Brazilian universities are the hotbeds for every important issue related to authoritarianism. Starting in 1964, higher education was an area in which the military dictatorship aimed to institute new policy and institutional structures, as well as their specific political vision. And so, academic institutions were sites of political oppression, art and resistance, as well as compromise with the regime. Today, universities in Brazil remain irrevocably changed because of the authoritarian period — and they also continue as key spaces for voicing dissent and protesting state violence.
What many foreign audiences do not know is that the United States also had a particular interest in “modernizing” Brazilian universities modeling a US higher education structure – and following North American political and economic ideologies.
That influence was official. In 1966, the Brazilian Ministry of Education signed a deal with USAID, known as the MEC-USAID agreement, restructuring Brazilian universities following the US model.
But what were the results of that US influence on Brazilian universities? And does the US continue to have this kind of political power over Latin America in such a direct way?
To clarify these questions, Artememoria corresponded with historian Rodrigo Patto Sá Motta, author of the book As Universidades e o Regime Militar (Universities and the Military Regime), which delves into the relationship between the state and academic institutions under dictatorship. He answered questions about the role of the US in Brazil, past and present.
Artememoria: The United States played a role in changing Brazilian universities during the military dictatorship. To what degree was the modernizing impulse planned by the US, in the context of the military regime’s larger conservative-authoritarian modernization project?
Rodrigo Patto Sá Motta: North American participation was certainly important in the modernization process of Brazilian universities under the dictatorship. However, the degree of that influence has been exaggerated, leading to a mythologizing of the MEC-USAID agreements in Brazil.
North American policy in Brazil was influenced by theories about modernization and by the Cold War – especially as a response to socialism in Cuba. The goal was to use social and economic modernization as an antidote to revolutionary projects in Brazil, that, if successful, would have been strategically and economically detrimental to the US government. It is this impetus that inspired the Alliance for Progress, US trainings for Brazilian military and police, and also investment in educational programs.
In terms of education, the first US-Brazil agreements date back to the 1950s for k-12 education, specifically. But in the 1960s, higher education became strategic, both due to the importance that the Brazilian elite put on that sector and because universities became the battleground for ideas. It’s worth mentioning that North American involvement was also of interest to key players in Brazilian politics and education who wanted support for improving research and teaching infrastructure. My research shows that North American action was aimed, in part, to answer a call from within Brazilian universities.
João Goulart’s administration (1961-1964) limited foreign influence, but the 1964 coup blasted the doors wide open for US cultural and political presence. Right after the coup, the MEC-USAID agreement was signed with the aim of restructuring Brazilian universities based on the North American model. Additionally, direct partnerships with academic institutions intensified, so much so that USAID and other agencies financed countless projects in different disciplines, with funds being used to pay for scholarships in the United States, to build labs, to send North American professors and professionals to Brazil, and to translate academic textbooks.
To respond directly to your question: North American values and the US education system influenced plans for modernizing higher education in Brazil. And universities received funding from the US government because of North America’s political priorities during that period.
But, at the same time, sectors of the Brazilian elite also demanded those modernizing reforms and sought to adapt the North American model to its own needs and preferences.
Artememoria: Did the United States achieve its objectives in Brazilian educational institutions?
Patto Sá Motta: Yes and no. To best explain this, I’ll begin by outlining the goals of the US State Department in relation to educational projects in Brazil.
General goals:
- A more modern and effective education system, particularly for universities and secondary schools.
- Support for the formation of a group of educators and students aligned with the United States
Specific goals:
- To modernize education, both in substantive and administrative terms, specifically for universities and secondary schools.
- To plan the development of long-term relationships between US and Brazilian universities
- To develop a more accurate and mutual understanding among the citizens of each country with regard to their respective problems.
- To support a growing commitment to the values of development and democracy amongst Brazilians, including a globalist rather than xenophobic mindset.
From the US government’s perspective, the primary objective outlined in the early 1960s was achieved. However, everything did not happen as the US wanted. The feared “Cubaniziation” and “Communization” of Brazil was avoided, and the country remained in the “west,” though it remains unclear if anything would have been different without US “help.” A leap in economic modernization took place, which made excellent business opportunities available to American companies, but social inequality remained untouched.
Money went towards maintaining and tightening US ties with Brazilian leadership, resulting in the increased the influence of American values. However, that did not prevent leftist values, including Marxist concepts, and resentment against the US for supporting the dictatorship from spreading amongst university intellectuals in the 1970s and 1980s. That said, the military leaders in the regime ended up distancing themselves from US leadership, a process that began at the end of the 1960s and symbolically culminated in the rupture of the military alliance in 1977. Coincidentally, USAID ended its official representation in Brazil that same year after completing its plan of action established in 1973. As an agency that came to have 400 staff members and regional offices across Brazil, it was a melancholy ending.
In terms of what affected universities, North American influence was a back-and-forth of ambiguous results. Institutions certainly “Americanized” in various ways, but not exactly due to imposed politics. Rather, Brazilian modernizers – and even some committed nationalists – found some characteristics of the US university model attractive. Different traces of the American system can be found in the reforms carried out at the end of the 1960s, including the creation of research programs, the establishment of post-graduate education, the professionalization of faculty with exclusive contracts, and the adoption of a credits system within disciplines. That being said, Brazilian universities did not fully incorporate the US model: they continued to be firmly connected to and dependent on the State (both politically and financially), they set aside the question of charging student fees, and their ties to production systems, especially in relation to technology, remained weak. “Americanization” mostly affected teaching structures, research, and outreach, but very little changed in terms of political and administrative management or in terms of how students were selected.
Artememoria: Are there ways in which the United States continues to influence or pressure Brazil today that are parallel to its influence during the dictatorship era?
Patto Sá Motta: That question is more difficult to answer, as it refers to current events that have not fully come to light. In any case, as compared to the 1960s, the current situation is different in many ways. For example, we are no longer operating under the Cold War and issues regarding the military are less relevant. However, the US government is still interested in maintaining its hegemony over Latin America, which is why it found the wave of leftist governments in the early 2000s disturbing. We know that private North American companies such as Atlas Network and the Koch brothers financed campaigns to destabilize the region’s leftist governments, as did the US government, particularly in Venezuela.
One aspect of the current struggle against leaders of the Latin American left that might have had wider, foreign coordination is the role of judges and anti-corruption campaigns against leftist governments, which has led to imprisonment and impeachment. At the very least, the ideological inspiration came from the US, given that the leaders of Operation Car Wash took courses and received incentives from North American entities. For example, Sergio Moro received praise from Notre Dame University and from the Brazilian-American Chamber of Commerce, which gave the judge a prize at a ceremony in New York. Beyond that, it is important to mention that the Temer government changed foreign policy from the period when the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) was in office. Now, Brazil is completely aligned with Washington and its economy is linked to foreign capital, including the accelerated (and irresponsible) privatization of strategic sectors.
This interview was translated from the Portuguese by Lara Norgaard.
Rodrigo Patto Sá Motta is a Brazilian historian who received his PhD in History at the University of São Paulo. His research generally centers on contemporary political history and history of the Brazilian Republic, with a focus on the relationship between institutions and political culture. He has served as visiting professor in various countries, including the University of Maryland, the University of Santiago, Chile, and the National University of Colombia. Currently, he is as a professor at the Federal University of Minas Gerais and publishes on the 1964 coup and Brazil’s military dictatorship. He was president of the National History Association (ANPUH) from 2013-2015 and co-president of the Recent History and Memory Sector of the Latin American Studies Association in 2015.