Carolina Gainza, a researcher at the think tank Nodo XXI and former undersecretary of Science, Technology, Knowledge, and Innovation, has publicly criticized government proposals to revoke free tuition for students involved in acts of violence. The proposal, supported by Science Minister Lincolao and other administration officials, suggests that students who engage in violent behavior should lose their financial aid benefits.
Gainza contends that this punitive approach ignores established legal frameworks. She points to Law No. 21.091, which defines higher education as a right rather than a privilege. She argues that using free tuition as a disciplinary tool risks creating a "double sanction" that effectively bars low-income individuals from professional advancement and social integration.
The debate over education as a right
"A right is not something to be thankful for; it is something to be exercised," Gainza wrote in a recent column. She explicitly rejected the characterization of free tuition as a "benefit" or "privilege" that students should be grateful for, stating that such language undermines decades of progress in educational equity.
Gainza also criticized the Science Ministry’s recent public discourse on the matter. She took issue with claims made by officials regarding the prevalence of violence in international educational systems, specifically citing comments that suggested violence does not exist in the United States. She described these statements as inaccurate and disconnected from documented research.
"Those who lead the Science Ministry have a special responsibility," Gainza stated. "They must be the first to demonstrate that scientific knowledge, not political convenience, guides their public statements. This coherence is the foundation of their legitimacy."
The controversy highlights a deepening divide over how academic institutions should manage campus violence. While the government seeks to implement stricter disciplinary consequences, critics argue that linking financial aid to conduct creates a dangerous precedent that threatens the state’s obligation to guarantee educational access. The Ministry of Science has yet to issue a formal response to these specific criticisms regarding the evidentiary basis of their policy proposals.