Secularism Between State Neutrality and Ideological Conflict

The debate over secularism in Uruguay once again confronts competing constitutional interpretations and reopens the discussion about the role of the State, the university and academic freedom.

In our previous article, we recalled the opinion of former Socialist legislator Dr. José Korzeniak regarding the nonexistence of the “two libraries of law,” because the second one is “invented for political, personal or other interests.”
Nevertheless, reality seems determined to prove otherwise.
Because that “invented” library is frequently used and often prevails.
The reason is simple: each side claims to possess the truth.
And, ultimately, whichever authority is entrusted with deciding which of the two versions is true in a given case ends up validating one of them.
On the issue of secularism, understood in its broadest sense, this could hardly be an exception.
The rationale behind the creation of the Council on Secularism, beyond whatever effectiveness it might have had in fulfilling its mission, stems from an interpretation of the Constitution.
It combines several constitutional provisions, including freedom of conscience, freedom of education, public education and the separation between the State and religion.
Taken together, these provisions impose on the State a duty of impartiality, preventing the predominance of one set of beliefs over another.
Although constitutional scholars such as Martín Risso and José Korzeniak himself share that interpretation, they disagree on how it should be applied.
Korzeniak believes that the most important political issue is education and that the Organic Law protects the right of teachers and students to express their political ideas freely.
The anti-Marxist danger
However, the constitutional scholar argues that what is truly dangerous is the external attempt to use the machinery of the State to censor ideas or impose an anti-Marxist bias.
He concludes that, since Marxism is a fundamental analytical tool in the history of the Western world, teaching it is mandatory.
Although it should be debated in classrooms, it should always be presented alongside other schools of thought rather than in a dogmatic manner.
And here lies the crux of the matter. Because what governs how things ought to be is how they actually are.
Thus, the discussion remains suspended in a theoretical limbo.
In a paper published by constitutional scholar Diego Gamarra Antes (available online), he argues that secularism is a constitutional principle derived from the constitutional text and that it also encompasses State neutrality regarding ideological, political, philosophical and matters of conscience.
Thus, while Article 5 establishes that “the State supports no religion,” Article 58 is closely connected:
“Public officials are servants of the Nation and not of any political faction. In the workplace and during working hours, any activity unrelated to their duties is prohibited, and any activity aimed at proselytizing of any kind shall be deemed unlawful.
No groups may be formed for proselytizing purposes using the names of public agencies or invoking the relationship created by public office among their members.”
Neutrality?
Rules drafted with the best of intentions are of little use if they are not enforced. Anyone familiar with Uruguayan reality can see that this constitutional mandate is not respected.
The Organic Law of the University assigns among its functions the duty to “defend moral values and the principles of justice, freedom, social welfare, human rights and the democratic-republican form of government.”
Moral values? Which ones? What moral values is the Constitution referring to?
Perhaps it is worth recalling that José Pedro Varela, who had something to do with the concept of secularism, wrote:
“Morality should not be taught in schools only in certain classes or at certain times; rather, it should permeate every lesson […] it should hover over the school as the Guardian Angel hovers over the cradle of children.”
Is it possible to defend human rights and the democratic-republican form of government while naming the Assembly Hall of the Faculty of Architecture after “Commander Ernesto Che Guevara”?
Or by praising the Cuban Revolution, whose consequences the unfortunate island still suffers today?
Or by painting the Viet Cong flag on the ceiling of the Faculty of Medicine?
Or by assembling bombs, as happened at the Faculty of Engineering? The incident became known because the device exploded, killing its maker.
Is the democratic-republican system not entirely incompatible with totalitarianism in any of its forms?
And was real Marxist socialism not characterized by a single-party system and that party’s monopoly on truth?
Is that what Korzeniak wants taught at the University?
Radio silence
Schipani’s proposal failed to gain consensus even within the governing coalition itself.
Regarding the political reasons, some suggested that the government did not want to increase confrontation with the left.
From this we deduce that the left has the least interest in seeing a similar proposal succeed.
The University of the Republic issued no institutional response.
Why would it, if there were not enough votes to pass the proposed legislation anyway?
However, criticism did come from some members of the academic staff.
Several objections were raised.
That it would judicialize secularism. They argued that secularism should not be resolved by creating a kind of tribunal to determine when it has been violated and produce an official interpretation.
That there is no single definition of secularism because it is a historical, philosophical and political concept.
That it would pose a risk to academic freedom and freedom of expression and could encourage teachers to censor themselves.
That “partiality” and “proselytism” are not clearly defined concepts and, therefore, it would not be clear when a teacher crosses that line.
That the government of the day could influence the Council and undermine its independence.
That the proposal promoted an atmosphere of suspicion between teachers and students.
In any case, although the debate may have served some as an intellectual exercise, the outcome was that this timid attempt to enforce the Constitution and the law was shelved, consigned to an eternal sleep.

Constitutional secularism
State neutrality
University and ideology

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics