Universities are meant to be spaces where intellectual freedom flourishes, allowing students to engage critically with diverse perspectives.

However, achieving this goal requires more than simply providing information—it demands a teaching approach that is both transparent and contextually rich.

In my classes, I strive to exemplify this approach by sharing my own beliefs and framing legal concepts within their social and political contexts.

While this will sometimes spark contention, I stand by the importance of this practice for nurturing true critical engagement.

My commitment to transparency in teaching stems from personal experience.

I was educated in an institution where many of my professors were members of Opus Dei, yet this was never openly discussed.

Although I am deeply indebted to my teachers and cherish the years I spent at my alma mater, the truth is that their ideological leanings subtly influenced the way subjects were taught, framing certain interpretations of the law and moral principles without acknowledging their origins.

While I managed to escape indoctrination—perhaps due to an innate resistance or sheer luck—many students might not have that immunity.

This experience impressed upon me the importance of making one's beliefs explicit when teaching.

Ideological influence is not limited to religious conservatism. In other institutions we all know of, it manifests as right-wing or left-wing political biases, subtly shaping curricula and discourse without being openly acknowledged.

Luckily, this does not happen at the institution where I currently teach, and that is one of the reasons I chose to teach there and continue to do so

When educators present material through an ideological lens without disclosing that lens, students may absorb biased perspectives as objective truths. This undermines their ability to critically evaluate and form independent opinions.

For these reasons, I purposefully share my opinions and beliefs in my teaching. This practice is not about imposing my views, but rather about being transparent regarding the lens through which I interpret and critique legal structures.

Students benefit from understanding that all analyses, including my own, are biased, influenced by perspective. By doing so, I aim to encourage students to challenge my interpretations, engage critically with course content, and develop their own well-reasoned perspectives.

I also place significant importance on framing legal texts within their socio-political context.

Laws are not created in a vacuum; they are products of specific historical periods, shaped by the beliefs and values of those who draft them.

This is why I strive to guide my students to understand the social and political climate that influenced the formation of particular laws, sometimes even discussing the individual legislators behind key legal provisions.

Understanding the background of a law helps students appreciate why it was written the way it was, what it aimed to address, and how its interpretation might vary based on the values of the interpreter.

This approach also highlights how political ideologies, whether conservative, progressive, or religious, have historically impacted the development of legal systems.

Sharing my perspectives and contextualizing the beliefs of the legislators or drafters of legal texts is essential for nurturing true critical engagement.

This practice underscores that interpretation is never free from bias.

By openly discussing my stance and the beliefs of others in the legal sphere, I model intellectual honesty and demonstrate that understanding the biases behind interpretations is crucial.

This helps students develop the ability to identify and challenge biases, whether in their own analysis, in judicial opinions, or in legislative history.

They become more adept at recognizing that every interpretation, including their professors’, carries inherent viewpoints.

This ability to see and critique bias prepares them to engage in the legal profession not just as technicians of the law, but as critical thinkers aware of the social, political, and ideological undercurrents that drive legal interpretation and application.

A recent incident reminded me that teaching is an act of balancing open dialogue with sensitivity to differing perspectives.

It reinforces the importance of maintaining an environment where students feel comfortable voicing dissent and questioning ideas, but also understand that professors are part of the dialogue, not just impartial facilitators.

As Paulo Freire wisely stated, The educator has the duty of not being neutral.

By not being neutral, I aim to guide students toward seeing beyond the text and understanding the motivations and influences behind it, and to challenge my own view and interpretation of the law and offer their own.

In this way, we create graduates who are not only knowledgeable but are also prepared to approach the law as nuanced thinkers capable of navigating its complexities with a critical eye.

Through this commitment to academic freedom and transparency, I hope to uphold the true purpose of university education: not to indoctrinate, but to educate in the fullest sense of the word.