Solidarity with the women who have accused Boaventura de Sousa Santos and rejection of patriarchal dynamics, sexism, oppression, and gender violence, and their racialized nature in academia

Following the issuance of this statement, the signatory Working Groups and the Executive Secretariat of CLACSO have initiated a series of conversations to reflect on and jointly address patriarchal dynamics, sexism, oppression and gender violence and its racialized character in academia.

---

The undersigned CLACSO Working Groups reject the sexual violence and various forms of harassment perpetrated by the Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos, which also involves the anthropologist Bruno Sena Martins, against women of diverse identities and geographies working as academics, researchers, social leaders, and today as members of parliament, over several years, and we stand in solidarity with the complainants who have spoken out, with those who continue to speak out, with those who may speak out in the future, and also with those who choose to remain silent.

The university is a hierarchical institution where patriarchal dynamics of interaction are not only permitted but rewarded. Sexism in academic spaces is not an isolated case but rather part of the functioning of a system permeated by inequality, discrimination, and violence. The case highlighted in this statement is just one more in a long series of cases reported by women and gender-diverse individuals who have been subjected to violence by men who use their academic prestige to make unwanted sexual advances and propositions and to coerce them into committing acts of sexual abuse. These are relationships characterized by power dynamics where, in many cases, women's careers depend on aggressors who abuse their privileged position. Sexual violence, in its various forms, is not a matter of desire but of power. This works in conjunction with many other forms of minimization, ridicule, and exploitation of unpaid/recognized work by women (migrant, racialized, precarious, etc.), which are useful to the accumulation of power and prestige by men.

The cases we are referring to are not isolated incidents; they are systematic practices that subjugate women, among other feminized and racialized subjects, and impede the free creative exercise that rigorous and activist research requires. This is especially perverse in the case of Black, Indigenous, and first-generation university women, who are perceived by their aggressors as particularly vulnerable. These practices are systematic because academic institutions permit them, in an effort to protect the institution and the "prestigious man." In this way, gender violence is encouraged and sheltered by institutional impunity, which, in the case of Boaventura de Sousa Santos, has been fundamental.

Gender-based violence is not an isolated incident, and its consequences can be devastating in a woman's life. Following an assault comes confusion and fear of reporting and public exposure. Colleagues and social circles often influence women, convincing them to remain silent, while a patriarchal culture blames women, their bodies, and their actions. After reporting the abuse, women face public scrutiny, threats of defamation lawsuits, and the constant downplaying of the events and delegitimization of those who have experienced this type of violence. As has been extensively documented and explored by feminist theorist Sara Ahmed, those who dare to report are the ones who bear the brunt of the retaliation and revictimization. Despite the constant invocation of damage to the abusers' "reputation," it is rarely they who suffer the consequences.

As diverse researchers, we stand in solidarity with the women who have denounced Boaventura de Sousa Santos and all those in similar situations. They will never again have the comfort of our silence. We strongly reject any attempt to guarantee impunity for their actions.

We use this statement to highlight the various processes of (self-)censorship that occur in academia. It is surprising that, in response to the publicity surrounding the complaint, many have begun to claim that it was an open secret, and have also accused the complainants of attempting to socially censor the accused. Silence has been, and continues to be, instrumentally demanded within the conditions that perpetuate impunity for this and other forms of violence that converge in academia.

We are aware of the limitations of these types of complaints in terms of their scope and consequences—something that also operates within the same patriarchal logic. For this very reason, we also demand that the academic institutions involved in these complaints act swiftly in handling cases, with clear protocols for addressing gender-based violence against women, ensuring procedural guarantees, support and accompaniment for complainants, and protection from revictimization.

This demand includes the Latin American Council of Social Sciences, CLACSO, of which we are a part and to which we have contributed as Working Groups.

In this specific case, we welcome the announcement made by CLACSO of “zero tolerance and absolute rejection of sexual harassment and solidarity with all people affected by this form of violence” and to “suspend all activities of Boaventura de Sousa Santos in CLACSO”Additionally, we expect the Steering Committee to take a proactive approach to eradicating all forms of gender-based violence within the spaces covered by CLACSO through the implementation of prevention strategies, as well as support, security, and assistance for those reporting alleged perpetrators within the CLACSO Network. We also hope it will acknowledge past instances of institutional cover-up. This situation should prompt us to reflect on the importance of establishing and implementing gender protocols in academic networks and organizations that support research and public advocacy in Latin America and the Caribbean, not just in universities.

In line with the principles of restorative justice, we urgently call upon CLACSO and the Latin American academic community to take collective action to protect the victims of abuse. This involves halting revictimization and retaliation, and undertaking reparations and guarantees of non-repetition—something that requires demanding that perpetrators acknowledge their actions, make amends, and critically modify their behavior.

