In a symbolic milestone of valuing inclusion and accessibility, the Faculty of Education of Unicamp (FE-Unicamp) held this Tuesday, July 29, the reopening of its Noble Hall Professor Marconi Freire Montezuma, which was moved from the 1st floor to the ground floor of the Paulo Freire Building. The action was integrated into the debate on rights and inclusive practices. The program included Thematic Table Accessibility and Inclusion in FE, which brought together professionals, researchers and representatives of the academic community engaged in the construction of a more accessible and plural space.
The event was led by Professor Lilian Cristine Ribeiro Nascimento, who highlighted the importance of coordination between different departments within the unit—from Building Administration to the Management and the Faculty's Accessibility Committee—in promoting concrete inclusion actions and the Brazilian Law for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities (LBI), despite the fact that improvements are needed for its advancement today.
The ceremony was initiated by the board of directors, composed of the professor Débora Cristina Jeffrey, Dean of the Unicamp School of Education, along with Unicamp's General Coordinator, Professor Fernando Antônio Santos Coelho, and Unicamp's Rector, Professor Paulo Cesar Montagner, emphasized the importance of the reopening as a milestone in the unit's commitment to promoting accessibility.
The Salão Nobre (Main Hall) was built and handed over to the Unicamp School of Education community in 1987, during the administration of Professor Pedro Laudinor Goergen, and named in 1992, under Professor and then-Dean Luiz Carlos de Freitas and Professor and Associate Director Ana Luiza Smolka, in honor of the first Dean of FE-Unicamp, Professor Marconi Freire Montezuma, who passed away in 1990. The former space hosted several national and international educational events, but became inaccessible after the elevator to the first floor was closed, compromising accessibility for people with disabilities or reduced mobility. In July 1, the space was closed in response to a request from the Unicamp Extension and Special Projects Events Committee and the Accessibility Committee, to allow for improvements in accessibility conditions that also comply with national, state, and municipal legislation.
With the renovation, the Salão Nobre, located on the 1st floor (block E) of the Professor Paulo Freire Building of the Unicamp School of Education, now has a capacity of 108, a management table with seating for eight, and facilities designed for people with disabilities and reduced mobility, including dedicated chairs, designated areas, a ramp, technological equipment, and more. The space also features air conditioning, sound and multimedia equipment, a large screen, a lobby, and a kitchenette for coffee breaks. Academic, scientific, and institutional events will be held here, and scheduling is open to all interested members of the community, provided there is a date available.
"FE has numerous vocations, and one of them is to act in defining the public agenda for quality basic education and higher education with diversity and inclusion, guaranteeing the effectiveness of the right to education for all, as well as participating and collaborating in the implementation of Unicamp's university policy. At this event, we once again commit to the university's policy of inclusion and diversity," stated Professor Débora, who also thanked the project's collaborating teams: Building Administration, Budget, Distance Learning, ICT, Outreach, Events and Special Projects, Campus Administration, and the Rector's Office for their technical and financial support.
Afterwards, the inaugural plaque was unveiled by those present at the opening table and, shortly after, the institutional video of the Faculty of Education at Unicamp (available on YouTube), which reinforced the Faculty's commitment to accessibility as a permanent value.
Subsequently, a panel on accessibility and inclusion was formed. Among the panel's highlights was civil servant Josué Hilario Gama, representing FE-Unicamp's Building Administration and a Public Management student representing Building Administration, who shared his proposals for improving physical accessibility and service at the facility. Next, Ana Luísa Mortean Ribeiro, a master's student in Education and the first quota student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) to defend her dissertation at Unicamp, discussed the challenges and achievements of her academic career, highlighting the need for effective support policies.
Giovanna da Costa Romaro, a civil servant from FE-Unicamp's Institutional Communications team and a member of the School of Education's Accessibility Committee, reflected on ableism, tokenism, and representation in contemporary culture, as well as sharing her experience as a person with ASD. Civil servant Herivelton Fabiano Zanotto, a member of the Accessibility Committee and the Internal Accident Prevention Committee (CIPA), shared what he learned from the accessibility course offered by the School and his actions toward sustainability and inclusion.
