The story of a defamation.

The defamatory chapter - In March 2023, the prestigious Anglo-Saxon publisher, Routledge, brings to light... Sexual Misconduct in Academia. Informing an Ethics of Care in the University, a collection organized by Erin Pritchard and Delyth Edwards. The 12th and final chapter, authored by Lieselotte Viaene, Catarina Laranjeiro, and Miye Nadya Tom, was titled “The Walls Spoke When No One Else Would. Sexual-power Gatekeeping within Avant-garde Academia.” The chapter, which explicitly targeted the emeritus director of the CES (Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra), Boaventura de Sousa Santos (BSS), did not respect the UK's anonymity law: the first two authors indicated in their CVs which research centre they had worked for. Therefore, in September 2023, the publisher withdrew the chapter from circulation. But long before that, several feminist social scientists, long-time collaborators of the CES – Gay Seidman (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Linda Gordon (New York University), Ángeles Castaño (University of Seville), Alice Kessler-Harris (Columbia University), Elodia Hernandez (Pablo Olavide University, Seville), Mary Layoun (University of Wisconsin-Madison) – had approached Routledge protesting the publication of a text masquerading as scientific but lacking any academic or ethical quality, showing clear signs of resentment, bad faith, and retaliation, and discrediting feminism. Even so, some CES researchers signed a document stating that the retraction was considered an act of censorship, aligning with the very falsehood of what is reported in the chapter.

Origin of the defamatory chapter - One of the authors, Lieselotte Viaene, who is ostensibly the author, was refused funding by the CES for a European Research Council project. The decision was difficult because it meant the CES would lose a substantial amount in overhead. However, Viaene's institutional behavior, both as a CES researcher and as a Marie Curie Actions fellow, strongly discouraged the continuation of the partnership. She even complained about the CES to the Marie Curie Agency. In resolving the conflict, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions sided with the CES: Viaene had not fulfilled the terms of her contract. The reason Viaene requested funding, despite her complaints about the disciplinary proceedings against her and the CES in general, had nothing to do with scientific commitment. Viaene wanted to stay with one of the CES researchers with whom she had fallen in love (there is documentary evidence). Later, he would boast of writing an article to get revenge on CES and its director emeritus (there are witnesses and documents). The chapter would serve as a pretext for a group of current and former CES researchers, self-styled "Victims' Collective," to continue, with refinement, the defamation of BSS.

Cancellations - When he learned about the chapter, which the CES management failed to alert him to at the time, BSS was leaving for Chile. It was in Chile that he became aware of the extent of the public repercussions the chapter was having. The international dissemination of the article was professionally organized, taking into account its scope and speed. On April 12th, his visit to the Alberto Hurtado University (Chile) was cancelled. Soon after, a chain reaction of cancellations of activities in different countries followed. On April 15th, CLACSO (Latin American Council of Social Sciences) issued a statement declaring that: "while the ongoing investigations develop, we have decided to suspend all of Boaventura de Sousa Santos' activities at CLACSO".

Coup d'état at CES - On April 12th, a turbulent General Assembly of the CES took place, which was not attended by BSS (due to his absence) nor by the two other researchers, Maria Paula Meneses, from Mozambique, nicknamed Watchwoman in the article, and Bruno Sena Martins, from Cape Verde, nicknamed Apprentice (given the aggressive and chaotic atmosphere that had meanwhile been created). It became evident that some researchers were trying to use the publication of the article to fuel their resentments and rivalries that are common in university institutions today. This assembly resulted in the resignation of the board and the calling of elections in the short term. This election resulted in a new board and the re-election of the Scientific Council that had fueled the turbulence. The alignment with the "truthfulness" of the article by the new leadership team was total, and from then on, they behaved in a way that prevented any contrary version from becoming known within the institution.

