We are talking about Sanchez, the case that shook us last Friday. We advocate freedom of expression, even when statements are made that we do not like. This freedom entails the responsibility of expressing ideas based on reasoned opinions and verified data, and should not extend to intentional misinformation or injuries to categories of people in relation to sex, gender, race, religion, situation, etc. But when these "opinions" (or rather insults) occur in the public sphere and refer to students who must be attended directly, they are at another level. The teaching of such a humane and sensitive area of knowledge as the framework of labour law and social security entails a particular responsibility. A minimum of respect and professionalism is expected for the students who compose the classroom.
Thus, the case before us goes beyond the debate on the fundamental right to freedom of expression and its limits. The limit of freedom of expression is placed on the right to honour and dignity of persons and can go from being a fundamental right to be a crime of hatred when the fuzzy limits of this crime are crossed. But the situation we face leads to a new debate: that of the employment relationship and respect for the teaching obligations of a professor who has reached the UPV/EHU through a maternity replacement contract of the professor in the area.
The students have returned to us the reputation that Professor Sánchez, who does not represent us, has taken away from us, and he is in the opposite of what we understand as a university of excellence that cares for all the university collectives.
That's the main thing our university needs to solve. can you cancel the contract for breach of your obligations? The answer cannot be immediate, as it will be necessary to wait for the final judicial decision, but the university should immediately suspend and denounce the contract, since the attitudes that are displayed on social networks are offensive and painful. The messages published in the networks directly condition the right to the collective subject of the contract, to the students of group 301 and to the university education that respects their dignity as people. In addition, in academic instances, reasonable doubts arise about the impartiality and neutrality of teachers in the preparation and evaluation of students.
Media attention has also focused on the response of students from group 301 of the Faculty of Law (Leioa section), disfiguring them in some cases as if they had an aggressive tone. Attention needs to be focused elsewhere. The representative of the course has clarified this aspect by providing sufficient data and arguing with the capacity and solidity that makes us proud of the quality of our university education. The students of group 301 have returned to us the reputation that Professor Sánchez has removed, since the professor who has obtained a PhD in the UPV/EHU does not replace us, and is in the opposite positions since we understand it as a university of excellence that will take care of all the university collectives.
Joxerramon Bengoetxea
Rector, UPV/EHU