Closing the panel's participation, the pedagogue, researcher in Public Health and employee of the Center for Studies and Research in Rehabilitation (CEPRE) of the Faculty of Medical Sciences (FCM), Dr. Fátima Aparecida Gonçalves Mendes, discussed the importance of the Brazilian Inclusion Law and the course “Inclusion in Higher Education: what do I have to do with it?”, whose final protocol was built collectively between Unicamp staff and teachers.
The event concluded with a presentation by Special Education specialist, Professor Dr. Enicéia Gonçalves Mendes, on "Inclusion and Accessibility: Elements for Reflections on Higher Education." "We are grateful to the professor who sparked fundamental reflections on the institutional challenges facing diversity and the urgency of continuing education to build truly inclusive practices," said Associate Director Guilherme do Val Prado.
Another new feature of the ceremony was the launch of the guide “Protocol for Receiving People with Disabilities on the Premises of the Faculty of Education of Unicamp”, coordinated by Professor Fátima, produced by course participants and staff, and reviewed by the Institutional Communications and Publications teams at FE-Unicamp. The material was distributed to the participants, who were amazed.
Also present at the ceremony were the following authorities: Vice-mayor of Hortolândia, Carlos Augusto César (Cafu), representative of the Municipal Department of Education of Campinas, Luciano Reis, professor Dirce Djanira Pacheco e Zan, Director of FE-Unicamp (2016 to 2020), professor Alexandre Paixão, Associate Director of FE-Unicamp (2020 to 2024), the Coordinator of the Social Benefits Management Group (GGBS), Luiz Carlos Fernandes Junior, the Mayor of the Campus, Juliano Henrique Davoli Finelli and the Executive Coordinator of Educorp, Edison Cardoso Lins.
At the end, the Faculty Management closed the meeting with a spirit of welcome and dialogue, thus inaugurating a new phase of the unit's commitment to accessibility.
More accessibility at FE-Unicamp
The transfer of Noble Hall Professor Marconi Freire Montezuma The move from the first floor to the ground floor of the Paulo Freire Building was another milestone for FE-Unicamp in its commitment to the rights of people with disabilities, especially in terms of accessibility. In addition to this project, to ensure that these rights are respected at the campus, another project is underway: the construction of an elevator to access the other floors.
Paths at the Faculty's entrances were built to facilitate access for wheelchair users. In addition to the structural improvements, an Accessibility Protocol was created to guide services for people with disabilities at FE-Unicamp, which was presented at the reopening of the Main Hall. The document was developed based on discussions held during the course "Inclusion in Higher Education: What does it have to do with me?", taught by Professor Fátima Mendes for the institution's civil servants.
These are some actions that demonstrate the pursuit of ensuring accessibility, one of the values of the Unicamp School of Education, fundamental to building a truly inclusive university that ensures the permanence and well-being of the community of people with disabilities.
Progress on the LBI requires consensus, says expert during event at FE-Unicamp
Despite its ten years of existence, the Statute of Persons with Disabilities or Brazilian Inclusion Law (LBI), through Law No. 13.146, of July 6, 2015, needs to advance in consensus to be successful within universities.
During the reopening of the Main Hall of the Faculty of Education at Unicamp, the thematic table Accessibility and Inclusion in FE brought together researchers who presented analyses on the advances and gaps in the inclusion of people with disabilities in Higher Education, especially considering the ten years of legislation.
The necessity The need to build consensus around the LBI and inclusion in higher education points to something deeper than formal compliance with the law. It is necessary to call on universities and society to create solid, shared agreements that support inclusive practices ethically, institutionally, pedagogically, and politically.
