR MORIN: Mon Chemin, P. 361
Cristovam Buarque
The friend claims that the university has a millennium without changing, doing essentially the same. Curious quality that contributes powerfully to rivet their proverbial propensity to retain what is given, the simulacrum of "stirring the waters to look deeper, the quagmire that is ultimately the fate of the inconsequential. From there I understand, for example, the skepticism with Orlando Albornoz's friend scans the future of academia, in truth there is no reason to hold on to foreshadow a reasonably hopeful scenario.
For decades I have argued that the university is not self-transformable. She lacks the intellectual and ethical strength to propel their own account a significant mutation. But I have argued - with the same conviction - that governments are the biggest agents of change when it comes to college. Nowhere in the world has produced a university transformation worth in the hands of any government. All it has done historically (remember Pinochet is the most macabre) has been catastrophic. What then? The game looks lockout, the university remains undaunted and government is far better be good.
From the above does not follow that the government remains indifferent. On the contrary: the most recurrent criticism of the destitution of the government regarding the crisis of the university system over the years is just the absence of government policies with a minimum of coherence and sustainability (to the dismay of leftist movements within universities that have failed to raise its head). The case is different, it is visible to a conception of the university where the issue of equity and democratization, for example, what is crushing end essential in these areas: producing the thought that you understand our reality, generating knowledge that vibrates with the world and what we contribute from there to densify a democratic culture for the coexistence of the multiple.
democratically people access to these sites is crucial, ie, structurally defeat the syndrome of social exclusion which enshrines the last model. But that's just one of the vectors involved. Just as important is that we produce a high quality space where discussion resonate the world, where innovative solutions for all problems, which invent creative responses to this technological bottlenecks, where the critical consciousness to find fertility enhancement.
I think the text of the Law on Higher Education is lost in a crucial issue: the university can not be defined religious, ideological or by adjectives like "socialist" or anything. Not because the content must be "neutral" but because the public space must be preserved as the space of all (regardless of the opinion that we deserve each other's existence.) The university is a place of struggle where they live in different voltage sensitivities, different interests, different ways of seeing the world. That status is key to fertilize the critical thinking to overcome all forms of dogmatism, to design the differential learning.
On the way from the Ministry of Higher Education and the National Assembly, something has happened to the text of this law. There are many kits that reveal a lack of parliamentary criteria probably have not thought about these issues.
Most sensible people would be healthy would make a contribution to avoid unnecessary. To do so would be essential for fans of the opposition was otherwise distracted. In the middle of street brawls there is little that can be advanced.
Promises that "we will become" not credible. The threat of changes made by bureaucrats are worse.
0 comments:
Post a Comment