Enem's Writing: We chose a limiting education and we're going to pay dearly for it

Enem no AM será realizado em 23 e 24 de fevereiro
Unable to face the education lobby, MEC and President Jair Bolsonaro practically apologize in the face of allegations of interference in Enem.| Photo: Henry Milleo/ Gazeta do Povo / Archive

The theme from the editorial staff of this year’s Enem, “Invisibility and civil registration: guaranteeing access to citizenship in Brazil”, is the perfect example of everything that is wrong not only with the exam but also with Tupiniquim education. And the most curious thing is that I saw conservative celebrating the fact that it was not an explicitly progressive agenda like, I don’t know, neutral language or other chimeras. To get an idea of ​​the level of indoctrination here.

Nor will I talk about the evidently unwanted rhyme in the enunciation of the theme. After all, we are very, very, very far (distant even, in case you were in doubt) to train teachers capable of understanding and rejecting this type of problem, let alone admire when the writer juggles to create a sentence without echoes or other language vices. The interesting thing is that it’s the same old group that extols the genius of some writers that I’m going to tell you about, huh?

The first real problem I see in the issue of writing Enem, as well as in Enem itself, is the country’s commitment, as a society, to a planned and egalitarian education – and, consequently , leveled from below. When Enem was created, back in the remote year of 1280, I remember seeing educators filling their mouths to speak in a true educational revolution in Brazil. They were right, but for other reasons. Like every revolution, this one also left behind a scorched earth scene.

Technocrat, when you can dream, that happens. The Enem is the techno-ideological implementation of a utilitarian education, which sees in the diploma the culmination of the human intellect. Perversely, advocates of this idea reduce the possibilities of individuals, conditioning them to think within well-established limits. It is as if there is nothing but formal education and a state-developed curriculum to create docile citizens. Not human beings; citizens.

This is why many do not even realize that, when associating with lack from a civil registry to invisibility and proposing that the student solve this “serious social problem”, the Enem is heavily contaminated by the progressive ideology that limits people’s ability to reason. In fact, the very objective of writing the exam – to propose that the student solve a problem of social interest – is loaded with ideology. After all, he assumes that complex problems can be easily solved, as long as they are well argued, in 24 lines. Thirty lines!

The existence of the problem cannot even be disputed – and it’s just what I would do if I were the wild-haired young rebel I once was. Because it doesn’t cross the mind of those who prepared the test (and, by the way, also those who applied it – the Ministry of Education of Jair Bolsonaro’s administration) the possibility that a student with some intelligence does not necessarily see a problem in “citizen invisibility” , and yes a choice. How about, huh?

I, if obliged to write this essay, would go that way. And, as a fellow expert on the subject has already warned me, this would likely result in a zero grade. After all, the examiner (probably a bored teacher, creating of this same limiting education) is not in the least prepared to face an argument that overthrows the little castle of letters built over years and years of leftist education. In the minds of the brokers, even because of the gigantic dimensions of the test, there is no room for contestation or the most sincere doubt: what if the proposed problem is not a problem?


Ah, now you are going to tell me that it is a fact given that a human being does not exist if it is not recognized by the State! There is an enormous metaphysical potential and even political philosophy behind the idea that man is only a political being if the State recognizes him as such. Is there no existence (sic) without the recognition of the State? Is it a piece of paper that determines who I am and my possibilities of acting in the world? And why is the alternative “abdicate citizenship” not on the table?

I could stay here for hours and hours playing with the idea that the problem proposed by the Enem newsroom is not a problem. And yet my reward for that would probably be a zero. My access to oh-higher education would be barred. Because it is in the nature of planned and egalitarian policies to eliminate what is different. As much as we live in the Innovation Era (at least that’s what the coaches guarantee me

), Enem shows that, as a society, we opt for conformity. It takes less work, right?

It’s even worse to see the Minister of Education almost begging apologies and emphatically denying that there was any interference in the Enem test. Forgive me the most exalted moderates, but wasn’t one of the platforms of Jair Bolsonaro’s campaign just about the end of indoctrination in schools? Why, then, the shame of imposing a neutral education policy – ​​as neutral as state-oriented education can be?

(In time, and before some smart-ass comes along with a rhetorical trip to me, I’m not proposing that Enem’s issues replace the progressive by the reactionary view. Fighting leftist indoctrination in education is not means to replace the mentions of the “military coup” with “glorious revolution” or other such tackiness).

Enem is a disgrace. A tragedy. A cancer whose effects on that naturally debilitated organism called “education” will one day be studied with awe by the scholars of the future. Which, as in a slapstick movie choreography, will put their hand to their forehead and say in unison: “But what did we do, huh?!”.

Back to top button