Suspension of event with Boaventura at USP generates outrage from female academics.

247 - A group of 23 academics and activists published a critical note on the growing legitimization of the so-called "cancel culture" in academia. The text was released after the suspension of the seminar. The future of democracy or the democracy of the future, which would take place at the University of São Paulo (USP) with the participation of the Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos. 

According to the official justification, the event was canceled because Boaventura could not attend due to health reasons. However, the decision coincided with protests against the intellectual's presence. The episode reignited debates about the influence of social media, public denunciations, and the fragility of the academic space in the face of external pressures.

The context of the accusations

Boaventura de Sousa Santos, his intellectual partner Maria Paula Meneses, and the Cape Verdean professor Bruno Sena Martins were the target of accusations within the Centre for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra in 2023. Although widely reported in the press, the allegations did not result in formal legal proceedings. Currently, the case is in court in Portugal, following defamation lawsuits filed against the group of accusers.

The authors of the manifesto emphasize that the goal is not to detail the process, but to stimulate reflection on the risks of normalizing cancel culture practices in Brazilian academia.

Impacts on scientific production

According to the researchers, when cancel culture takes hold in universities, it threatens scientific integrity and academic freedom. The document lists practices ranging from excluding authors from bibliographies to rejecting articles that cite "banned" intellectuals, as well as canceling invitations to lectures, examination boards, or seminars.

These actions, they argue, bring risks such as copyright infringement, encouragement of disguised plagiarism, and compromise of scientific transparency. "Eliminating references is not a critical gesture, but rather the erasure of debate," they emphasize.

Read the full note:

This critical note arises from collective concern regarding the suspension of the event 'The Future of Democracy or the Democracy of the Future', which was to take place at the University of São Paulo and would have featured Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Although the official justification from the organizers was the speaker's inability to attend due to health reasons, the fact is that the event's suspension coincided with mobilizations against the participation of the Portuguese intellectual.

It should be noted that the Portuguese intellectual faced accusations in 2023 within the research institution where he worked. These accusations also targeted his long-time ally and intellectual partner, Maria Paula Meneses from Mozambique, and his former advisee and then fellow professor, Bruno Sena Martins from Cape Verde. Although they generated sensationalist media coverage and symbolic lynchings, the accusations never resulted in formal legal proceedings. Currently, the case continues in the Portuguese judicial system, beyond social media, because the professor has filed defamation lawsuits against the group of accusers.

Drafted and/or signed by twenty-three female academics and/or activists committed to social and epistemic justice, as well as to the creation of an academic environment of dialogue, this reflection does not intend to delve into the details of the case and its unfolding. Its objective is to invite researchers, professors, students, teaching and research centers to reflect, calmly and deeply, on the risks of the consolidation, in the Brazilian academic environment, of the social phenomenon known as the "culture" or "politics" of cancellation.

It is worth highlighting that most of us, at some point in our academic careers, were at the University of Coimbra, especially at the Centre for Social Studies, and we were nourished by the intellectual and political project of the Epistemologies of the South, proposed, to a large extent, by Boaventura and Maria Paula Meneses. 

Furthermore, we emphasize that we do not condone practices of gender-based violence, any form of oppression, individual or institutional harassment in universities or any other domestic or professional and political environment, particularly that exercised by men against women, which is the result of a centuries-old, hierarchical, and patriarchal civilizational project. We maintain that complaints should be considered relevant and investigated and, when proven to be valid, should result in measures of justice and reparation that allow for the overcoming of violence. 

Recognizing the structural roots of gender-based violence is an indispensable step, but it is insufficient if it is not accompanied by the collective construction of mechanisms for listening, support, and accountability that do not replicate the violence that is intended to be combated.

Cancel culture, still in the conceptual definition phase, involves the (systematic and massive) criticism and (arbitrary) censorship of people whose denounced speeches or conduct are considered reprehensible by a particular group. Taken to the extreme, these acts of compulsory banning, initially propagated through social media, directly impact the real lives of the targets, making other dimensions of existence unviable, such as work, sources of income, marital and family relationships, and freedom of movement, in addition to undermining or destroying the mental and physical health of the targets.

Brought into the academic environment and aimed at the intellectual and professional extermination of a thinker, cancel culture practices involve:

a) the removal of names of cancelled authors from the bibliographic references of dissertations and theses, however fundamental they may have been to the research presented therein;

b) the revocation of invitations (to participate in panels, lectures and seminars) made to the canceled intellectuals and also to those people who disagree with this epistemic erasure;

c) the rejection by editors and reviewers of academic journals of articles that present ideas and arguments based on the proposals of "forbidden" sources;

d) the demand, on the part of the students, as well as some instances of power in academic affairs, that teachers remove certain works from the teaching syllabi of the subjects;

e) the impossibility for students and teachers to "confess" to having lived successful and abuse-free experiences in the relationships (personal, academic or professional) established with the canceled individuals, as well as in the spaces considered toxic;

f) and, finally, the institutional impact — as recently evidenced at USP — where organized groups within the university can prevent events from taking place, motivated by disagreement regarding the presence of a particular guest.

These and other cancellation actions have interconnected consequences – legal, ethical, and methodological – namely:

- The risk of copyright infringement, as stipulated in article 184 of the Brazilian Penal Code; - The growing tolerance for disguised forms of plagiarism or false originality of ideas – considered inadmissible – through the appropriation of concepts, reflections, and theoretical and methodological proposals without the author receiving due credit; - The reliability and validity of scientific research and its results. This is because one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method is replicability, which in turn depends on the transparency and veracity of the cited sources.

