1. IAU Sao Paulo Conference, July 25-29, 2004
12th General Conference: The Wealth of Diversity
Parallel Workshops – Session III
Is the university a haven for intercultural dialogue?
Eunice R. Durham, Director, Research Centre on Higher Education (NUPES), University of Sao
Paulo, Brazil.
Introduction.
Different aspects of the theme on “Beyond tolerance: higher education as a haven for intercultural
dialogue” have already been covered by several workshops of this General Conference. Within this
context, I would like to discuss three main points, which may deserve special attention
Historically, and since its European beginnings, in the Middle Ages, universities have indeed been
institutions, which allowed and promoted the gathering of students and scholars of different nations,
languages and customs. They have been, in this sense, truly international. One of the meanings of the
term “university” refers exactly to the co-existence of several “nations” of student within its walls.
This internationalism however was in great part restricted to the more famous centers of learning.
Universities in Eastern and Western Europe had a more homogeneous student body and were not
really international institutions. This is still true. Universities of Central Europe, England and of the
United States that is, the best institutions of developed countries, have a large body of foreign students
and professors. The United States, in particular, also recruits an increasing number of foreign scholars
for their teaching staff. On the other hand, universities in democratic countries have indeed been a
haven for refugees of totalitarian regimes.
The Periphery.
But in peripheral countries like Brazil, this is not true. Foreign students are few and foreign professors,
also restricted in numbers, very rarely accept a permanent position and generally stay for a sabbatical
period, returning to their university of origin after this period. The fact is that this movement of
students and scholars has a direction and a limitation: from the periphery to the center. The
internationalism is concentrated in the most famous universities, which are poles of attraction and
concentrate the most promising students, scientist and scholars of different countries.
We have also to consider the fact that much of this movement takes place among developed countries
and occurs manly between Europe and the United States. In Europe, the movement of students within
its member states has been recently incentivated by programs such as Columbus and is conceived as
instruments for the strengthening of the European Community. We also must mention the movement
which occurs from former colonies to the former imperial powers, which is a privileged direction
within the general intellectual migration from underdeveloped to developed regions.
The Privileged Centre.
In these privileged centers of higher learning, we have indeed an international community, where
people of very different cultures congregate peacefully and we could think of them as havens for
intercultural dialogue. But the characteristics of this congregation, which we have pointed out (the
movement from underdeveloped to developed countries) many lead us to reconsider the term
“dialogue”, which applies most properly to an equal exchange of information, values and knowledges.
But what really occurs within the universities, which have a large number of foreign students and of
scholars, many of which belong to ethnic minorities, is that the cultural transfer is mostly unilateral.
When a Brazilian student or a Brazilian scientist goes to Europe or to the United States, (which is the
most common direction followed) is to learn and benefit from their cultural and scientific

2. endowments. Living in a developed country for a period, they also learn much about its culture. But I
doubt that the universities or the societies, which receive them learn much about Brazil. The most we
can say is that the size of this movement of people among countries, fostered by universities, increase,
within a limited social milieu, the acceptance of proximity and conviviality among people of different
cultural traditions. On the other hand, it also occurs that different nationalities and cultural minorities
restrict much for their social life to their own groups. We must remember that, historically, the
presence of different “nations” of students in European universities were as frequently a source of
conflict and prejudice, as an opportunity for cultural dialogue. Some of these opposite tendencies are
still present today. The dialogue, when it occurs, is mostly among individuals and takes place in a
“neutral” cultural ground of common interests and common intellectual endeavors. Cultural
background is often effaced.
University Culture.
We cannot blame these limitations to cultural dialogue on a perverse conspiracy of cultural
imperialism. These limitations are natural consequences of another cultural phenomenon: the fact that
the dialogue takes place within a specific culture, university culture. Universities are institutions
concerned with the production, reproduction and application of a specific type of knowledge, or a
scientific or humanistic nature, which shapes its own culture. Foreign students and scholars flock to
the great centers of learning have access to this culture, to acquire it, to become proficient in its use
and application. They don’t go to foreign universities to promote or develop their national, regional,
ethnic or family traditions, and customs, which are the essence of a cultural differences and cultural
dialogue.
The exchange of students and professors contribute to the creation or the enlargement of a scientific or
humanistic international community, which has a place outside (and perhaps above) cultural
difference. Moreover, the knowledge, which is cultivated within the universities aims at universal
validity. Science is truly and universal culture, with universal values. Such a culture demands a
common language. In the beginning of university history, Latin was such a language. Today, it is
mostly English. Portuguese, African or Asian languages, and even Spanish, are not proper means of
communication within this international community of learning.
New Sources of Understanding.
There is, however another feature of universities, which has been crucial in promoting a particular
form of cultural dialogue, which is not a mere interpersonal exchange, but involves knowledge about
other cultures. In the field of the humanities and social sciences, universities became the repository of
information, understanding and valorization of diverse cultural traditions. In the beginning, studies
regarding other cultures were fraught with prejudice. But the development of historical, social,
anthropological and literary studies of non-western peoples promoted, within itself, the gradual
destruction of such prejudice and the understanding of human diversity, which is the basis of cultural
relativism. Knowledge produced in the universities has been one of the main instruments for the
valorization of multiculturalism, which is a consequence of the intense intercontinental migratory
movements that are transforming modern society and affecting the whole social structure of developed
countries.
A similar development took place regarding race and racial prejudice: the internal evolution of
biological and anthropological sciences destroyed the former (pseudo) scientific basis of racism and,
consequently, established a solid ground for the denunciation of racial discrimination.
In both these aspects (racial and cultural diversity), knowledge produced by the scientific culture
developed within the universities provided, if not a haven for intercultural dialogue, at least a basis for
understanding and acceptance of diverse cultural traditions and racial phenotypes.
This is the main point of my argument. It is the specific culture developed within the university, based

3. on scientific and humanistic research, which provides a social milieu within which persons of different
cultural backgrounds are able to interact and collaborate in the production of a common knowledge,
using methods and instruments accepted by, all and thus creating and participating in a common
culture which coexists with cultural differences and which are respected because of this common
ground and common values.