Professor Enicéia Gonçalves Mendes, professor of Special Education at UFSCAR, emphatically stated that, although the LBI represented an important legal milestone, its strength depends on building collective consensus that supports it as a living and transformative policy. "The law alone does not change practices. There must be political, technical, institutional, and cultural consensus that inclusion is a non-negotiable right—not a favor or an emergency measure for isolated cases," she emphasized.
The realization of the rights of people with disabilities, beyond laws, depends on the construction of social, institutional and pedagogical consensus that supports inclusion as a daily practice, the professor reinforced.
Below are the main types of consensus that are urgently needed to make inclusion a reality, according to Professor Enicéia:
1. Political-institutional consensus
Inclusion only becomes an effective policy when it is at the core of institutional management, given budgetary priority and a presence in universities' strategic plans. This means recognizing that accessibility should not be restricted to isolated sectors, such as student assistance, but must be transversal—ranging from policymaking to decision-making in senior management. Without this consensus, inclusion risks becoming merely a project of committed individuals, rather than the university as a whole.
2. Technical-pedagogical consensus
Another fundamental pillar is a shared understanding among teachers, administrators, and technical teams about what pedagogical accessibility means. Many practices still operate under a logic of individualized adaptation, as if inclusion were an extra effort targeted at "specific cases." What's needed, however, is universal design: practices that are already accessible by design, considering human diversity as a starting point. This consensus requires ongoing training, institutional time for accessible planning, and review of methodologies and assessments. The professor advocated abandoning a logic of inclusion segmented by type of disability and adopting universal design, which considers differences as a starting point for building environments accessible to all. "We're not talking about adapting one case or another. We're talking about reviewing curricula, pedagogical practices, and assessment models. LBI needs to be adopted across the board. It should guide institutional culture, not just fill formal reports," she stated.
3. Ethical consensus
The LBI is not just a legal norm, but an ethical framework that repositions the place of people with disabilities in society. Respect for dignity, autonomy, and difference requires that inclusion not be seen as charity, compensation, or a benevolent gesture, but rather as an inalienable right. This consensus requires a collective commitment to fighting ableism, both in attitudes and discourse. Inclusion is an everyday ethical choice that must be embraced by all members of the academic community.
4. Communicational and cultural consensus
It's also necessary to transform the ways we communicate, represent, and understand disability. Universities play a central formative role in society and need to foster an inclusive culture that values the plurality of bodies, knowledge, and ways of being in the world. This involves creating institutional campaigns, including the topic in curricula, and encouraging ongoing debates that promote respect for difference.
5. Legal-operational consensus
Finally, it is essential to have a common and qualified understanding of current legislation. The LBI, together with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (with constitutional status in Brazil), offers a robust framework of guarantees. However, these rights often fail to translate into practical action due to a lack of clear internal regulations, lack of technical knowledge, or poor institutional coordination. Having active committees, updated regulations, best practice manuals, and operational processes aligned with the law is a fundamental part of consolidating this consensus.
These consensuses don't emerge automatically. They need to be deliberately built, with spaces for listening, training, and debate, such as what occurred at the FE-Unicamp thematic panel. The absence of these consensuses, as Professor Enicéia points out, is one of the main obstacles to the LBI becoming a true instrument of transformation and not just a reference text.
The collective construction of inclusion
Professor Enicéia's message is clear: without consensus, there is no sustainable inclusion. For the LBI to have real impact, the university and society must understand that it is a project that encompasses everyone—one that transcends technology and encompasses values, structures, and culture.
Celebrating the ten years of the LBI is important, but even more important is recognizing that its full implementation depends on political will, the formation of networks of care and responsibility, and the courage to break with exclusionary models of teaching and coexistence.
Concept of accessibility in everyday life
The expert also warned against the limited use of the concept of accessibility in everyday university life. "We still limit accessibility to architectural barriers. But the most profound barriers are attitudinal, pedagogical, and communicational, which remain intact even a decade after the LBI," she highlighted. For Enicéia, the absence of a "robust and articulated institutional project" jeopardizes the retention and academic success of students with disabilities, reducing inclusion to isolated actions, often disconnected from universities' strategic plans.
