Reasons:
Two reasons were given for the rejection: 1) the absence of pluralism; 2) the lack of scientificity of the
speakers. Both reasons are blatantly censorious and illegitimate. Pluralism is guaranteed by the possibility
of public intervention, which is by definition not subject to a prior assessment of sides by the organisers.
First of all, the rooms, obviously under the governance of the University's bodies, nevertheless belong to
the entire academic community, which, as we know, pursuant to Article 1 of the University Statute, is also
made up of students. All the more reason why an entity such as the Coordinamento per il Diritto allo
Studio, which has, by statute and by election, the widest and most consolidated representation of the
student component of the university, cannot be subjected to censorial obstacles in the performance of its
institutional activity. An activity that is intrinsically ‘partisan’ as it should be, since it is an association that
takes part in elections and solicits students' votes on programmes, ideas, political tendencies, etc.
The above is the salt of democracy and is even an obvious application of the right of association,
manifestation of thought etc. enshrined in the Constitution. The debate is precisely made up of the
possibility of asserting one's ideas also and above all in the university's halls. If the university were to be
able to criticise (obviously subject to the above-mentioned limits) the content of the students‘ initiatives, it
would end up meddling in affairs that do not pertain to it, since it is quite clear that the initiative does not
belong to the university's governance but to a precise and well-identified students’ association that
assumes the paternity and relative responsibility.
Even less can the University claim to attribute a ‘scientific’ license to the initiatives, as if they were
curricular lectures or similar events, given that what is organised by the students is certainly not part of the
University's educational offer, but constitutes a way of expressing the constitutional rights of one (the
largest) of its components.
Nor can it be considered that the lack of authorisation (moreover, only a few days before the event) falls, as
is stated in the ruling, within the requirements of the regulation itself (which, if ever interpreted in that
sense, would be patently unlawful for the reasons amply set out above). In fact, what is referred to states
that “the concession is excluded for religious events, political parties and movements’”
. So, neither a
political conference (everything is political, including institutional lectures) nor any initiative of a political
movement is forbidden. What the regulation prohibits in the university's spaces is a demonstration, which
is clearly to be excluded in this case, since it is clear that a conference is not a demonstration (neither
religious nor political) but an opportunity for debate and in-depth analysis.
We are certain that the direct testimony of those who have lived through the drama of the Palestinian
occupation (condemned dozens of times by the UN) has a very high value and cannot be subjected to
censorship that is as hideous as it is illegitimate.
*Protesting is legitimate*
A wave of student protests began in April on US campuses. These protests in many cases took the form of
encampments, harking back to a democratic tradition that goes at least as far back as the protests against
the Vietnam War: today it is hard not to recognise that those who participated in those protests were on
the right side of history, but those protests suffered harsh repression.
This wave is now spreading and starting to touch Italian universities as well. The protesting students are
raising not only legitimate, but also very reasonable questions about the links of Western university
systems with the Israeli military-industrial complex. It is absurd to equate student actions with apologia for
terrorism or to accuse the protesters of anti-Semitism: in the USA these protests are also led by Jewish
student organisations!
Should similar movements develop in Pavia as well, it will be important for the university to adopt an
attitude of listening and respect. Before any other consideration, it is the very dimension of the ongoing
tragedy in the Middle East that demands it.
Thank you very much for your support, Pavia Antifascist Network