Legal Epistemology and Ideological Exclusion in Higher Education

This case study is an exercise in linguistic, logical, and legal resistance against the ideological capture of top-tier higher education in Mexico. Using an analytical-forensic methodology, this research moves beyond individual testimony to diagnose a systemic institutional dysfunction: a material expulsion carried out under the guise of an ordinary administrative dismissal. At its core, the analysis dismantles the exclusionary mechanism deployed within the Master's Program in Human Rights (MDH) at the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (UASLP). By leveraging the tools of sentential logic, propositional calculus, and the necessity conditions of positive law, this document exposes—step by step—the circular fallacies (petitio principii), formal contradictions, and the misuse of power exercised by university authorities (the Academic Committee and Postgraduate Council) to silence the epistemological dissent of a scholar rooted in the analytic tradition. This audit meticulously details every stage of the conflict: from the coercive enforcement of a doctrinal monism tied to liberation theology in the classroom and the resulting dynamics of testimonial silencing, to the de facto exercise of authority through the illegal importation of regulations from foreign confessional institutions, and finally, the material falsehoods introduced into evidence before the Federal Judiciary throughout a procedural itinerary that spanned three separate indirect amparo lawsuits. Ultimately, this monograph analyzes the structural implications of such adjective degradation, warning that tolerating bureaucratic arbitrariness and states of exception within postgraduate programs dedicated to protecting fundamental guarantees sets a regressive precedent that normalizes legal erosion. Following the technical dismissal (sobreseimiento) in federal courts—which exhausted all effective domestic remedies—this case transcends the inefficiencies of the domestic system. It stands as an immutable historical archive of epistemological and legal denunciation, exposing the factual limits of conventional protection at the local level. It is a defense of the Logos and free inquiry against the simulation of institutional dogma.