To the national legislators for the Province of Santa Fe.
The community of Universidad Nacional de Rosario is addressed to you in order to present our position regarding the “Bases” Bill, being discussed in the National Congress, submitted by the Executive Branch.

We understand that the proposal introduces substantial and profound modifications in the economic, political, social and cultural dimensions of the life of the Nation that would require a particularized treatment and in the times provided by the legislative dynamics, and not in an untimely manner as has been promoted. , without reasonable basis, since the majority of the proposals, even more so after numerous modifications introduced, have little to do with the economic difficulties that Argentina is going through.

In particular, we want to convey our concern about the push for initiatives to modify higher education legislation that we understand should be the result of open and participatory debate among university communities throughout the country and not a consequence of their inclusion without prior consultation. in a mega project that far exceeds the specificity of the university system.

The proposed regulations not only refer to modifications that do not take into account the true challenges facing the Argentine university system, but would constitute a setback with respect to principles enshrined in our Constitution and in current legislation, which make education special. higher education in our country, for which we are recognized throughout the world, contrary to historically sustained precepts and the recognition of the principle of Higher Education as a human and universal right, as established in the Final Declaration of the II Regional Conference on Higher Education of the Iesalc/UNESCO (2018).

Regarding the modification planned for Art. 553, it should be noted that it contradicts what is supported by our National Constitution, which establishes that all inhabitants of the Nation enjoy the same rights (Art. 14 of the CN) and that foreigners enjoy in the territory of the Nation of all civil rights and are not obliged to pay extraordinary forced contributions (Art. 20 of the CN). This is certainly a harmful modification with respect to a characteristic that strengthens and enriches our university system, while being irrelevant in terms of its intended budgetary impact.

Regarding Art 555, private entities are enabled to carry out the evaluation of the UUNN, implying severe risks, since the interests of said entities can be opposed to the very existence of the UUNN evaluated.

We also understand that what is mentioned in Art. 556 identifies the role of the State as a “contributor” to higher university education institutions and not a guarantor of their maintenance. Added to this is the concern, due to a certain confusing wording of the articles that provides for entry and introductory instances, not being clear or express what the true spirit of said incorporation is.

At the same time, the modifications contained in other chapters of the project, which do not specifically deal with higher education, if approved, could be detrimental to the university community as a whole. Proposals for reforms in articles of the Civil and Commercial Code – modifications in rents produce serious damage to an already situation
alarming especially for our students -, modifications in the practice and competencies of some professions, the transformation of the regulatory framework of public employment, harming working conditions that are required for educational environments to be spaces conducive to creativity and the transmission of critical knowledge and the limitations on the legitimate right to protest and demonstration, typical of a democratic life.

But it is not only those initiatives that could have a direct or indirect impact on our community that generate concern or uncertainty. As a whole, the project establishes guidelines for coexistence, upholds principles and parameters that are far from those subscribed to by our institution. And as an institution committed to national problems, we can only point out, as an example, other proposals that we consider regressive and harmful to the Nation. From the Universidad Nacional de Rosario We have a strong commitment to the protection and preservation of the environment, which is why we are concerned about proposals to modify environmental laws aimed at promoting productive activities in environmentally protected spaces. At the same time, the intention to privatize strategic companies for national development is clear, a motivation that we do not share in any case.

Likewise, the still imprecise modifications regarding the cultural sphere would drastically impact the State's ability to intervene in the production and management of culture, promoting the elimination of some organizations linked to its regulation and promotion. We believe in culture and creation as substantial devices to experience a common memory and project a shared future. In this framework, we cannot help but be concerned about this clear action of surrender that threatens our cultural identity.

It is worth remembering that the National Constitution establishes among the powers of the National Congress those of “enacting laws that protect cultural identity and plurality, the free creation and circulation of the author's works; artistic heritage and cultural and audiovisual spaces.”

The project to reform the Micaela Law, eliminating its mandatory nature and restricting the issue to family violence, occurs within the framework of a proposal for regressive modifications in terms of acquired rights in terms of gender identity and social security, and reduction of the State's commitments in matters of Public Health and Human Rights, issues that from the University - in the opposite sense - we have promoted with the conviction that educating in Human Rights is promoting a way of coexistence based on the mutual recognition of rights and responsibilities.

In short, in a delicate context like the one Argentina is going through, where perhaps as rarely before it is necessary to articulate strong consensuses to find answers to the problems of the present, this bill undermines them rather than promoting them. And the extended delegation of extraordinary powers that is sought is the platform for institutional distortion and entails a severe risk for the Nation.

For the above reasons, we ask you to speak out against the initiative, especially the delegation of extraordinary powers and those proposals promoted for higher education, which in the best of cases should be part of a legislative work agenda that should have the active participation and voice of the university communities throughout the country and their institutional and union representations.

Without further ado, we greet you with our greatest esteem, remaining at your disposal.

UNR community and all its union representations.