University policy – rights to universities: because of freedom of science

It is May 2, 2024 and in the auditorium at the University of Zurich, only a handful of people have gathered to listen to the lectures and the subsequent discussion by Barbara Zehnpfennig and Tim Hennig. Tim Henning is a professor of practical philosophy at the University of Mainz and has just written a book on freedom of science and morality that is published a few weeks after this evening. Barbara Zehnpfennig also held a professorship, namely for political science in Passau, and is also active in the so -called network freedom of science. In his idea, Christoph Halbig, moderator and professor of general ethics at the University of Zurich (UZH), left this point unmentioned.

Termined members

Of course, you don’t have to mention all the memberships of guests, but it would have been helpful for classification. Because the network freedom of science is not a professional association, but a group with a clear political orientation. And not just in science. A member of the network, the constitutional lawyer Ulrich Vosgerau, had become known to the general public just a few months earlier. By participating in the so-called Potsdam meeting, which was made known by research by the Correctiv network and caused large protests, especially with regard to the fantasies of deportation expressed there. The network had refused to exclude Vosgerau or even to distance itself from it.

And now another member of this network was on a stage, whispered by Cancel Culture and young scientists who left science: not because of the impossible working conditions, but because of the woken pressure that supposedly makes work impossible. In the course of the evening, Zehnpfennig then considered whether some people were not natural slaves in the Aristotelian sense. And argued that the climate science had to be met with distrust – they were too agreed, which would be suspicious.

Scientists should be aware that they are not arguing with colleagues here, but with political activists.

Ten pfennig is a rather inconspicuous member. Shillers are certainly characters such as the now leaked founding member Maria-Sibylla Lotter, who complained to the Rheinische Post in her column that the public would be too concerned with the allegations against Till Lindemann-just after several women had reported sexual abuse. Or Uwe Steinhoff, who is known for his hostile failures. Or also Dieter Schönecker, who is happy to complain about being put in the right corner, but at the same time in the extremely right young freedom in the name of freedom of science occurs to be more relaxed about a taxonomic research into human “breeds” – that is, the resumption one of a racist research program, at least not particularly problematic.

Academic and media naivety

If you look at the statements and activities of well -known members, the question of how the network has even managed to generate such great influence. On the one hand, this seems to me to be the result of media naivety. Even though the composition was critically discussed at the beginning, the network was not regarded primarily as a merger of scientists, not as a political organization. And the supposed goal is also a noble: who wants to be against freedom of science? In their social position as a professor, they have also managed to publish in comparable reputable newspapers such as the “FAZ” or the “NZZ”.

On the other hand, the network benefits a certain, self -logic of scientific work: namely the established practice, the argumentative discussion and prevent exclusions as far as possible. So it is the great academic freedom, the disappearance of the network so lamenting the network that ensures its influence. Because in the wrong assumption that the better argument was, members of the network are granted a benevolence that is not beneficial to the situation. Because the members of the network are not concerned with scientific discussion.

Accordingly, it is problematic that on the philosophy blog »Prae: in fact«, not only members of the network are allowed to publish partially insulting contributions, although with the editorial note. The blog itself interviewed Ulrike Ackermann, a founding member, on the subject of Cancel Culture. The portal “Philpublia” also regularly shares contributions from network members without contextualizing them accordingly. And members of the network are on sensitive items. Sandra Kostner, for example, is a diversity officer at the Pedagogical University of Schwäbisch Gmünd.

Nd.Diewoche – Our weekly newsletter

With our weekly newsletter . We’re Doing Look at the most important topics of the week and read them Highlights our Saturday edition on Friday. Get the free subscription here.

Now Kostner not only likes to speak in Russian propaganda formats, but also likes to move through the groups for whom she should be the contact person. Jörg Baberowski, whom you can call the court right radical, is currently sitting in the DFG college history. In 2022, a procedure for bodily harm was terminated against a payment of 4,000 euros after a student reported it for an assault.

When the AfD Chancellor candidate Alice Weidel described the German universities at the party congress in Riesa in January 2025 as Woke Kaderschmieden and announced the attitude of entire research fields, the AfD was to come to power, this frontal attack was not worth an opinion. Rather, in his last post, this criticized the German Library Association for its commitment to stand up against discrimination.

What to do?

To oppose a network of professors for life is difficult if you are busy and precarious yourself. In addition, the network is happy to use the methods that it is happy to complain about. This includes in particular the attempt to intimidate critics, for example by including superiors or institutions in actually private disputes. Even if the members make themselves a mockery, these attempts at intimidation should be taken seriously as such. It must therefore be the task of professors in particular to act attentively and committed here.

Scientists should become aware that they are not arguing with colleagues, but with political activists who are by no means concerned with the better argument. And even if this does not apply to all members, they are at least so far in shared responsibility that they do not end their membership. It also applies to journalists that they should not understand statements by the network as a voice from science, but as a voice of an (extremely) right -wing political interest group.

Last but not least, there must be awareness that members are not elected to positions in which they are contact persons for those students whose right -wing various network members want to see massively restricted: trans people, queer people, POC and other, already marginalized Groups. The freedom of science, in all its diversity, can only be defended against the network freedom of science. It is time to take it seriously.

Daniel Lucas is a philosopher and is currently working as a doctoral student at the Chair of Practical Philosophy of the Federal Technical University of Technology Zurich.