Bucci wants to end the requirement for a journalism degree at the Supreme Court.

247 - Journalist Eugênio Bucci, professor at the School of Communication and Arts at USP (University of São Paulo), and former president of Radiobrás, defends the end of the mandatory diploma requirement for practicing the profession. He states that the issue could also end up in the Supreme Federal Court (STF). Read his article in Estadão below:

A proposed constitutional amendment to undermine the Supreme Federal Court - EUGÊNIO BUCCI

Everything is progressing "accordingly" for the approval, now in early June, of the Proposed Constitutional Amendment (PEC) that reinstates the requirement of a journalism degree for anyone wishing to work in the press. After a particularly eventful week, in which politicians and magistrates spoke of a "crisis" between the Legislative and Judicial branches – the Vice-President of the Republic, Michel Temer, preferred to call the episode a "minor incident," considering it closed – here is a far from friendly parliamentary initiative. Through it, deputies and senators not only contest, but openly work to bury a definitive decision of the Supreme Federal Court (STF).

Compared to this proposed constitutional amendment, the factors that generated unease last week – such as the bill that, if approved, would lead the Republic to simply shut down the Supreme Court, in the words of Minister Gilmar Mendes – are small potatoes. Moreover, it wasn't difficult to leave them behind after the leaders of the two branches of government fraternized to align their positions. With the proposed amendment restoring the mandatory journalism degree, the conversation is more serious and will become even more serious. Contradicting the legitimate ruling of the Supreme Court, the amendment regarding the degree, as it has become known in the corridors of the National Congress, once approved, will produce a new and more embarrassing impasse between the two branches of government.

Let's recap the story. On June 17, 2009, by a wide margin (8 votes to 1), the ministers of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) overturned the requirement of a higher education degree in Social Communication with a specialization in journalism to practice the profession. The decision responded to Extraordinary Appeal 511.961, filed by the Union of Radio and Television Companies in the State of São Paulo (Sertesp) and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF). Gilmar Mendes, appointed rapporteur for the case, understood that Decree-Law 972/69, issued during the military dictatorship, which imposed the mandatory degree, violated the Federal Constitution. In that session, the only dissenting vote came from Minister Marco Aurélio Mello.

To help the reader better understand the Supreme Court justices' reasoning at the time, we can summarize the prevailing argument here. Its logic is crystal clear: no legal obstacle should prevent a citizen from creating journalistic publications or expressing themselves publicly in any medium. If a group of fishermen or homeless people intends to create their own newspaper, online or in print, it makes no difference; they shouldn't need to hire a "responsible journalist" to do so. Anyone should be free to create their own press outlet. Freedom, in short, should not be limited by a "legal filter"—and the requirement of a journalism degree, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, is a filter, an obstacle, a barrier incompatible with the profound meaning of the Federal Constitution. The mandatory requirement, instituted in 1969, had an objective as clear as it was authoritarian: to closely control, through registration with the Ministry of Labor, all those employed in newspapers. It only served the dictatorship. Now, in a democracy, it makes no sense. Precisely for this reason, there is no mandatory journalism degree in any other democracy. This only happened in Brazil. Furthermore, the mandatory diploma creates an imbalance between those who hold this diploma and other citizens: the former would have more "freedom" to work in the press than other citizens, resulting in a frankly unconstitutional privilege.

Following the decision of June 17, 2009, the Nation should have understood that the matter was closed. It was a final and unappealable judgment. It was then that the National Federation of Journalists (Fenaj), driven by the legitimate interest of protecting the jobs of its members (graduates), saw a way to overturn the ruling. The strategy was more or less the following: if the Supreme Court says that the requirement established by the 1969 decree is unconstitutional, simply write the same requirement into the Constitution – then, it becomes perfectly constitutional. Therefore, in that same year of 2009, the Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) regarding the diploma requirement began its legislative process. And it's going very well. Last August it was approved in the Senate with an overwhelming majority: 60 votes against only 4.

Some people get excited. Some naively believe that it's here to defeat the exploitative intentions of the evil bosses who supported the dictatorship. The mistake is immense: the worst press Brazil has ever had, the most submissive, the most cowardly, the most mendacious, the one that smiled at censorship and submitted to publishing that Brazilians murdered in torture sessions had died in shootouts, always fared very well with the requirement of a diploma. Another equally immense misconception is to suppose that today's newspapers, which are struggling to earn the time and money of their readers, have plans to hire illiterate people to write editorials.

None of these arguments hold water. The only real reason for defending the PEG (presumably a specific program or initiative) regarding the diploma is the corporatist protection of journalists' unions, which, incidentally, no longer represent all media professionals. A survey conducted by the Postgraduate Program in Political Sociology at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (in partnership with Fenaj), which has just been published, shows that, of Brazilian journalists, only 25,2% (including this columnist) are affiliated with unions.

Without any justification of public interest, the approval of the diploma amendment is detrimental to the quality of the press and to institutional normality. Sooner or later, the Supreme Court will be called upon to judge the constitutionality of the new amendment. Another power struggle between magistrates and parliamentarians is coming.