Specifically, we propose that CLACSO form a commission with members from all its bodies, which, among other things, will work on:

• Monitoring of the cases reported against Boaventura de Sousa Santos and those that may arise in the future.
• Establish a permanent interdisciplinary committee to organize spaces for debate and co-learning on gender violence, hegemonic masculinities, and hierarchical structures in academia, ensuring the construction of knowledge production practices that reject forms of discrimination and violence based on class, race, ethnicity, gender, and ability.
• Analyze the development of a protocol for addressing gender-based violence within the Network, emphasizing prevention and support for victims, and a 5, 10, and 15-year plan on how to prevent, address, and punish this violence.
• Review the connections of other academics who face allegations of harassment and abuse.
  Sexual harassment, workplace harassment, and abuse of power. All these initiatives must have an annual budget, with transparency in the design and implementation of each point.

Among the reparation actions that CLACSO can undertake are:

1. The translation, publication and dissemination of the book containing the chapter about the first complainants.
2. The invitation to be keynote speakers and panelists at events sponsored by CLACSO to all complainants as a way to amplify their voices and analysis, taking care not to re-victimize them.
3. The allocation of resources to two annual events related to the topic.
4. Allocate resources to carry out a research project on the topic, with the resulting publications.
5. The establishment of an annual scholarship for academics who have been underrepresented in CLACSO.

We also call for opening up the conversation in our academic spaces, for not remaining silent about these types of abuses, and for seeking ways to rebuild our academic communities.

We also call upon our male colleagues to take on the urgent task of questioning and dismantling the mandate of hegemonic masculinity and to reconstruct the ruptures, violent forms of relationships, and abuse of power and privilege that patriarchy confers upon “masculinity” in academia and society. We consider men's commitment to this issue urgent and necessary, promoting concrete measures such as dialogue circles or other actions aimed at ending these violent practices.

We tend to think that this is a problem that only concerns the aggressor and their immediate circle. However, the literature on gender-based and sexual violence shows that it is a structural mechanism within academic institutions and that the role played by all of us who are aware of these cases, directly or indirectly, is crucial: it is our responsibility to stand up against these forms of violence if we ever want to build a non-violent and just academy.

To stop abuse and abusers, it is urgent that we stop excusing, condoning, and normalizing their actions. We cannot, as individuals and institutions, continue to act in complicity with these forms of aggression. As the first complainants pointed out in their valuable testimony: “abusers become experts at creating strategic enablers through manipulation, such as by exploiting their workplace vulnerabilities” (Viaene, Laranjeiro, and Tom 2023, 218). It is everyone’s responsibility to stop these practices.

We conclude this statement with some open questions to initiate reflection both within the CLACSO Network and in the multiple academic spaces in Latin America and the Caribbean to which we belong:

• How is knowledge built in institutional and non-institutional spaces? At what cost and at whose expense?
• What colonial, male, white-mestizo, cis, hetero, and class privileges are we perpetuating in the processes of knowledge production?
• How do hierarchies operate in knowledge production, and how do we dismantle them?
• How do we stop the invisibility and precariousness of the work of women and diverse people, of racialized people and subordinated by their class origin?
• How do we build safe spaces for reporting and open conversation about cases of sexual violence that will build futures without violence?
• Can there be, or is there, academic authority without ethical authority?
  
  
  
  

April 25th 2023
CLACSO Working Groups
Political ecologies from the South/Abya-Yala [+]
Borders, regionalization and globalization [+]
Anti-capitalisms and emerging sociability [+]
Migration and South-South borders [+]
Network of gender, feminisms and memories [+]
Indigenous peoples and epistemic-territorial disputes [+]
Political agroecology [+]
Critical studies of rural development [+]
Feminisms, resistance and emancipation [+]
Latin American and Caribbean critical geographical thought [+]

Adhesions
Yohana Ruffiner. GT Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Projects
Diana Ojeda and Melissa Moreano Venegas. GT Political ecologies from the South/Abya-Yala
Claudia Pedone. Working Group on Migration and South-South Borders
Gisela Espinosa and Gabriel Tobón Quintero. GT Critical Studies of Rural Development
Araceli Mondragón González. History and current situation: Marxist perspectives
Verónica Moreno Uribe and Delmy Cruz Hernández. GT Bodies, Territories and Feminisms
Astrid Ulloa. National University of Colombia (Colombia)
Andrea Gómez. Metropolitan Autonomous University (Mexico)
Valeria Ysunza. College of Geography, FFyL/UNAM (Mexico)
Arnim Scheidel. ICTA-UAB, Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain)
Nohely Guzmán Narváez. University of California (United States)
Oxlajuj B'aktun Center for Studies of Mayan Culture and Science (Guatemala)

This text expresses the position of the CLACSO Working Groups and not necessarily that of the centers and institutions that make up the CLACSO international network, its Steering Committee or its Executive Secretariat.