Last Thursday, AEIST organised a debate on the student movement at Técnico from 1956/57 to 1966/67. The debate was attended by João Cravinho, Sérgio D’Espiney and António Manuel Garcia and was moderated by António Mota Redol. The censorship, the politicization of the student movement, the growing mobilization of students and culture as a means of strengthening the struggles, were some of the topics addressed during the debate.
“In 1956 there was a certain insecurity regarding the power of the regime and its capacity to govern” said João Cravinho. “What I think is very important to mention is that, at this point, student unions became representative not only of their associates, but of students in general,” he said. João Cravinho stressed the importance of the associative leaders in mobilizing and inspiring students. “These were the most interesting and intense years of my life, and the most important years in my civic education”.
Sérgio D’Espiney, AEIST former Vice-president, focused his speech on what happened at Técnico during this decade. “The other schools inspired the mobilization of Técnico students. Suddenly, an association became very active”, said Sérgio D’Espiney referring to AEIST. The speaker also made a point of sharing some of the most striking moments during these “ten intense years” marked by “the persecution of students, the students repressed in the streets by the police and some situations that today seem rather strange, but that we lived so intensely”, he said.
“1965 was a decisive year for me”, stressed António Manuel Garcia, also AEIST former Vice-president. “The cultural action helped to defend and mobilize the student unions. Técnico played a very important role at the centre of this action”, he said. “During this year, the 181 disciplinary commissions led to several expulsions”.
The prohibition of holding the student’s day, the “academic mourning”, the hunger strike and other topics were also addressed. At the end, the usual debate between the speakers and the audience took place. It was very clear that it wouldn’t be easy if we had to choose between “conflict” and “hope” to describe this decade.
