Under certain conditions it may be allowed to mark the use of “gender-sensitive language” in exams.

This is stated in a report commissioned by the University of Kassel.

It was written by constitutional and administrative lawyer Michael Sachs, former co-director of the Institute for German and European Scientific Law at the University of Cologne.

Sascha Zoske

Journalist in the Rhein-Main-Zeitung.

  • Follow I follow

The reason for the expertise was the discussion about a suspected case of point deductions due to incorrect gendering at the Kassel University.

The student Lukas Honemann had publicly complained that he had received a lower grade because of the use of the generic masculine in a study paper in the winter semester 2018/19.

Honemann, a member of the Junge Union, studied for teaching at high schools.

Inadmissible as a general grade criterion

As the university announced on Wednesday, Sachs refuses in his report to use “gender-sensitive language” as another general formal criterion for exam grades. He justifies this with the fact that the rules for gender are not generally recognized in the same way as grammar and spelling. However, regardless of formal regulations, for example in examination regulations, lecturers could take into account the use of gender language to a certain extent in the assessment. The prerequisite is that there is sufficient technical or professional reference to the specific examination.

Sachs emphasizes that such specific grading should not be arbitrary.

If there is no final clarity about this, the "scope of the examinee to answer" must be respected, which should not be detrimental to a different use of the language.

The professor said that the principle of proportionality should generally be upheld.     

"Generalizing statements difficult to make"

According to its own statements, the University of Kassel sees this as confirming earlier assessments that taking into account “gender-sensitive language” according to the current legal situation can be justified in individual cases with the professional assessment of the lecturers.

At the same time, however, the differentiated findings of the expert's report show that generalizing statements are difficult to make.

The university had previously given a general note that the use of “gender-sensitive language” as a criterion for examinations within the scope of freedom of teaching was permissible when observing the principle of proportionality.

After the legal uncertainties became apparent, the notice was suspended and the report was commissioned.