Engineers of the State and Public Services.

Responding to the invitation of a colleague, former president of the entity, I went to the inauguration of a new board of directors of an old society of engineers, architects and related professionals of “State Civil Servants”! The auditorium was full; the youngest person must have been 60 years old.

The auditorium was named after a former professor of mine. On the walls, several cast-metal plaques, with tributes. I think I knew and/or worked with 80% of those mentioned there. Of these 80%, highly qualified, capable and dedicated. I was moved to meet again old male and female colleagues of profession, of fortunes and misfortunes. I believe the emotion was reciprocal.

At the beginning, Francisco, in his 83(?) years, urged to speak, by surprise, had to improvise and began recalling when he entered State service, in the 1960s, at DER (Department of Roads and Highways). He said that, at that time, in that DER, there were about 400 engineers and that, today, there are only about 35, and there are already about 6,000 km of roads (twice as many as in his time). He recalled that being an “engineer of the State” was a life mission. One in which one received the experience and the body of knowledge of those who were already there and passed it on to the next generation with the feeling of duty fulfilled. He did not go into the merit of the “whys” this occurred. Nor did he say whether he considered it better or worse today. He let each person draw their own conclusions. He spoke little and spoke well.

For those who are no longer engineers of the State, but once were; for those who admire the dedicated ones who passed through there and those who are still there; for the non-“militant” observers, what drew attention was the sameness of the other speeches, trying to be “politically correct”, “socially engaged”, “defending gender equality”. A show of childishness. Regarding the lack of public entrance examinations for the careers, only references were made “in passing”.

Later on, another engineer spoke, one of those octogenarians, like Francisco, but it was a disaster. He began by praising the environmental area, precisely one of those that most hinder Brazil and Brazilian engineering, acting as if environmentalism were an end in itself. He complained about possible changes in legislation, precisely those that try to defend progress against the excesses of “clumsy environmentalism”. In order not to lose the field he had entered, he drifted into speaking about the “military dictatorship”, falling into the commonplace of forgetting that the military are also State employees, and that there are good and bad ones among them as well, as in any group. He forgot that these approaches only disunite the interest of the State and the service to the public, and make it easier for us to be dominated by others, certainly foreigners. It remained in the air whether it was innocence or herd effect.

About the fact that engineering schools, with their market reserves for professionally inexperienced faculty members, no longer use State engineer professors, full of knowledge and even with time to teach, as was the case in the 1960s and 1970s, the peak of Brazilian engineering education, not a peep in the speeches.

In other words, lamentations, many. Diagnoses and suggestions, none.

As I said at the beginning, most were concerned with political correctness, few “putting their finger on the wounds”.

I left thinking: how can we save ourselves and save these people from themselves?

Miguel Fernández y Fernández, engineer, chronicler and columnist, member of the National Academy of Engineering and of the Institute of Engineering # written on Jul 21, 2023 R2025 Nov Rg, 3,146 keystrokes