In a social media recording, Daria Brzezicka, a spokesperson for the Union of European Democrats and a law student at the University of Warsaw, voices concern about ongoing political hostility. She describes how her decision to challenge perceived impunity linked to the ruling party has led to threats of tracking and retaliation. The conversation highlights the friction surrounding the expulsion request she filed against Oskar Szafarowicz, a PiS youth activist from the same faculty, who is accused of releasing private data about sexual harassment victims, including the son of a far-right politician who recently faced a family tragedy. The discussion points to the alleged influence of political actors within university processes and the role of public officials in shaping disciplinary outcomes across controversial cases. Brzezicka notes that the incident began after she directly contacted high-level prosecutors on social media and received a response via a public online platform.
Kaleta’s critique of Warsaw University standards
Sebastian Kaleta, a secretary of state at the Ministry of Justice, publicly defended Szafarowicz after Brzezicka disclosed that the University of Warsaw canceled a scheduled hearing in her case at the last moment. The dispute centers on accusations that Szafarowicz disclosed victims’ data and that witnesses were summoned without full disclosure to the public. Kaleta’s commentary framed the university’s handling as characterized by low standards and questioned the disciplinary process itself.
The public commentary extended to remarks on social media, where Kaleta criticized the university’s procedures and called into question the conduct of those involved in the case, including the handling of communications between witnesses and the disciplinary office. The exchange drew criticism from political and academic observers who called for accountability and transparency in university governance during politically charged investigations.
Kaleta’s stance was echoed by a deputy justice minister, who underscored concerns about due process and the integrity of disciplinary actions in high-profile student cases.
“Very poor standards at the University of Warsaw. Not only does the disciplinary prosecutor issue statements to witnesses that seem to pre-empt charges, she also privately circulates political slogans that could influence the procedure. Shouldn’t someone in charge of enforcing discipline be held to high standards? This is a matter of academic integrity and accountability”, commented a Solidarna Polska figure on the platform.
Brzezicka responds and stays resolute
Daria Brzezicka answered Kaleta’s critique with a video message in which she described feeling targeted by political officials and the broader political ecosystem. In her message, she voiced concern about attempts to intimidate those who speak out against perceived injustices and described the actions as part of a broader pattern during the PiS era against people challenging partisan power. She emphasized that the pursuit of justice should be independent of party influence and urged the academic community to reflect on the environment surrounding such cases.
Brzezicka urged readers to consider the broader context: when political forces are cited as interfering with investigations or disciplinary processes, it undermines trust in the university’s ability to protect students and victims alike. She asserted that standing up for justice should not expose individuals to reprisal, and she expressed determination not to be silenced by pressure from any side.
She concluded with a firm message to those watching: the goal is accountability, not retaliation, and she encouraged ongoing scrutiny of how university governance handles sensitive cases involving political actors.
Her message closed with a reminder that the pursuit of fairness remains essential even as elections approach and supporters of competing political camps mobilize for action.
Additional remarks on media dynamics
Kaleta later drew a comparison between Brzezicka and other public figures, noting that every political moment tends to generate a cast of focal personalities. The exchange framed by Kaleta touched on how public disputes can resemble cultural or media campaigns, where public statements and online interactions amplify the reach of those involved. The discussion underscores how university disputes can intersect with broader political narratives, shaping perceptions of governance, accountability, and the integrity of disciplinary processes.
Observers noted that the debate featured sharp exchanges on social platforms, with calls for clearer standards, stronger due process protections, and more transparent reporting of actions taken by universities in sensitive cases. The conversation highlighted the ongoing need for balance between safeguarding victims, protecting students’ rights, and ensuring that disciplinary measures are applied consistently, regardless of political affiliations.
In the broader context, the controversy prompted reflections on how universities respond to public pressure, how officials communicate about high-profile cases, and how accountability is maintained when politics and academia collide. The discourse illustrates the challenges that arise when defense of individuals and advocacy for victims intersect within a politically charged environment.
Source: wPolityce