The need to provide systematic and ongoing support for teacher training was also highlighted as a key element. "Making teachers responsible for 'adapting' what wasn't designed to be inclusive is a mistake. Without investment in training, institutional time, and structure, there's no way to guarantee quality inclusion," he stated.
Alongside Enicéia, CEPRE educator and researcher Prof. Dr. Fátima Aparecida Gonçalves Mendes also reinforced the importance of understanding the LBI as not only a state duty, but a collective one. "Article 8 of the LBI is clear: it is the duty of the state, society, and families to ensure people with disabilities their fundamental rights. This needs to be taken off the paper and incorporated into the university's daily routine. Discussing inclusion is discussing a national project," she emphasized.
With over two decades of experience at CEPRE and research focused on teaching Braille and the use of assistive technology for people with visual impairments, Fátima reinforced the importance of initiatives such as the extension course "Inclusion in Higher Education: What's My Connection with It?". "It is through training initiatives like this that we can begin institutional transformation. But they require continuity, management support, and collective commitment," she concluded.
The event reinforced that, even with significant legal frameworks like the LBI, progress toward full inclusion depends on building deep consensus: on what inclusion is, who should promote it, how it is sustained, and how much society is willing to invest, ethically and politically, to make it happen.
Main challenges for universities in the inclusion of students with disabilities*
1. Restricted concept of accessibility
Still very much associated only with physical and architectural barriers. Little understanding of attitudinal, pedagogical and communicational barriers such as ableism.
2. Lack of universalist vision
Accessibility is still thought of in a categorical way (by type of disability), and not as a universal right that benefits everyone.
3. Abstract and confusing concept of “inclusion”
Often only entry is considered inclusion at the university. Inclusion also needs to consider permanence, learning and success.
4. Institutional fragmentation
Accessibility actions are often “hung” in sectors such as student assistance, without coordination with the institution as a whole. Lack of structure, budget, personnel and institutional power in these nuclei.
5. Lack of training and support for teachers and staff
Teachers are often given a list of adaptations to make, but do not receive technical support or training to implement them.
6. Lack of clear policies for accessible admission
Not very accessible notices, poorly formulated tests, lack of adapted item bank. Difficulty in proof of disability and effective performance of verification benches, especially with the increase in ASD reports.
7. Lack of pedagogical planning for diversity
Teaching still focused on a “standard student”, without considering the different learning styles, interests and needs.
8. Lack of support for student participation
Students with disabilities often do not participate in decision-making spaces ou they are not heard about their real needs.
Proposed measures to improve the situation
1. Aprovide the concept of “accessibility”
More concrete term that focuses on operation of the necessary changes, different from the abstract concept of “inclusion”.
2. Accessibility as a universal policy
Plan environments, services and teaching for all from the beginning (concept of universal design). Example: touch screens e subtitles were created for people with disabilities, but benefit the entire population.
3. Layered support system
Actions on three levels:
- Universal (80%): benefit all students.
- Specific (15%): for groups with similar needs.
- Customized (5%): for individual cases.
4. Creation of Pro-Rectorates of Accessibility and Inclusion
Cores with autonomy, resources and direct coordination with the rectorate to ensure effective institutional actions.
5. Review and accessibility of selection processes
Accessible notices, test items adapted from the formulation stage, teams prepared to assess specific needs.
6. Continuing education for teachers and technicians
Institutional support for teachers to know how to adapt your practices, and do not become overwhelmed or without guidance.
7. Pedagogical planning for diversity
Teach considering different learning styles (visual, auditory, reading, group, individual, among others).
8. Encouraging student participation
Students should be heard in accessibility decisions and have institutional support (such as active listening groups).
*Also based on research by Professor Dr. Enicéia Gonçalves Mendes, holder of the Ufscar Special Education Program.
