The final text is not yet outlined, but the idea is that it includes some of the key concepts that appear in the article 33 of the Higher Education Law: “plurality of ideas” and “pluralistic coexistence of currents, theories and lines of research.” That is the spirit with which since the Ministry of Human Capital and the Ministry of Education They are working on drafting the bill that will seek to punish indoctrination and proselytism in the educational field. Many details have not yet emerged, but it was learned that the intention is that the modifications to the standard of National Education be part of the new Base Lawas was learned from legislative sources.
According to what has emerged, with the idea of “guaranteeing an education free of proselytism and indoctrination,” the national government is working on a project to modify the current legislation, which will be taken to Congress in the text of the Base Law with modifications to articles 11 and 26 of standard No. 26,206 that refer to the guarantees of the rights to education of children in the classroom.
In this sense, inspired by article 33 of the Higher Education regulations, which ensures the plurality of ideas in teaching processes, a modification will be proposed that follows the spirit of that legislation, and that places special emphasis on “the pluralistic coexistence of currents”, as that law mentions.
Article 11 of regulation No. 26,206 sanctioned in 2006 establishes the aims and objectives of the national educational policy. Throughout the sections, the importance of the ethical and democratic values of participation, freedom, cultural diversity, equality and “respect for differences between people without admitting gender or any other type of discrimination” is highlighted. . For its part, article 26 determines the rights and duties of students and contemplates issues such as comprehensive and egalitarian education and respect for the freedom of conscience of students, within the framework of democratic coexistence.
Changes
Although neither of the two articles contains an approach that enables indoctrination, quite the opposite, the national government will try to add a paragraph to it. more to each one so that teaching that prioritizes the teacher’s own worldview or ideology is explicitly condemned, without presenting other voices or perspectives to address that same issue. A specific mechanism would also be included to guarantee this right of students.
In that sense, the Government wants to incorporate the spirit of article 33 of the Higher Education regulations, in the National Education regulations, which was sanctioned in 1995, but which contemplates the relevance of approaches in teaching approaches and modes.
“Indoctrination and ideological persecution is a violation of article 33 of the Higher Education Law, which guarantees freedom of opinion, teaching and research. Many universities, both public and private, have allowed the ideological persecution of students and teachers, we have a commitment to the defense of freedom, no one should be persecuted for their ideas, whether liberal, left-wing or conservative, universities should be the example of tolerance and open debate and not of dogmatism and authoritarian imposition of ideas,” wrote in his X account a month ago the Undersecretary of University Policies of the Nation, Alejandro Álvarez (h), also a professor of Political Science at the UBA and Economic History at the National University of La Matanza. It was in reference to the allegations of indoctrination that President Javier Milei had made in the opening speech of the ordinary sessions of Congress.
Precisely, that argument would have been the one that matured within the Government to include a text similar to the National Education Law. Article 33 of this legislation says: “University institutions must promote excellence and ensure academic freedom, equality of opportunities and possibilities, teaching hierarchy, co-responsibility of all members of the university community, as well as the pluralistic coexistence of currents, theories and lines of research. When it comes to private university institutions, said pluralism will be understood in a context of respect for the worldviews and values expressly declared in their statutes.”
“It is not compatible to study at the UBA and vote for Milei”
The Government will now seek similar wording for the National Education Law. It will not be easy to promote this change, precisely in a context in which, especially in higher education, the Executive and the authorities of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) declared themselves antagonists. Yesterday, the vice-rector of the UBA, Emiliano Yacobitti, in an interview on a streaming channel accepted the challenge that the journalist proposed and said that he would get into a boxing ring from the Parense de Manos call and that he would choose as his opponent presidential spokesperson, Manuel Adorni. Later, in the interview, when he was asked about indoctrination in teaching and if he saw a clear intention to defund public education, he responded: “Now who has the ball is society, the kids who go to the UBA. Because it is not compatible to be educated at the UBA and vote for Milei. That’s what you have to understand.”
The Government’s response did not take long to arrive from the president’s own X account: “And then they put together idiotic letters with indignant functional salami denying indoctrination in the UBA. And then one of its highest authorities appears with a clear message of indoctrination. Thank you very much @Yaco_Emiliano for proving me right in such a short time.”
Although he has not yet commented on this bill, two weeks ago, in an interview with LN+, with journalist Eduardo Feinmann, the Secretary of Education Carlos Torrendell was consulted about the Comprehensive Sexual Education law and on allegations of indoctrination. The official indicated that it is “a reasonable law” that must “respect the identity of schools and families, promoting educational freedom. It is essential to maintain a pluralistic approach in society and in education.”
“As the President always says, we have to follow the law. The current Comprehensive Sexual Education law is a law that is quite reasonable, that does not talk about gender,” he explained. “Did he distort it?” Feinmann asked him. The official replied: “I think so. In the classroom and also in many curricular documents, in manuals and in resources. What the school has to offer is precisely comprehensive sexual education that also respects the identity of the schools, whether they are privately managed schools, denominational or not, but also the identity of the families.”
And he continued: “In other words, the freedom of teaching and the freedom of education is not only for those who are in the private sector. Parents must have educational freedom, the students, the teachers. So, in that sense, we must be very careful within state-run public education to understand that we are in a plural society. I cannot impose a vision on a topic as relevant from an anthropological point of view as comprehensive sexual education. At the university there have also recently been some debates on this topic, we really have to be more plural. Definitely, This is what pluralism is about, which as we know is politically correct, but many times in practice it does not occur and falls into teacher indoctrination. At all levels, I think we all have to be vigilant as civil society. The problem is not that we think differently, on the contrary, because that is what is best for the development of democratic societies, the issue is how I think differently as a teacher. In my subject, for example, [por muchos años Torrendell fue docente de historia de educación argentina en la Universidad Católica Argentina] I have this historiographical vision. You can do educational history in different ways, I have this vision, we can read everything of course but what I cannot as a teacher is try to represent all the visions or give a single vision. Because at the same time I have to respect that plurality within the classroom, I have to present other alternatives.”