Don Porfirio’s Three Visits to Mexican Education

ByHugo Aboites

This editorial by Hugo Aboites originally appeared in the October 29, 2025 edition of La Jornada, Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Mexico Solidarity Media, or the Mexico Solidarity Project.

Although Mexican education and its universities have repeatedly been plagued by tensions, this is now increasingly common and is occurring at the upper secondary, primary, and university levels. This is exacerbated by the fact that the underlying problems are not being resolved; instead, they are accumulating because institutional leadership prioritizes immediate and superficial solutions.

They want the facilities returned, they want no protests; in short, that amidst growing social tension, the idyllic idea of ​​education in harmony and progress based on the advancement of science and education be recovered.

This is not new. Back in 1908, on the verge of nothing less than a revolution, Porfirio Díaz and Justo Sierra completed the creation of the single national, free and compulsory education system, giving their creation a mission that would define it from then on: the search for the “harmonious development of the human being in the physical, the integral and the moral.”

An education that fails to engage with its troubled nation discourages young people, stifles students and teachers, and stifles the enormous potential for transformation and liberation inherent in knowledge connected to social forces.

Later, in 1946, the Porfirian ideal was revived when, in order to contain thousands of teachers and organized communities and masses, who already knew that it was possible to gain something and much in a revolution, Cárdenas’ successor, Ávila Camacho, and Torres Bodet removed the word “socialist” from the Constitution and proclaimed that “all education provided by the State… will tend to develop harmoniously… the human being and foster in him love for the homeland.”

And finally, for the third time, in 2018, in an attempt to contain the powerful momentum of the electoral masses—who proved capable of sweeping away the conservatives of the PAN, PRI, and PRD, but also powerful enough to propel the 4T movement, which was unwilling to fundamentally transform education, much further—the formulation of the regulatory framework for 4T education was ceded to the PAN (Romero Hicks et al.), and the phrase “Education shall aim to develop harmoniously all the faculties of the human being and shall, in turn, foster love of country” reappeared in the Constitution for the third time. In other words, over the course of a century, the vision of education as a means of containing progress through the Porfirian ideal of social order has prevailed.

Defining education in terms of harmony, however, is profoundly contradictory in a country grappling with deep tensions and dilemmas, violence and anxiety. By forcing a gaze toward a distant ideal imposed by force, this harmonious vision prevents leaders, students, and teachers from addressing their challenging social circumstances through education. An education that fails to engage with its troubled nation discourages young people, stifles students and teachers, and stifles the enormous potential for transformation and liberation inherent in knowledge connected to social forces.

And another, very serious, side effect is the deterioration of institutional governance itself. True to the Porfirian ideal, the current leadership feels more comfortable with the practice of a vertical, one-man, and authoritarian government. It functions and constantly reinvents itself as an aristocratic court. Based on processes reserved for the court, far removed from the masses, and subject to secret deals and arrangements, access to and retention of positions become an end in themselves. And this frequently brings them to the brink of political ruin.

For example, when a credible source reports that the community cafeteria at UAM Xochimilco won’t reopen for another two months, there’s the need to compensate workers and students for the three or four times higher cost they’re currently facing for meals. This, precisely because it’s so basic, directly impacts the selection process for the head of the local rector’s office, since the candidate most frequently mentioned as the rector’s and board’s favorite is directly responsible for the cafeteria’s closure due to renovations.

Hence, the appointment of a rector has not even been possible, as there are not enough interested candidates. There is little enthusiasm because, rather than developing their own project, the new authorities would have to deal with the mess left behind by the previous administration. Nor is there much enthusiasm for the appointment of the current Secretary of Unity as rector: no one wants to be a mere figurehead or decoration, something convincing amidst the secrecy.

And something similar happened in the appointment to the Social Sciences leadership, in which the candidates – with one exception – are seen as very close to the current general secretary of the UAM.

Something that would generate enormous interest would be if a candidate committed to thoroughly repairing the consequences of the leadership crisis in Xochimilco and promoting a democratic change in the appointment of leadership and in its relationship with the community.