Boaventura de Sousa Santos*
The accusations of sexual harassment against Boaventura de Sousa Santos reopen a complex issue. It is obvious and evident that all abuse of power in the academic world, and its derivation in the field of sexual harassment, must be stigmatized and condemned. About this, Othernews has always induced a continuous campaign, giving echo to Mee Too and any expression of defense of women’s dignity.
On the other hand, it is possible to create situations where accusations lead to the destruction of the professional and human image of the alleged aggressor, a complex situation, since these are episodes that never have witnesses.
Othernews wants to open its space to its readers by giving the floor to those who want to intervene, so that the reader can decide their position on this matter, which opens after decades of silence.
We begin by giving the floor to Prof. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, accused of abuse of power and sexual harassment.
Dear colleagues and students (old and current),
I am writing from Santiago, Chile, where I came for the Book Fair.
The Center for Social Studies, myself, and several of our researchers have just
been the target of a shameful and vile defamation, a slanderous article authored by
three women. One of them was a Marie Curie scholar at CES (Lieselotte Viaene),
the other two, Ph.D. students (Miye Tom e Catarina Laranjeiro). Let me state right
away that every case of incorrect conduct mentioned in the article, no matter who
performed it, if confirmed, must be promptly judged both at CES and in the
appropriate judicial instances. Since at the time I was the director of CES, I take
institutional responsibility for any negligence that may have occurred regarding this
matter. Although the article is focused on me, I never had any meetings with two of
the authors (Miye Tom e Catarina Laranjeiro); with the third, the principal author
(Lieselotte Viaene), I had two meetings, one as the supervisor of her Marie Curie
internship when she first arrived at CES, the other as the strategic director of CES,
at the request of the executive director, to try to solve the problems resulting from
the researcher’s incorrect and undisciplined behavior in the institution. Her behavior
was so insolent and incorrect overall that CES had to initiate disciplinary
proceedings and refused to allow her to choose CES as host Institution in an
application to the European Research Council. The basis of such refusal was her
previous conduct at CES. In a word, this researcher was expelled from CES. Here
are the terms of the disciplinary charge sheet for dismissal, dated 6 June 2018
“Subject: Disciplinary Proceedings: Disciplinary Charge Sheet for Dismissal
Dear Dr. Lieselotte Viaene:
Having been the subject of disciplinary proceedings by the Center of Social
Studies (CES), you are hereby notified of the Disciplinary Charge Sheet written
against you, which you can find attached.
Upon proof of the facts outlined in the Disciplinary Charge Sheet, it is the
intention of CES to dismiss you with just cause.
Under the terms stated in article 355 of the Labour Code (Código de Trabalho)
you are hereby notified that, in the following 10 working days, you can refer to the
process and reply to the Disciplinary Charge Sheet in writing, outlining the elements
you consider relevant to the clarification of facts and your conduct. You can add
documents and request the probative diligences that are pertinent to the clarification
of truth.
The documents of this case are in the secretariat of CES, at the accounting
office (GAFIN) with Célia Viseu”.
In my opinion, which of course does not compromise the Board of Directors
of CES, I being now only its Director Emeritus, this article, as far as its principal
author is concerned, is a shameful act of institutional and personal vengeance. As
you can see in the published article, the slanderous information regarding myself is
anonymous and based on hearsay, that is to say, in “facts” having no evidence at all
supporting them.
In view of this, my first perplexity concerns the publisher: how could a
respectable publisher (that has published several of my books) bring out such a sly,
slanderous, and mystifying text, a text full of lies regarding myself. It is a mixture
of a solid theoretical framework, drawn from the autoethnography literature
developed after the Me Too movement, and empirical data based on anonymous
references, rumors, and unidentified, unproven incidents that thus avoid being
contested. I wonder what kind of peer reviewers reviewed this text. What kind of
science is this that dares to besmirch a prestigious institution, and particularly the
researcher that founded it and was its director for so long? I am designated in the
text as the Star Professor, a phrase coined in the USA to characterize those professors
who, because of their work and fame, earn much higher salaries than their
colleagues. I was never that. A caput scholae is what I was, having founded a fine
institution forty-four years ago, with the collaboration of a small group of dedicated
and enthusiastic young researchers. Our aim was to create an institution intent on
developing critical, free, plural, and independent knowledge about the Portuguese
society and about Europe and its relations with the world, particularly the world that
had been under Portuguese colonialism. This is the institution that evolved and
bloomed in the course of decades and which, no doubt, was found attractive by the
authors to proceed with their education. Indeed, the two authors who were Ph.D
students at the time completed their doctorate with the highest grade. The same
reason brought the principal author to CES. I admit that because I was then dividing
my time between Portugal and the USA I may have disappointed her regarding the
supervision of her apprenticeship. But the truth is that Marie Curie scholars are in
general very autonomous and do not require close supervision. Be it as it may, there
is no justification for such diatribe against an institution, especially as targeted at
someone who, at most, was absentee in his supervision. What is the justification for
thus viciously tarnishing a whole institution which, at the time the authors were
studying there, already counted more than 100 researchers whose perspectives and
interests had nothing to do with those of the “star professor”?