Independent commission and self-suspension However, the CES decided to create an Independent Commission to investigate the allegations contained in the chapter. BSS welcomed the decision and, on April 14th, decided to self-suspend all his activities at the CES to facilitate the investigations. Regrettably, the statement issued by the CES Directorate claimed that it was the Directorate that had suspended BSS, a fatal “error” that justified a chain reaction of activity cancellations in several countries and of various types, such as the prohibition or suspension of his publications, or the removal of his articles from university courses. The “error” was only rectified a few hours later, but without any effect, as the news that BSS had been suspended by the CES had already been widely disseminated around the world through various channels. Moreover, on May 4th, the Director of the Faculty of Economics and the President of the CC again informed the doctoral students that BSS was suspended, and not self-suspended.

The inexplicable and illegal behavior of the governing bodies of CES and FEUC - Neither the Board nor the Presidency of the Scientific Council of CES ever summoned BSS to ascertain his opinion or even inform him of what was happening. As the founder of CES and its director emeritus, he legitimately expected this to occur. However, on April 20th, he was informed by the President of the Scientific Council and the director of the Faculty of Economics, via email, that all his doctoral students had been removed and, shortly afterwards, that his seminar in the Post-Colonialisms and Global Citizenship doctoral program had also been cancelled. On May 4th, 2023, BSS's doctoral students were also summarily informed, by the President of the Scientific Council of CES and the Director of the Faculty of Economics of the University of Coimbra, of BSS's "suspension". The seriousness and illegality of these decisions stem from the fact that they were taken without any prior process, without a prior hearing of the person concerned, based on a falsehood (suspension and not self-suspension), and drawing definitive consequences from a provisional situation (self-suspension or suspension).

The Independent Commission's Report - The Independent Commission began its work on August 1, 2023. BSS appeared before the IC on December 4, 2023. He testified before the IC for three hours on December 4, handing over approximately 600 pages of documents and dozens of witnesses (who were never heard). The IC Report was due to be presented on December 31, 2023, but was postponed to March 13, 2024. The IC consisted of four women and one man. At the end of the investigation process into the complaints, 14 people, 9 of whom were women, had been reported. However, the IC did not charge any of the reported individuals with criminal offenses or serious crimes. BSS's name (nor that of any other investigator) is not mentioned in the Report.

The Independent Commission never uses the term "victims," ​​always using the terms "whistleblowers" and "accused," precisely to ensure that the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence is guaranteed, since the use of the first term implies that the people who accuse are, in fact, victims, and that the people who are accused are, in fact, perpetrators of crimes.

The “victims” - Contrary to the understanding of the Independent Commission, which never used the term "victims," ​​minutes before the release of the CI's Final Report on March 13, 2014, the Board and Scientific Council of CES issued a letter apologizing to the "victims." Whatever the intention of the entities in publishing a letter that directly contradicted the CI's conclusions, the fact is that this letter was understood nationally and internationally as meaning that the CI report confirmed the version of events presented by the alleged victims regarding BSS (the letter is still on the CES website).

More cancellations Because of this letter, a few days later BSS was dismissed from the Universal Court of the Rights of Nature, which he had helped to found, and the supplement Times Higher Education SupplementOn March 15, 2024, through a post on the social network "X", it was announced that the harassment allegations against BSS had been confirmed. BSS asked the CES Directorate to immediately distance itself from this misinterpretation of the CI results. The Directorate refused and, in doing so, denounced itself for acting in bad faith by publishing the apology letter. Several CES researchers, in turn, wrote a letter to the Directorate, vehemently criticizing it for acting so unilaterally, remaining faithful to one narrative without concern for the existence of other narratives, or for the harm this would cause to the people investigated.

Self-suspension? Or indeed suspensão indefinitely? - Following the publication of the Independent Commission's Report on March 13, 2024, which BSS understood as the end of a long and painful process, BSS informed the Board of Directors of his intention to end his self-suspension. Contrary to what would be expected under the law, BSS's students were not informed that his self-suspension had ended and that, consequently, they could be supervised by him again.

