[ad_1]
The education minister Lucia Azzolina distances itself from the USR Veneto’s decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Alfonso D’Ambrosio, director of the Institute, including Lozzo Atestino, Cinto Euganeo and Vo ‘, the city of the province of Padua that had the first victim of the Covid. The principal ended up in the crosshairs of his school office a few days ago, because he had sent 16 critical messages (but written in a civilized way) precisely towards the work of the owner of the MI.
The director: an act of cowardice
“Do you want a man to die? You’ve made it. My number has it, and for this I appeal to your clemency, “said the director of Campania, responding The Republic addressing the Minister. And defining the protest presented him with “a huge stone in my life” because “he always tried to maintain dialogue” and “never offend anyone.”
“Dear Minister, I believe in the school and I have always respected my superiors. But, allow me, I consider this gesture an act of cowardice, an attack on freedom of expression, ”said the director of the school.
The letter-reply from Minister Azzolina
Twenty-four hours and Minister Lucía Azzolina responded to the director. Basically getting on their side.
in a letter addressed to the manager Alfonso D’Ambrosio, the number one of the Viale Trastevere dicastery wrote that she was “firmly convinced, as a minister and, even before, as a citizen and as a teacher, that freedom of expression of thought must always be protected, as enshrined in our Constitution in the Article 21: each of us must be able to express our thoughts ”.
Marco Bussetti’s precedent
So Azzolina was eager to remember the legislation. The same one that prevented former Minister Marco Bussetti from canceling the 15-day suspension, completed with the subtraction of the salary, of the Palermo professor. Rosa Maria Dell’Aria, guilty of doing nothing to prevent his students from publishing an article comparing Hitler’s work with Prime Minister Matteo Salvini’s security decrees. A story that ended, however, only a few days ago with the judge who fully agreed with the teacher.
The administration does not infringe rights
Still in the letter addressed to the dean on duty at Cinto Euganeo y Vo ‘, Minister Azzolina writes again: “As you also know, disciplinary procedures, according to the provisions of current legislation, are initiated independently by the Administration and not by the political leadership, which cannot and should not intervene on the merits “.
The head of the Department of Education, after having assured that the matter “can be clarified in the deputy”, wants to make it clear that she does not intend to pronounce on the objections to the director: the central school administration “must never harm the rights and dignity of others. It is a principle that the Italian school, as an extraordinary educational community and tireless antibody against all forms of violence and hatred, appreciates and values every day. “The USR of Veneto is not mentioned, but the distance from what was decided by the directors seems very clear.
The director’s response
It was very tight Alfonso D’Ambrosio’s answer: “I am sure that everything will be clarified in the appropriate places”, limited himself to saying the director of the Integral Institute of Lozzo Atestino, in the area of Padua.
What will happen now? The disciplinary procedure, motivated by four pages of text, will continue its course.
Above all, it will be necessary to understand to what extent a public employee, but in particular a State administrator, towards whom the administration also implements a relationship of type of trust, can come to formulate public criticism of the work of his own Ministry and of his own Minister. A circumstance that the Consolidated Law of the school, which dates from 1994, but not only, continues to severely limit.
Although it is too early to say, it cannot be ruled out that if the director were sanctioned, this event could also have a “queue” in court: the seat probably more “deputy” (as the minister wrote) to determine whether a public employee may or may not civilly expose (albeit critical) thoughts on Facebook towards those who govern its administration.