It is clear that the slanderous text targeting me and the institution I ran for
more than forty years intends character assassination. It features a well-known
behavior pattern in the field by focusing on me this time to accomplish institutional
vengeance. Regarding the insinuations about me, let me assure you that I will
serenely and responsibly confront any alleged victim. My conscience is clear.
Two points of this text are particularly offensive to me.
The first is the abject involvement of my research assistants who, the principal
author says, I may have unduly exploited. Of course, they support me in my research;
that’s why they were hired. But my books were written by me alone. I will provide
CES with the names of all my research assistants – Portuguese, American, Brazilian,
Mozambican, Angolan, Colombian – who have worked with me in the course of
years, should anyone wish to question them. I take pride in having worked with them
all. I have written many books especially because I work very hard and never take
vacations, because I love my work and because I have a secretary and a copy editor,
two wonderful people and fine professionals that have been with me for decades.
A second point that particularly revolts me concerns the allusions to the
conviviality that for many years followed my classes at the Casarão restaurant. I
quote from the article: “At this institution, these kinds of imbalanced power
relationships were frequently cloaked by social events part the institutional culture,
such as dinners in restaurants and private houses, where closer personal relationships
between researchers from different hierarchical positions were encouraged. After
Star Professor’s yearly series of masterclasses, it is an unwritten rule that all
researchers gather in a specific restaurant. In fact, in a personal meeting with the Star
Professor, he instructed the former Post-doc Researcher that she should go to these
dinners to integrate herself better into her new research institution. The Former
National Ph.D. Student received the same recommendation from both coordinates
of her doctoral program”. As I never gave parties at my house, I can only refer to
those gatherings at the Casarão restaurant. Only sick minds could turn sane, collegial
conviviality between students and teachers into Machiavelian machinations of
teacher-shephards over innocent student-sheep. I invite you all to visit the restaurant
and admire the tiles with the names of doctoral students who in the course of years
shared pleasant moments of lively conversation, poetry readings, and music. The
restaurant’s owner tells me that former Brazilian students come frequently to show
their children the tiles with their names inscribed. How perverse to turn pure
academic conviviality into manipulation of consciousnesses and rituals of fidelity!
Other cases of incorrect conduct are mentioned regarding other researchers. I
am sure that they and the victims/survivors, if they do exist, will find in forums of
CES and judicial institutions ways of discussing, evaluating and reaching
consequences. They are entitled to explain themselves. CES’s governing structure is
highly decentralized in various departments. If any governing body is found to have
been faulty, correction is in order.
Regardless of any internal and judicial proceedings eventually adopted by
CES, I intend to press criminal charges for defamation against the authors. I am
available for any clarification deemed necessary, both as regards the judicial
proceedings and the internal proceedings at CES.
My solidary greetings to you all, outraged greetings, to be sure, but sincere
greetings nonetheless, with faith in the struggle for truth and justice. CES is a great
institution, it has duly earned national and international renown. Its researchers will
go on fighting to deserve such prestige by amending mistakes, by being rigorous and
transparent against every violation of professional ethics and denouncing all those
who, bypassing the limits of truth and fair claim, aim to distract us from our major
mission – to go on building citizen science, the hallmark of our national and
international presence.
I shall keep you posted.
Boaventura de Sousa Santos
Santiago, Chile, 11 April 2023
*Boaventura de Sousa Santos is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the School of Economics, University of Coimbra (Portugal), Distinguished Legal Scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School and Global Legal Scholar at the University of Warwick. He is Director of the Center for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra and Scientific Coordinator of the Permanent Observatory for Portuguese Justice.