Researchers from CES, the Victims' Collective, and the Sixth Letter - However, several letters were published attempting to reduce the “Boaventura Case” to a matter to be debated in the public square, without concrete evidence, with a view to the complete destruction of BSS's reputation. On March 20, 2024, the Sixth Letter from the self-proclaimed Victims Collective was published, signed by 13 complainants, who thus abandoned their anonymity. The letter called for the expulsion of the accused investigators and the opening of legal proceedings against them, as well as the adoption of decisions by the CES governing bodies against them (expulsion, dismissal or non-renewal of employment contracts).

Among the signatories were several researchers from CES who had internal bodies for filing complaints. Instead, they used a letter that was widely disseminated in Portugal and abroad. This letter revealed, among many other things, two facts that confirmed all the suspicions that had been accumulating throughout the year about the bad faith of the management and some researchers. On the one hand, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the signatories, who were full members of the institution and therefore subject to the CES statutes. On the other hand, it was demonstrated that neither the complainants nor the governing bodies of CES were interested in knowing the truth, as they were complicit in producing accusations in contexts that violated the presumption of innocence and all the procedural guarantees of the rule of law.

Finally, is there a possibility for BSS to defend himself against these spurious accusations? - BSS asked the Board to grant him access to the statements given to CI by the whistleblowers who had broken their anonymity. The Board refused. Instead, it opened an investigation process led by a group of lawyers hired for that purpose. BSS had a meeting with these lawyers on July 29th. He expected that after 16 months of public lynching, he would receive the allegations in writing so that he could defend himself effectively. The lawyers, certainly obeying terms of reference unknown to anyone in or outside the CES, refused to provide the allegations in writing. As desired by this Board since its election, its purpose of not giving BSS the conditions to defend himself effectively was fulfilled. The fact that BSS was never formally accused in a context where he could defend himself was essential to reaching the point where he found himself twenty months after the beginning of the defamation: the “civil death” of a person who gave his life for the essential values ​​that constitute the pillars of democracy. Why are they doing this against the director emeritus of CES and one of the most cited social scientists in the world in the field of social sciences? As a social scientist, BSS was among the top 2% of the “World's Top Scientists 2022” published by the Elsevier publishing group, a list containing 200 scientists, and also on the Stanford University list published in October 2023, and was considered the “Top Scientist” of the University of Coimbra in 2024. This situation remains the same today (2025), despite the terrible smear campaign to which BSS was subjected.

Legal action against the alleged victims - The exceptional nature of the harassment accusations (sexual, workplace, moral) against BSS lies in the fact that these formalized and documented complaints were never presented to him in any context where he could defend himself. They were never presented to him at the CES (University Ethics Committee), the University Ethics Committee, or the Public Prosecutor's Office. His lynching occurred only in the media war and on social networks, that is, in contexts where he could not defend himself. In light of this, BSS filed a civil lawsuit against the thirteen signatories of the aforementioned letter in order to defend his honor. He also requested that the Public Prosecutor's Office formally charge him, that is, investigate him, something unprecedented in Portugal. To date, the Public Prosecutor's Office has found no grounds to formally charge him.

Trying to understand - 1: What did everyone know? - The group of researchers who managed to impose the narrative that the chapter told the truth about CES – and that “everyone knew” – never clarified what “everyone knew.” Judging by what came to light, they were referring to irregular behaviors involving BSS and some of the researchers who worked most closely with him. Specifically regarding BSS, they “knew” that a certain personality cult had formed around him and that proximity to him could occur through means unrelated to scientific criteria. Nothing could be further from the truth. BSS was always a caput scholae, a scientific leader whose work attracted students and young researchers from different countries, and that this was positive for CES, since, upon arriving at CES, they found that, in addition to BSS, there were many more interesting people with innovative ideas with whom many would end up working on their doctoral projects or postdoctoral internships.

Trying to understand - 2: External factors - Right-wing policies.

