Two professors, the philosopher Maria, spoke on October 18, 2021 at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin under the direction of the journalist and lawyer Maximilian Steinbeis about the question “Is academic freedom threatened?” And the follow-up question “And if so, by whom?” -Sibylla Lotter (Bochum), the sociologist Paula-Irene Villa-Braslavsky (Munich), the constitutional lawyer Oliver Lepsius (Münster) and the Germanist Peter Strohschneider (Munich).
As the rector Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger explained in her welcoming address, the idea behind the event was to jointly discuss the concerns of two initiatives that have recently come out with warning messages to the public.
Patrick Bahners
Features correspondent in Cologne and responsible for “humanities”.
Follow I follow
Academic freedom is generally threatened by professors who have come together to form a “Scientific Freedom Network” whose membership list has grown to a remarkable 598 names in the eight months since the publication of his “Manifesto”. In a very special point, namely through the BDS resolution of the German Bundestag, state-subsidized cultural and scientific institutions such as the Goethe-Institut, the Humboldt Forum and the Wissenschaftskolleg maintain the freedom to exchange ideas and to invite guests who bring their thoughts with them, for threatened, which is why they came together to form an “initiative” which, before “cosmopolitanism”, still has Article 5 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law in its name. The hostess also saw a need for discussion because of the contrary echo to the two appeals:While most of the journalists benevolently disseminated the network's case histories, the general secretaries, general managers and rectors who protested collectively were opposed to the legally non-binding nature of the Bundestag resolution.
The case of the philosopher Meggle
The Berlin podium was neither expressly nor in terms of its composition a summit meeting of the two circles.
The possibility that the network and initiative could pull together was only briefly discussed once when Lotter, on behalf of the network, brought up the Georg Meggle case.
The emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Leipzig is said to lose his teaching position at the University of Salzburg because he is discussing the legitimacy of boycotts with reference to the Middle East conflict against the background of utilitarian ethics.
By mentioning Meggle, Lotter fended off the suspicion expressed by Steinbeis that the new Federation Freedom of Science could be “inherently conservative”: the network was politically “inclusive” and had “been very committed” to Meggle.
However, among the "statements and open letters" documented on the association's website, there is no declaration of solidarity with Meggle as it was published for the benefit of two individuals, an ancient historian close to the AfD and a diversity researcher attacked by the AfD. And when Lotter held a workshop on academic freedom at her university in July, the left-wing liberal right-wing philosopher Reinhard Merkel gave a lecture on the "anti-Semitism accusation against Georg Meggle" in Meggle's presence - but precisely because this accusation is also highly controversial in the network, how the Bochum discussion proved. To speak of the use of the network as a network for Meggle comes close to misleading the public.
However, it corresponds to the self-image of the association's founders, who are convinced that in their function as networkers they advocate opinions at all and not for certain opinions. They want to distinguish themselves from their opponents by allegedly having difficulty separating knowledge and morals. Lotter explained in Berlin: “The confrontation with people who have a completely different view is what makes science.” To get involved in the Scientific Freedom Network, one must be of the opinion that this is not only describing the ideal that should regulate science . You have to think of yourself as a person who fulfills this requirement better than your colleagues.
Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger's question as to why the two celebrity projects for the protection of academic freedom were received so differently remained unanswered.
It probably has to do with the fact that professors who stylize themselves as heroes of loneliness, freedom and discomfort also invite non-professors to identify, while institutions cannot distract from the fact that they are wielding power when they take the floor.