The fungi that spread over the surface are not always visible, but they are devastating. The image constructed by Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) is relevant today in Brazil. The “banality of evil”, exposed in Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), is close to people and their foolish and complicit logic in the face of an imminent catastrophe. Brazilian society, if it avenges the proposal of the “school without a party”, will be the very expression of being handed over to ordinary people who, in their mediocrity and superficiality, are capable of causing overwhelming evils. Around the fight against the supposed indoctrination practiced by teachers against defenseless students is the project capable of destroying the present and future of education in the country.
The comparison between Eichmann, a Nazi bureaucrat, and the “school without a party” movement may seem disproportionate when associating historically distinct experiences. But, as a thinking and formulation strategy, there are clear approximations. In both, a common procedure: the destruction of plurality, diversity, political life and the seduction of “good people” who present themselves without any burden of monstrosity, but are capable of annihilating the freedoms and differences that are premises of the republican and democratic tradition.
By distorting rules, encouraging obscurantism and ignoring the dynamics of school reality – complex, contradictory, unequal and polyphonic – the project in question is presented as a safeguard of society and good customs. Nothing more fake. By exposing teachers as targets to be denounced in their pedagogical practices, the movement reveals its authoritarian and intimidating strategy that defends, in practice, the gag disguised behind the seductive idea of impartiality. Every school, as a microcosm of society, expresses a broad ideological, pedagogical, political, didactic, scientific, artistic and cultural spectrum.
The unconstitutionality of the proposal, as already demonstrated in a preliminary decision by Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), in relation to the project approved in Alagoas, does not inhibit the defenders of the “school without a party”. And, in addition to the legal issue, there are constant reports of teachers being threatened by school leaders and parents and causing immense embarrassment to teaching work, including the dismissal of teachers. There is an effective development in the daily lives of people in schools.
Teachers, no matter how bad their working conditions, were assigned an “indoctrinating” role, subversive and destroying homes and reputations, according to the formulators of the “school without a party”. The competence of the teaching profession is being questioned, once again, as if its professionals were amateurs carrying out political proselytism. At school, it is necessary to repeat, we deal with ideas and questions about philosophical, scientific, social and cultural postulates. And not just in the humanities area, notably, the field most vulnerable to attacks from the specter of censorship that surrounds the country.
Anyone who knows the reality of most Brazilian schools, public and private, knows the difficulties faced by teachers and the discredit faced by teaching. The “school without a party” wants to intensify the discredit of teachers and curb the work of these professionals. Appearing neutral, the project in question is loaded with the darkest ideological marks and aims to annihilate politicization and participation in public life. Politics, as conceived and originated among the Greeks, is debate, contradiction, argument and construction of possible consensus around the common good.
The fragility of knowledge in the face of obscurantism
Knowledge is always transitory and is doomed to continuous re-elaboration and overcoming. Scientific discoveries, for example, are overcome at greater or lesser speed depending on the areas and conditions of production and circulation of knowledge. This aspect is one of the most beautiful incentives for scientists, researchers and teachers. The certainties of one era are undermined by subsequent generations or reaffirmed on other bases. For knowledge to be transformative, it needs to be stimulated in the basic task of exercising doubt, contextualizing issues and avoiding the spread of dogmatism of any nature.
The task of thinking is the greatest attribute that the school should encourage. It is not easy to talk about grammatical classes, the laws of physics, textual genres, the colonial experience, algorithms, genetics and many other topics for children and young people. But all the knowledge that forms the basis of the curricular repertoire originates from questions and issues that stimulate reflection and are related to changes in the lives of people, societies and individuals.
The bill that threatens the freedom of teaching and restricts the freedom of expression of teachers seeks to present itself as a safeguard of the “pluralism of ideas and pedagogical conceptions”, the “political, ideological and religious neutrality of the State” and the “freedom to learn, teach, research and disseminate thought, art and knowledge”.
However, along with these statements extracted from its official document, there are mechanisms for creating a hostile environment for teachers and conducive to anonymous complaints. Suspicion is established and the necessary trust in the school space is rejected. The bill provides for parents and students to report, without identification, what they consider to be non-compliance with the law. The inquisition, totalitarian regimes, McCarthyism and dictatorships, for example, used the method of anonymity and provoked persecutions and executions in the name of various interests. The infamous proposal of the “school without a party” imposes the reversal of the basic principles of modern law and revives episodes of sad and painful memories. In democracy, differences must be dealt with transparently and publicly.
The proposal encourages self-censorship and the disappearance of the critical potential desired in the education and training of children and young people. The gagged school would be closer to obscurantism and knowledge based on police authority that would have coordinators, directors and teaching leaders. If there are doubts regarding obscurantism, just read how the proposal mentions the issue of respect for the religious and moral education offered by the family. Are teachers on a secular crusade against religious thought? How many teachers do not profess some type of belief? Are Catholics, evangelicals, spiritualists, Umbanda and other denominations or even atheists at school as missionary strategies? This even offends common sense.
By supporting yourself in the defense of morals and religion, what do you want? What does this concern reveal? That Darwinism is not taught? Could it be that, in the 21st century, there are people who assume that their children do not profess the same religious and moral principles as their parents because of scientific discourse or sociological criticism made by a teacher? It is curious how religious fundamentalism is criticized on the other side of the world, but a system of complicity is built between conservative politicians and frightened people right under our noses. What would the media say, which with few exceptions did not join this battle alongside educators, if their artistic, humorous and news productions had to be framed within the logic of the non-party school? Censorship or non-partisanship?
Obscurantism is not only associated with moral and religious discourse: it is also political and aesthetic. In recent weeks, two topics have been highlighted in social media discussions. In one of them, the question of whether or not Nazism was left-wing. It's incredible how only and only on Brazilian social networks is this something to be considered. There is no one with the slightest criteria and knowledge who can argue around this fallacy and deny that Nazism, despite having National Socialism in the name of Hitler's party, is the most radical expression of the extreme right. The other topic was the closing of an art exhibition queer in Rio Grande do Sul. Art, with the potential to disturb and produce other worldviews, disgusted a reactionary and efficient group in Brazilian politics and media who, upset, demanded the closure of the exhibition in the cultural space of a large private bank. It was evidence of a patrolling system camouflaged by the defense of “my individual taste”.
The need to defend the obvious
The “school without a party” is offensive because it disregards that the principles of a republican education (equal treatment and equal opportunities) and democratic education (freedoms and full rights) can only be carried out with autonomy, criticism and plurality. Any form of restriction is absurd and should be rejected by different social and political groups. The criminalization of school space and educational practices is a mechanism of public domination that brings us closer to tyrannical life practices.
School education, as a public issue, cannot be hostage to projects and daydreams that impose on others the impossibility of existing and expressing themselves. Restricting access to information, questions, cultural and scientific collections is a way of perpetuating inequality of opportunities.
When the legal standard, as intended in the “school without a party”, is the basis for preventing discussions about the transformation of society through education, it is a sign that we are no longer a society. Part of the argument of the “school without a party” when accusing the school of indoctrination is associated with efforts to promote, based on the 1988 Constitution, an education based on human rights and the fight against social, ethnic-racial, gender, regional and others. Control mechanisms over educators cannot perpetuate misogyny, racism, homophobia and any form of education that erases respect for differences and the expectation of building another future.
The hypothetical victory of the “school without a party” project will be evidence of the failure of education as a project to transform people and society. We will be a hopeless and destroyed society. And there is no education, in the sense that the term indicates, that does not carry with it hope, even when faced with so much uncertainty.