In the realm of political reasons, it's possible to imagine that the intention behind targeting BSS was to attack the CES as a whole, a center generally characterized by prioritizing critical thinking about the unjust and discriminatory society in which we live. BSS is a public intellectual, frequently appearing in the press, and his positions are characterized by independent, left-wing critical thinking, little inclined to bow to party loyalties or the common sense produced by public opinion. Over the years, BSS has received several attacks, but none with the magnitude of this latest one. In 2022, he was strongly criticized by certain media outlets and on social media for his critical stance on the continuation of the war in Ukraine. From the outset, he considered the Russian invasion of Ukraine illegal, but criticized the continuation of the war, especially after the UK and the US opposed the peace negotiations promoted by Turkey shortly after the war began. His voice was almost the only critical voice, and there was an interest in silencing it. To support this idea, consider two highly defamatory editorials against him, written in the same year by the same journalist, Manuel Carvalho, from the newspaper... PublicThe first one, when this journalist was director of PublicThe first is dated March 11, 2022, the day after the publication of an article by BSS in the same newspaper about the war in Ukraine. The second is dated April 13, 2023, and refers to the media campaign built around the defamatory chapter. As mentioned before, although this publication makes accusations against several CES investigators, BSS was the sole target of the media war.

The double standards in this area are nothing short of scandalous. The journalist who stood out at the time in the media war against BSS, Fernanda Câncio (DN), attributing crimes to him and making serious accusations based on vague allegations made in anonymous graffiti, is the same one who, regarding alleged accusations against a Portuguese actor, writes on Facebook that "what applies to everyone publicly accused of a crime should be applied to that actor: presumption of innocence".

In the following months, several cases of sexual harassment were announced in various institutions, but neither names nor photos were published. Still on December 7th... Diário de Notícias The article announced "University of Lisbon professor convicted of natural gas theft" without providing a name or photo. Also in this political vein, there were attacks on BSS's Wikipedia page by individuals linked to the Portuguese far-right.

Left-wing policies

It is more difficult to understand the attitude of a certain faction of the far left, ostensibly defenders of human rights, but which also rushed to condemn BSS based on slanderous and unsubstantiated accusations. As an intellectual and left-wing activist, BSS never joined any party, prioritizing his work with social movements where partisan sensitivities are always varied. Over the years he was critically supportive of the Left Bloc and the Socialist Party. He felt closer to the former than the latter, especially during the time when Miguel Portas's faction had some relevance. Miguel Portas, besides having extraordinary human qualities, was the most innovative left-wing politician of the first decade of the millennium, a constant brake against the sectarian temptation of the far left. His premature death in 2012 opened the doors to the sectarianism and division that came to dominate the Left Bloc, the results of which are now evident. BSS was a vehement critic of this policy, and those who felt affected by it took advantage of the defamation he suffered to further discredit his voice, which caused them so much discomfort.

#MeToo

Another factor external to the CES was the amplification of the chapter's allegations by certain feminist sectors identified with the #MeToo movement. Why? BSS has always supported feminist struggles and frequently worked with Indigenous and Black women's movements. He was criticized by more orthodox Marxists for considering, in his theoretical work, that modern Eurocentric domination is not based solely on capitalist exploitation, but rather on an articulation between three main forms of domination: capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchy. Furthermore, this intense feminist mobilization contrasted with that which occurred with news of sexual abuse in other institutions where the names of potential abusers were never mentioned.

Scientific rivalries with other research centers?

Regarding external factors, it is also worth mentioning a sector of social scientists in Lisbon who, in the 1990s, questioned BSS's scientific credentials and, above all, its epistemological proposal in A Discourse on the Sciences (a small book, widely used in secondary education, which had many editions both in Portugal and Brazil and was published in Review from the Fernand Braudel Center at New York University-Binghamton). This sector included, among others, António Manuel Baptista (now deceased) and Maria Filomena Mônica. The latter published a book in December 2023, in which she repeats the insults against BSS, entitled Socrates and Bonaventure, The publisher describes it as follows: By choosing José Sócrates, a predator, and Boaventura de Sousa Santos, a preacher, the author sought to speak of a country, like ours, by following the paths of a politician who did everything to escape justice and a sociologist who has very little of a social scientist in him.It is impossible not to think that this date was not a coincidence. It occurred before the evaluation of the research centers by the FCT and before the report of the Independent Commission, which was then scheduled for the end of December 2023.

Trying to understand - 3: Internal factors The consequences of the coup d'état at CES.

