The university protest that had as its epicenter the home of the Chief of Staff, Manuel Adorni, in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Caballito, is part of a broader conflict between the public university system and the government of Javier Milei, plagued by budget cuts, falling salaries and complaints of structural defunding. Many neighbors witnessed the lavish police operation contemplated due to the classes organized on public roads.
Teachers and students from the University of Buenos Aires, particularly from the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, organized a series of public classes in front of the building where the official resides, located on Miró Street, in an action that combined political protest, academic intervention and media visibility. The initiative was promoted by the Student Center of that faculty, led by the student leader Luca Bonfantealong with teaching unions such as AGD-UBA and FEDUBAwithin the framework of a fight plan that had already accumulated several weeks of strike and mobilization.
The chosen modality—open classes on public roads—had a strong symbolic content: moving the university to urban space and, in particular, in front of the home of an official who has been highly questioned in recent weeks. The organizers explained that the choice of place sought to link the claim for educational financing with the complaints about Adorni’s own assets, especially the purchase of an impressive 200 square meter apartment, located in that same neighborhood and that had not been included in his last sworn statement.
During the conference, presentations were given on economics, extractivism, educational policy and historical memory, under slogans such as “In defense of the public university” and “Application now of the University Financing Law.” The protest included the installation of chairs and benches on public roads and led to an extensive security operation by the Federal and City Police, who surrounded the building at the call of students and left-wing organizations.
The background of the conflict is the deterioration of teaching income and the failure to update the university budget in the face of inflation. According to data from the National Interuniversity Council, salaries in the sector registered a real drop of close to 45%, pushing a significant part of workers below the poverty line, while budget allocations were considered insufficient by the majority of national universities. These conditions motivated strikes, mobilizations and demands for the reopening of joint ventures, as well as requests for increases that were around 40% compared to considerably lower official offers.
In this context, the demand for the so-called University Financing or Emergency Law is registered, a norm approved by Congress that establishes the automatic updating of resources allocated to public universities to guarantee their operation, salaries and research activities. The university sectors demand its full application, considering that without this instrument the system enters a critical operating situation, with the risk of cutting back on activities, building deterioration and job insecurity.
The protest in front of Adorni’s home was also marked by the personal scandal surrounding the official, which increased the visibility of the claim. Journalistic investigations revealed inconsistencies between his sworn statements and his real assets, including the acquisition of an apartment in Caballito for approximately $230,000, financed through a private mortgage, without having disposed of other previously declared properties. The property is listed in the joint name with his wife, Bettina Angelettiwhich increased suspicions about the origin of the funds.
Added to that episode was the revelation of a home in a country in the Buenos Aires party of Exaltación de la Cruz, also linked to Angeletti, which did not appear in the official statements and whose existence was reconstructed from real estate records and political complaints. These inconsistencies gave rise to accusations of possible illicit enrichment, a criminal figure that investigates unjustified increases in assets of public officials.
The case was further amplified by other episodes, such as the trip to New York within the framework of the event “Argentina Week”where Adorni used an official flight accompanied by his wife—who has no public position—which raised questions about the use of state resources. A private flight to Punta del Este with his family also came under scrutiny, the cost of which — estimated at several thousand dollars — was not properly explained and in which an audiovisual producer close to the official linked to public television participated, raising suspicions of a conflict of interest.
In this scenario, the public class in front of their home functioned as a point of condensation of two conflicts that feed off each other: on the one hand, the structural crisis of the university system and the demand for greater financing; on the other, complaints about the financial conduct and lifestyle of a senior government official. The slogan repeated by teachers and students synthesized that intersection: while the university denounces adjustment and precariousness, the main spokesperson for the ruling party faces questions about undeclared properties and expenses that are difficult to justify with their formal income.
Image gallery
