It is in this context, which has been acquiring increasingly important study of the University as an organization and the role of the management of businesses in the operation of each of its functions and tasks, has arisen in recent years, a strong debate on the effects that this transformation means for the University, their communities and society. What is questioned is not both the use of administrative techniques in itself, and acceptance of their criteria of efficiency and productivity, to operate the University as if a company already redefined their nature, aims and organization. To put it in other terms, the debate around the entrepreneurialism of the University, is less triple a dispute of which depends on the control and appropriation of knowledge. Referring to the dispute over the identity of the University, as a social institution or commercial organization; to the dispute concerning the determination of the nature of the functions of the University as inalienable public goods or services capable of private appropriation; and, finally, the dispute over the modes of organization of the University as a community of knowledge or bureaucratic Corporation. Says Ibarra, in addition, that is can not doubt that we have a new University that works increasingly as a business, complying with procedures and assessments of all kinds, that lead it along the paths of the control. It does not matter the very high priority that is given as a key to national development in the speeches of rulers and politicians, if her meagre budgets are allocated and all will haggle you; It matters little if she hits the existence of millions of Mexicans who see that happen by far if she promptly serves the needs of corporations in its headlong race for profit. Because, finally, the entrepreneurialism of the University, aside from the recognition of the interests of the nation, has attempted to disrupt social fabrics to bring knowledge to the power of markets, facilitating their appropriation.
Violet Santander, which received a beating from his sentimental partner on 2 August 2008, says that she was not attacked, and that the above is not a violent man. There is a video of the assault. The man who defended it spent many weeks in a coma, and continues with sequelae after having been attacked by the same individual to defend it. In his time, when the facts jumped to the press, it seemed, as almost everyone, which is a shame occurring made well. I felt pity and admiration for Professor Neida, and poor lady who defended. After reading this today news, my pity turns into frustration and anger. I’m not going to say that battered people seek it is, because I think it is an aberration, and because there is no excuse for violence, is of a type that is.
The violent act as animals, not people, because of their social, psychological and emotional problems. They are a blight and a few sick, and are also the product of a society with false values and educational problems (among others). Of course that victims must have support and help, but (someone has to say it) first of all is that they decide to stop being victims. Not to blame for what passes them, but they do have the responsibility to break the vicious circle in which are and get out of there. They have not sought what has happened to them but yes looking for which continue happening, because they deny it, justify it or ignore it. I support the campaigns against violence, is of a type that is. I sympathize and collaborate to the extent that I can do it, but they do not have with me if they accommodate a situation degrading until it seems normal to them, and prefer to watch a man fair and courageous on the brink of death before you recognize that they mistreat them and end this. Extent to which can it distort reality?