Antonino Lodi, professor of philosophy and history at the classical high school Berchet do Milano (pictured), defines himself as “confused”. He ended up under disciplinary proceedings for sending two emails to teachers and students of the historic Milan school. No offense or even stance was taken. Just an invitation for critical reflection on the ProPal occupation which blocked schools on October 9 and 10. The school’s principal, Clara Atorino, accused him of “sending communications that could not be traced back to an educational purpose.” And this is where the professor’s “confusion” arises. The beginning of the email read like this: “Dear Berchet students, I am addressing those of you who have the idea of organizing an occupation: You have written a bad page for our high school. You want to commit acts of violence by preventing many of your classmates from exercising their inalienable right to learn. You do not pay, on the first day, you strictly forbid teachers from entering the school. Your school is not a school of freedom, but a school of restraint and violence.” Praising in a firm but polite tone that the occupation cannot replace the assembly, that democracy is a “procedure” and “decisions concerning the entire community are taken based on free and transparent voting”. He criticized the “one-sided” initiative, when it could have been “a discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which various positions are expressed, supported by competent and balanced guests. Without serious debate, it amounts to dogmatism and propaganda. The opposite of what should happen in Schools” (which he wrote in capital letters). In essence, no matter how anyone thought, he was doing his job as a teacher. “It is difficult to argue that e-mails are not inherent in teaching activities – he writes – they relate to themes of violence, the suitability of means to achieve goals, democratic procedures, the value of pluralism of sources and information, objects of reflection in the context of educational dialogue”. Therefore, “you would have to have a very narrow concept of educational goals not to see traces of them in my emails.” But the principal didn’t see it that way. He opposed the “unauthorized” use of institutional mail to send messages “that have nothing to do with teaching activities.” “I have difficulty understanding the press interest in this story,” he commented when asked. “That’s not the channel, the kids meet, you don’t send communications on Sunday morning without talking to the kids. Institutional email is used for project-related communications and service information.” “Conduct against the regulations” for Clara Atorino who, after calling the professor a few days after sending the email, initiated disciplinary proceedings. “Especially without telling me,” said the professor, who thought the matter had been closed with the summons. Moreover, as Lodi himself revealed, a colleague had used the same post to advertise a social center event, without being penalized.
The story then takes on a bitter taste that emerges from Lodi’s words: “if you criticize the Pro Pal occupation I will punish you, if you use the letter of the institution to inform about meetings of social centers, everything is fine”. The professor’s hearing is scheduled for November 21. He will be able to bring in lawyers, union members, and defense attorneys. But the question is different: can a teacher be punished for speaking about freedom of judgment?
