Since the rules of civility are often abandoned for the sake of the goals activists are pursuing, this chapter considers whether these goals – rather than a set of universal rules – might themselves suggest moral constraints. To illustrate this point, I analyze two authors who believe that how one communicates is integrally related to what one actually conveys, and thus morality and effectiveness cannot always be separated. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell argues women must be free to reflect on their own experiences rather than being subjected to authoritative interpretations. Even when done in the name of women’s liberation, telling women how they should feel ironically stifles women’s voices. Thus, a dialogical, consciousness-raising style of communication is integrally related to the pursuit of women’s liberation. Paulo Freire likewise argues that propaganda for the cause of liberation ironically perpetuates oppression. Liberators need to be committed to dialogue because the task of liberation itself demands dialogical engagement.

Following the arrival of over a million ‘refugees and migrants’ to Europe in 2015, the EU and individual member states attempted to increase opportunities for migrants and refugees to access university. These measures aimed to address some of the difficulties that refugees faced in accessing higher education, but they stem from and reiterate a European ‘integration infrastructure’ that sees refugees as cultural others. ‘Refugees’ are reduced to a series of intervenable problems centred around the question of how they may be integrated into existing systems of work, education or ‘society’. This chapter explores two projects to incorporate refugees into higher education: the European Qualifications Passport (EQP) and Central European University’s Open Learning Initiative (OLIve) programme. The EQP is an ambitious attempt to codify the educational qualifications that refugees hold. OLIve runs programmes to assist people of refugee background to enter into higher education using funding received from the EU. Both projects question the integration framework, but both also encounter limitations. The chapter ends by arguing for policies based on Paolo Freire’s writings on how universities reproduce inequalities.