Regarding internal factors, the behavior of CES's management structures during this period is shocking and surprising.

How is it possible that a researcher with so many responsibilities, Marta Araújo, vice-president of the Scientific Council, boasted to colleagues (there are witnesses) of being the anonymous source of the journalist from... Diário de Notícias Where were his colleagues and the CES constantly being insulted? Note that Marta Araújo was one of the co-supervisors of the doctoral thesis of one of the authors of the defamatory chapter (Miye Nadya Tom). How can this be explained other than as a state of total disorientation, intense resentment, and an uncontrolled thirst for revenge? The newly elected Board did not initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. Despite having been the founder of the CES and its director for four decades, BSS does not recognize himself in the institution's conduct during this last period.

Many serious measures were taken against the people involved and against the institution itself, with total disregard for elementary rules of democratic coexistence and violation of human rights (and, in the case of two researchers, violation of labor rights, it should be noted that both are black, one from Cape Verde and one from Mozambique), a fact that is all the more serious as it occurred in an institution known for its commitment to citizen science, human rights and the rule of law, and for post-colonialism.

The overall picture of what happened in the immediate aftermath initially suggests a state of panic on the part of the then-director-coordinator and the Presidency of the CC, and the consequent exploitation by some sectors of the CES to carry out what can be analogously characterized as a coup d'état to change the scientific policy of the CES and to settle scores from poorly digested personal and scientific rivalries. The speed of the condemnatory actions, the active collaboration with journalists committed to denigrating the image of BSS and the CES, and the faits accomplis produced without any prior process only make sense if one considers that, amidst the general chaos, some sectors took advantage to assert scientific policy viewpoints that apparently had not been able to prevail in the CES previously. If this was the case, why were these sectors unable to impose these positions?

The Epistemologies of the South

In one of the comments of Public "Anonymous" sources are interviewed. Researchers at CES who give anonymous statements are, in themselves, a reprehensible act in a context where the institution is being targeted by a media attack. These anonymous sources, considered the "old guard of CES," claim that the theoretical option of BSS had become hegemonic at CES and that this had conditioned the development of CES. This option must refer to the Epistemologies of the South, which carried the name of CES far and wide and attracted hundreds of foreign and national students to its doctoral programs. Along the same lines, the then and current president of the Scientific Council (CC), Ana Cordeiro Santos, stated more or less verbatim to a qualified witness that "the Epistemologies of the South were to end when Boaventura died."

This means that a scientific rivalry existed within CES, which BSS was unaware of. When CES was created, its interests were focused on Portuguese society, which had just emerged from 48 years of dictatorship. Sociology had been virtually banned during that entire period. BSS is member number 3 of the Portuguese Sociological Association. These studies focused on characterizing Portuguese society within the modern world system, with a strong emphasis on the study of political economy. Due to BSS's background (a degree in Law from the University of Coimbra, a doctorate in Sociology of Law from Yale University), a great interest in the judicial system developed within CES, which would lead, a few years later, to the creation of the Permanent Observatory of Justice, of which BSS was Scientific Director (1996-2023).

For his doctoral work in Law at Yale University, he conducted BSS research in the Jacarezinho favela in Rio de Janeiro. The thesis was published in 1974 by CIDOC (Intercultural Development Center, Mexico), under the title of Law against Law: Legal Reasoning in Pasárgada (Volume No. 87). It would appear years later (2014), revised and titled The rights of the oppressed., the first volume of “Works of Boaventura de Sousa Santos” from Almedina Publishers.