Another problem, of a political—and also psychoanalytic—nature, concerns silencing or self-censorship, which creates a collective scenario of cancellation due to fear of reprisals.

The environment of silencing – marked by the high probability of dissenting voices becoming the new target of cancel culture practices – stems from the expansion, both within and outside the digital environment, of the biopolitical device of fear, to use Michel Foucault's concept. In this context, social networks function as arenas of summary judgment, where the logic of polarization amplifies the fear of ostracism and reduces the possibility of more complex and nuanced debates.

We observe, with growing astonishment, that cancel culture is being legitimized, even among intellectuals and activists committed to social struggles and the construction of a more egalitarian society. This contradiction reveals that, even in critical spaces, we can reproduce oppressive logics, which demands constant vigilance and a willingness to challenge entrenched practices.

It is important to highlight that we distinguish the fundamental difference between canceling and publicly criticizing—even though, in practice, the boundaries between the two can become blurred. Public criticism is an essential part of democratic debate: it aims to challenge ideas, positions, or behaviors based on arguments, allowing for rebuttal and clarification.

In contrast, cancel culture tends to operate as a form of summary delegitimization of the canceled person, where the focus shifts from the content of the debate to the invalidation of the person as a legitimate subject in the public or academic sphere. Criticism stimulates debate, while cancellation shuts it down; criticism seeks to transform, while cancellation aims to punish. Distinguishing between these two actions is crucial for preserving ethical responsibility in contemporary disputes over meaning.

It is at this point that it is necessary to state: authors and works cannot be erased, even though they must be subjected to legitimate criticism, which recognizes the historical and political density of a reference, situating it within its limits and contradictions. Questioning a reference is part of the process of constructing thought; eliminating it is to reject the very ground upon which the debate is built. The critical gesture, when authentic, does not close paths, but multiplies them—it does not eliminate voices, but strains their meanings, opening broader horizons of understanding and dispute.

We advocate for the urgent need to build mechanisms to confront the multiple forms of violence generated by the articulations of class, gender, and race, which, in the academic sphere, do not appear as isolated facts, but as articulated expressions of a structure that, for centuries, has denied legitimacy to certain bodies, knowledge, and territories. 

In this sense, we understand the limitations of modern law which, created under a Western, capitalist, patriarchal, and colonial logic, often continues to reproduce privileges. Despite this, we cannot dispense with the counter-hegemonic use of available legal means. This use, over the last few decades, has resulted in numerous collective achievements.

The media, digital platforms, and social networks cannot serve as an alternative to the existing legal apparatus, however limited it may be. Overcoming its limitations requires institutional, educational, and collective actions that recognize the plurality of voices, experiences, and existences. In this way, we can continue moving towards a truly emancipatory justice system that confronts the roots of violence and promotes lasting change.

It is therefore urgent to impose limits on the advance of cancel culture practices – which are contrary to legislation, unethical, and anti-methodological – in the academic environment (and beyond). Cancel culture tramples on human rights, in addition to eroding scientific methodology and academic freedom. Furthermore, it weakens the production of knowledge and emotions, and prevents academia from being a space for dialogue, debate, and critical and sensitive education, committed to social transformation. We continue the fight for equality and justice for all people, particularly for women, and also in the defense of spaces that respect plurality, the presumption of innocence, and the complexity of human relationships.

Sign the note:

• Adriana Bebiano, lecturer and researcher (University of Coimbra - UC) [i]
• Allene Carvalho Lage, lecturer and researcher (UFPB)[ii]
• Ana Cristina Joaquim, postdoctoral fellow (UNICAMP) and postdoctoral researcher (University of Porto) [iii]
• Bruna Muriel, lecturer and researcher (UFABC)[iv]
• Cláudia Cristina Ferreira Carvalho, lecturer and researcher (UFGD)[v]
• Cláudia Maisa Antunes Lins, teacher and researcher (UNEB)[vi]
• Claudia Rose Ribeiro da Silva, master's degree (FGV) and cultural manager of the Museu da Maré[vii]
• Daniele Silva Gonzalez, Master's degree (UNB) and lawyer[viii]
• Denilza da Silva Frade, doctoral candidate (CES-UC) [ix]
• Elziane Menezes Flores, PhD candidate (Colégio das Artes-UC) [x]
• Fátima Cristina da Silva, PhD candidate (CES-UC) [xi]
• Flora Strozenberg, lecturer, retired research associate and legal consultant (UNIRIO)[xii]
• Inês Barbosa de Oliveira, retired associate professor and researcher (UERJ)[xiii]
• Inesita Soares de Araújo, senior lecturer and researcher (FIOCRUZ)[xiv]
• Maria Tertuliana Brasil, doctoral candidate (FPCEUC-UC) [xv]
• Maria do Socorro da Silva Arantes, teacher and researcher (UFPI)[xvi]
• Maria de Lourdes Paz dos Santos Soares, doctoral candidate (FPCEUC-UC) [xvii]
• Marina Andrea von Harbach Ferenczy, PhD (USP and Università di Ferrara) [xviii]
• Mary N. Layoun, Professor Emerita and Researcher (University of Wisconsin, Madison) [xix]
• Marina Pereira de Almeida Mello, lecturer and researcher (UNIFESP)[xx]
• Suzeley Jorge, PhD candidate, Faculty of Letters (UC), professor (UFSC)[xxi]
• Vivian Urquidi, lecturer and researcher (USP)[xxii]
• Vania de Vasconcelos Gico, Professor and Researcher (UFRN)[xxiii]