Public and published opinion has already issued its verdict: Yasmín Esquivel is guilty of plagiarism, and UNAM must cancel her bachelor’s degree, which would force her to resign from the Supreme Court of Justice, which requires it as a requirement to be a minister. It would be the natural evolution after the termination of the contract of his thesis director, Martha Rodríguez Ortiz, for “her lack of probity and honesty”, who since the scandal broke out in December, defended the integrity and word of Esquivel.
However, against the current of the tsunami that is dragging the image of the minister in a vertiginous way, elements that were not publicly known cannot be ignored, integrated in the file on the investigation of plagiarism carried out by the Faculty of Higher Studies of Aragon -the soul mater de Esquivel- that cast a reasonable doubt on that statement whose litigation -who first wrote the thesis- has not been clearly resolved. The UNAM pointed out that there was more than 90% coincidence between his thesis and the one presented by Édgar Ulises Báez Gutiérrez, based only on the date of presentation of the work.
Báez Gutiérrez published it in July 1986 and Esquivel did so almost a year later. However, there is an expert report from the authorities of Mexico City on the delivery of the capitulation of the minister’s thesis in December 1985. Báez Gutiérrez has declared on several occasions to the Eje Central reporter, Juan Carlos Rodríguez, that the thesis original is his, underlining the date of presentation of the work, although on several occasions, to the same question, he has evaded answering directly that Esquivel committed plagiarism.
New documentation also casts suspicion on the rectitude of Báez Gutiérrez, and whose strong statements about the originality of her work, put nails in the coffin that encloses the minister’s reputation. Báez Gutiérrez has spoken with Rodríguez five times, and on each of them he has maintained that no university authority, nor Rodríguez Ortiz, or any notary, have had contact with him.
The penultimate interview was on Wednesday, regarding the teacher’s ministerial statement published by El Universal, where she admits that she had shared Esquivel’s work with other interns. The lawyer denied it and assured that she wrote her thesis “based on the idea I had in mind.” He affirmed that he did it on her own account and when asked expressly if they had had contact with a notary, he responded with a laconic “no”. This Thursday Rodríguez spoke with him again, to compare her statements with the photograph where she appears with the notary in her house, but she again said that she did not see any notary and closed the door.
The photograph is from December 29, when the notary, Armando Mastachi Aguario, through one of his assistants, issued a certificate of fact at the request of the teacher Rodríguez Ortiz, where he admits the facts that he later repeatedly denied, beginning on the 30th of that month, when he spoke to Rodríguez for the first time, and he said that no one had looked for him and had spoken to no one about this issue. The documentation available up to now includes the page of an Italian notebook written by hand by Báez Gutiérrez on the same 29, where he points out, regarding the preparation of his thesis: “At that time I remember that how (sic) a relevant matter was the union issue, so I went with my thesis advisor who showed me a job that another student was doing on the same topic. From that job I took several references and text because I needed to finish my degree quickly.
“Because of the above, I manifest that I had the opportunity to analyze and study various parts of the work of another student. In recent days I have seen in the media that the thesis in question is from Dr. Yasmín Esquivel Moza (sic), minister of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Union (sic) and I want to clarify freely and voluntarily that I was able to take important parts of her work in the year 1985 to 1986”.
How much he appropriated another’s intellectual work is not clear, but what emerges from his letter is that he did take ideas from what Esquivel developed, and “important” fragments of his thesis project. It is clear that Báez Gutiérrez lied in his statements repeatedly. The second big lie is that he had not spoken to any notary. The FES Aragón file contains several photographs where he is next to the notary reading the transcript of the letter that he wrote by hand.
Esquivel always denied having plagiarized his thesis, but Báez Gutiérrez’s word prevailed over that of the minister, who bore the wear and tear and growing discredit. In the end, until proven otherwise, it can be argued that Esquivel was not lying and the lawyer was. Does this clear up who plagiarized whom? It would seem so, and probably the objective conclusion would be that it was Báez Gutiérrez who did it. However, due to her prominence, her personal, professional and political relationships, these evidences are not enough for the minister.
It is important that the university authorities determine with a deeper investigation if, indeed, Esquivel was the first to develop her thesis. The expert report on her capitulation, delivered in December 1995, points this out, but it would have to be validated by the UNAM. It is possible that there are attributions in this process that exceed their functions, but the case warrants it to prevent polarization and politicization from being imposed on the search for the truth.
It is important for the public health of the country, so battered in recent times, and for the UNAM, for Esquivel and for Báez Gutiérrez himself, so that there is no doubt about the responsibilities of each one. In the meantime, canceling the title must be put on hold.
Mail: [email protected]
Twitter: @rivapa
#Yasmín #lies