Following this initial work, BSS conducted a study on local courts in Cape Verde in 1984-85. In the 1990s, with funding from the American MacArthur Foundation, BSS carried out his first major research project, focusing on several non-European countries from a post-colonial perspective. The countries included were Portugal, South Africa, Mozambique, Brazil, Colombia, and India. This interest deepened significantly with BSS's very active participation in the World Social Forum, which was first held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2001. Because of all this, and also given that Portugal had increasingly longer contacts with more countries outside Europe due to the duration and extent of its colonial empire, BSS saw in the CES (Center for Economic and Social Studies) a privileged bridge between Europe and Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

It was from this interest of BSS (and of CES as conceived by him) in post-colonial themes that the Epistemologies of the South germinated. Meanwhile, CES transformed itself into an Associated Laboratory (2002) with the possibility of hiring researchers not integrated into the University and beginning to offer doctoral programs in partnership with the Faculty of Economics. CES's post-colonial themes attracted the attention of foreign colleagues, especially from the Global South (Brazilians, Mozambicans, Chileans, Mexicans, Cape Verdeans, etc.), and thus CES began to receive dozens of foreign doctoral students (especially Brazilians, who for some years were the largest student contingent). Ten years later, this interest in the Global South would receive an extraordinary boost with the approval, by the European Research Council, of the ALICE project, which BSS directed between 2011 and 2016. Funded with €2.4000.000 (the respective overheads were then a real lifeline for CES), ALICE allowed BSS to assemble a large research team that would further expand the Epistemologies of the South. The countries included in this project were: Bolivia, Ecuador, Italy, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Mozambique, India, Portugal, France, Colombia, Brazil, and Spain.

Scientific hegemony, or lack of initiative and poorly managed rivalries?

The Epistemologies of the South, however, have always been a theme alongside others at CES. It is evident that BSS's dedication to this project, requiring increasingly longer stays abroad, meant that he was not as involved with other themes and with the colleagues who pursued them. But why would he have to do so, more than twenty years after founding CES? His colleagues had the same sources of internal and external funding available to carry out projects and build an international curriculum. Given what has happened in recent months, everything suggests that BSS was the target of poorly acknowledged rivalries.

CES evaluations, the ALICE project, frustrations, resentments

It must be acknowledged that, according to evaluation criteria based on academic output, CES has been an institution of excellence due to the efforts of a minority group of researchers responsible for the vast majority of scientific production. No faculty member from the Faculty of Economics or the Faculty of Arts has ever had a project approved by the European Research Council (ERC), a highly competitive institution. The only exception to date is BSS and the ALICE project. And the truth is that CES has had several projects approved by the ERC, led by researchers from the Associated Laboratory. Because it is a large-scale project, ALICE aroused the desire of many researchers to join it, and junior researchers (doctoral and postdoctoral students), given the delicate issue of the increasing precariousness of scientific employment in Portugal, legitimately saw ALICE as a springboard to future scientific employment at CES. These unfulfilled expectations led to great frustration, which later fueled typical resentful behaviors.

Even stranger is that researchers with a high level of scientific expertise resorted to questionable methods to deal with the rivalries arising from the success of the researchers who worked more closely with BSS. As can be witnessed by people from the Lisbon neighborhoods where ALICE worked (Cova da Moura), some researchers made absurd and unfounded slanderous claims, such as that the ALICE project was funded by the CIA, and that BSS's books were written by his assistants, the only explanation for him publishing so many books. This last insult is included in the defamatory chapter, which shows that its authors did not invent everything they wrote. Around that time, rumors also began to circulate about how the researchers for the ALICE project were chosen: a rumor was created by the overlooked and therefore resentful researchers that some choices, namely that of Maria Paula Meneses, were not due to their respective curricula or merit.

Insiders, outsiders, and privilege.

In the late 1990s, Maria Paula Meneses' professional activity centered on the archaeology and anthropology department at Eduardo Mondlane University in Maputo, and also at the country's Ministry of Science and Higher Education. At the end of the 1990s, MPM had a conflict with the then-rector of the university, which led her to seek to pursue her career abroad. Given her qualifications (a master's degree from the University of St. Petersburg, USSR, and a doctorate from Rutgers, USA), MPM received several job offers in Europe and the USA. Having learned about CES and the scientific direction being followed at CES, she decided to apply for a position. She joined CES through an international competition in 2003, when it became an Associated Laboratory. MPM fit the profile that CES had defined for the Portuguese university's relations with intellectuals from the newly liberated countries from Portuguese colonialism. Her hiring gave a new impetus to the research carried out at CES, since Mozambique, and Africa in general, was her research topic. However, it quickly became clear that her hiring created resentment among some researchers at CES. One of the reasons was that MPM was an outsider, not belonging to the small Coimbra university community that had gathered around BSS to create CES; a researcher whose work was unknown and strange to the vast majority of researchers, and who brought to CES other scientific interests beyond those that had dominated the first period of CES (political economy, semi-peripheral society, law and the judicial system, and literary humanities). Coming from a family that had fought for Mozambique's independence and having been very politically active in her country's early years, MPM intensely experienced what she considered to be colonialist and racist prejudice in the way some colleagues interacted with her. One of them, annoyed by MPM's critical spirit, even insulted her in public: "Why don't you go back to your country?"

