Brazilian Universities Have a Free Speech Problem
A new manifesto from Brazilian professors confronts an uncomfortable reality: academic freedom on the country's campuses is eroding, and democracy will feel the consequences.
The challenges to freedom of expression and academic freedom are not new. The phenomenon is well documented by FIRE’s research and the Campus Expression Survey in the United States, as well as in other countries like the United Kingdom. Data from these countries show that pluralism has been declining in universities. The rise of alternative epistemologies, such as decolonial frameworks or identity-based approaches, at the expense of debate grounded in ideas and empirical evidence has fueled self-censorship among professors and students, and those with dissident or conservative views tend to suffer the most.
Unfortunately, Brazil is no exception to this trend. For some years now, professors and students have raised concerns about the presence of an “identity police” on campuses, made up of professors and students affiliated with social movements and political parties. These groups ostracize professors, often bypassing administrative procedures without any due process.
This climate has direct consequences for the legitimacy of Brazilian universities. A survey conducted by USP and UFBA found that 59% of respondents have little or no trust in public universities, and 54% believe these institutions promote ideology over quality education.
The perception has spread that universities – especially in the humanities, though increasingly in fields like health sciences – have become spaces impermeable to dissenting thought, where certain ideas, such as the reasonableness of racial quotas in university admissions or the practices of trans-activist movements, simply cannot be questioned or debated. While the stereotype of universities as “hotbeds of Marxism” may sound like a caricature, the real problem reported by professors is more subtle and more serious: an entrenched intolerance of dissent.
This perception is backed by data. A 2025 study conducted by Sivis in partnership with FIRE found that nearly half of Brazilian students are reluctant to discuss controversial topics, especially about politics and elections, in the classroom, and that almost 40% admit to self-censoring.
Additional research conducted by UFF mapped over 100 “cancellation” cases involving professors, students, and speakers. Recent episodes illustrate the scope of the problem: a student was expelled from their undergraduate program for questioning racial categories used in the quota system; professors were targeted for proposing alternative readings of dominant gender theory. There are also documented cases of sabotage and cancellation of lectures featuring conservative or right-leaning speakers, who were prevented from speaking on campuses.
Professor Veronica Toste, a sociology professor at UFF, remarked: “Since we began our research on the restrictions of academic freedom in Brazilian universities, we’ve been overwhelmed by reports from professors living in fear and resorting to self-censorship. Many have endured cruel public exposure and internal disciplinary processes; some are on leave, and others have even been diagnosed with PTSD. It is a troubling paradox: legitimate and vital agendas, such as racial and gender equality, are being weaponized in illegitimate disputes to silence dissent and restrict independent research.”
The pattern that emerges from these cases is troubling: there is a recurring practice of silencing that bypasses any formal process. Disagreement has come to be treated as transgression.
It was against this backdrop that a group of Brazilian professors came together in April 2026 to launch a manifesto in defense of pluralism, academic freedom, and institutional neutrality. Their demands were that universities refrain from taking official positions on political or ideological matters to protect dissenting views; that no professor or student be sanctioned for their opinions; and that universities foster an institutional culture that encourages the teaching of competing positions and the analysis of divergent perspectives on sensitive issues. These were demands that, in any genuinely academically oriented environment, shouldn’t even be needed.
There is yet another dimension to this problem that deserves attention: these issues not only affect the university environment, but they also compromise the very intellectual formation of students. Universities are in the business of developing human capital. When the climate of expression in a learning environment is hostile to debate and tolerance, how can it possibly produce young people who are genuinely open-minded, argumentatively capable, rhetorically skilled, and critically thoughtful enough to engage with ideas they disagree with and still seek to understand the assumptions behind them?
A university that cannot tolerate disagreement and evidence-based debate has lost its purpose. Rescuing is fundamental to universities’ health. While the problem appears to be a global trend, each country faces its own particular challenges and must address them on its own terms. That is the path we hope Brazil is taking with this manifesto.
This is only the beginning. More research is underway, and further discussions are planned to deepen our understanding and propose concrete improvements. The professors who signed this manifesto are not asking for privilege but for the minimum conditions necessary to do their jobs and keep the university functioning as it should.
Moreover, when the university fails to protect academic freedom and pluralism, students pay the highest price. A generation trained in an environment hostile to dissent will lack the argumentative tools, the intellectual humility, and the critical capacity that a functioning democracy demands. By strengthening academic freedom, we strengthen democracy itself.
Sara Clem is a PhD Candidate in Political Science and a researcher at Sivis Institute.