Moreover, the resentment extended to some students. Miye Nadya Tom, a former international PhD student and co-author of the defamatory chapter, once said in Cova da Moura that Maria Paula Meneses could not do work on colonialism because she was mixed-race, not black.

The management of the Alice project and CES in general.

The hiring of researchers paid for by the ALICE project was carried out through an international competition. ALICE had two coordinating bodies, which, due to absences required by its scientific prominence, BSS delegated: executive coordination (José Luís Exeni, Élida Lauris, and Sara Araújo) and scientific coordination (João Arriscado Nunes, Maria Paula Meneses, José Manuel Mendes, and, in the final part, Bruno Senna Martins). The importance of ALICE at CES during its duration is undeniable. It is true, however, that diversity and epistemological and theoretical pluralism continued to be very present at CES. One only needs to look at the themes and courses of the 12 doctoral programs organized by CES in partnership with the Faculty of Economics, the Faculty of Arts, and the Interdisciplinary Research Institute of the University of Coimbra, as well as with other institutions. The fact that in recent years CES has been responsible for 17% of the doctorates awarded by the University of Coimbra should be a source of collective pride at CES. This success was not, moreover, solely due to the researchers. It was also thanks to an excellent administrative team that for many years was led by João Paulo Dias, Executive Director for 10 years and currently a researcher at the Associated Laboratory.

Silence?

Both in the defamatory chapter and in the discussions held at CES after the crisis began, as well as in the media, the idea of ​​a culture of "silencing" frequently arose. In an institution that had elected collegiate bodies whose meeting minutes were published, an institution that organized strategic meetings, plenary meetings, and general assemblies, it is hard to believe that there is talk of silencing. But if it is talked about so insistently, an explanation must be sought. The most reasonable explanation seems to be that many colleagues converted their ignorance into silence. The fact that CES was located in a building far from the Faculty of Economics, to which a significant part of the research body belonged for a long time, and with parking difficulties, meant that many researchers rarely frequented the CES facilities, especially when they did not hold management positions. In the seminars held at the CES headquarters in Polo I of the University, the participation of colleagues from FEUC was very rare, and it cannot even be said that this was due to their lack of interest in the topics discussed. These absences gradually turned into estrangement, distancing them from the inner workings of CES. Therefore, they lacked knowledge.

Transparency

In a moment of institutional panic, this turned into a culture of silencing. A telling example of this was the transparency with which CES dealt with the issue of anonymous graffiti. The transcript of BSS's meeting with about 50 students and researchers in January 2019, after her meetings with all her colleagues specializing in feminist issues, clearly shows a concern to openly discuss a disturbing topic. BSS also informed that she would report on this meeting at the next CC meeting, which she did. Minutes were produced from that meeting, which probably no one bothered to read. This is how ignorance turned into silencing. Why? Because, especially in the case of colleagues who had leadership responsibilities, there was no courage to address the alleged irregular behaviors they claim to have been aware of in the appropriate forums? The truth is that in no other institution has there been as much transparency and democratic experience as at CES.

The problematic growth of CES

It is true that the internal circulation of knowledge within large institutions is a serious problem. This problem became particularly acute when the CES (Center for Higher Education) grew from a few dozen researchers to 151 in the short span of 10 years (between 2010 and 2020). This was not organic growth. It was the result of a government policy that required centers to merge in order to gain "European dimension." Given the scientific strength of the CES, dozens of new researchers from the Department of Architecture and the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences joined the CES. Internal heterogeneity and internal lack of knowledge within the CES increased exponentially. Soon after, competitions for temporary contracts (6 years) began through the FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology), which brought new researchers to the CES. In addition, through the so-called transitional rule, some postdoctoral fellows became researchers. In a short time, CES transformed into a medium-sized institution, composed of many researchers who knew little or nothing about CES, its history, and its purpose.

The idea of ​​the CES school, which had been built up over the years, gradually faded until it virtually disappeared. It should be noted that several of the researchers who entered under the new scientific employment regulations were not pre-selected through prior contacts with the CES. The CES agreed to be the host institution, and this often happened among those who were of least interest to the CES, but who corresponded to the underlying interests of the Foundation for Science and Technology. In a short time, the CES became a complex archipelago of small islands (some with only one person), with much ignorance and very little contact between them. Each one began to fight for their own publications and projects. It should also be considered that this enormous increase in scientific personnel, externally induced, ended up not eliminating the enormous imbalances and asymmetries in scientific production. Of the 150 researchers, until recently, no more than 50 regularly submitted projects for funding.

The absence of BSS

While it was easy to reconcile BSS's long stays abroad with the relatively close, albeit only scientific, direction of CES when there were 40 or 50 researchers, this became impossible when the number of CES researchers grew to 150. BSS's official absences abroad prevented him from keeping abreast of everything that was happening. Between 2014 and 2019, BSS spent an average of four months a year in Portugal, due to regular stays at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (35 years, where he taught during the #MeToo movement without ever being accused of any misconduct) and stays required by the ALICE project. Even so, CES needed his effective intervention on three important crisis occasions: a serious case of sexual harassment, a conflict in the MEMOIRS project, and the Lieselotte Viaene case.

It is also true that the 2011 economic crisis and the less positive evaluation of the CES by the FCT in 2015 (Very Good instead of Excellent) forced BSS to remain on the Board at the insistence of colleagues he greatly esteemed, even though he could not renounce his international commitments. Contrary to what his detractors say, it was not his excessively strong presence in the CES that contributed to some of the problems that the CES began to face. On the contrary, it was his excessively weak presence.

The lynching of BSS begins within CES itself.

The virulence of the “sixth letter” demanded the expulsion of BSS. The current CES Directorate acted swiftly in this regard with due diligence. In November 2024, a letter was sent to BSS, signed by the Director, Tiago Santos Pereira, the other two investigating members of the Directorate, Antonieta Reis Leite and Paula Abreu, and the Executive Director, Rita Pais (who, strictly speaking, was not authorized to sign). This letter quoted part of the report from the team of lawyers, hired to investigate what the Independent Commission had already investigated, which reads as follows:

“The report now delivered to the Directorate by the instructors concludes that '[i]n view of all that has been set forth, and as a result of the facts invoked and the circumstantial evidence produced regarding them, the instructors consider that there is relevant evidence of the practice of acts likely to constitute the practice of sexual and moral harassment of the Complainants listed in II.(iv) above.'”

Note that this conclusion results from the testimonies of the alleged victims, who supposedly are not lying, and without BSS ever having been heard. Thus, a nefarious post-truth environment was deliberately created at CES.

The letter further stated that the Board had requested the Rector to convene a General Assembly with a view to "excluding the associate" BSS.

Resignation - Given that he had never been able to confront formally documented complaints, given the accumulation of so much intrigue, mediocrity, malevolence and illegality in power, given such a strong connection between this internal coup d'état and the media war aimed at destroying his reputation, BSS decided not to condone such conduct and, on November 26, 2024, with great regret, but without hesitation, he resigned from CES, the institution he founded in 1978 and to which he had dedicated the best of his life.

Soon after, outraged by the reprehensible behavior of the CES governing bodies, the illegalities they committed, and the bad faith they denounced throughout the entire process, five senior CES researchers also resigned, in full solidarity with BSS.