Attacks on Academic Freedom: It’s Not Just the AfD That’s Inciting Hostility Against Universities » LabourNet Germany

Dossier

“The AfD in Saxony-Anhalt is specifically requesting lists of postcolonial seminars and academic chairs. How universities are beginning to arm themselves against these attacks. (…) Most recently, AfD parliamentary group leader Oliver Kirchner, in a statement titled “Science Instead of Manipulation—End Gender Politics at Universities,” called for research and teaching to “no longer allow activities that […] undermine the traditional gender roles.” He demanded that teaching positions be restructured or eliminated. (…) The inquiry reads as if the AfD were already working on a list of enemies (…) “I was shocked by colleagues who had passed on lists of names and projects—instead of standing their ground confidently and letting this attack on academic freedom roll off their backs.”” (…) Following the motion, the university administration established a commission to make the university more resilient against anti-academic attacks …” Extensive article by Gareth Joswig from October 14, 2025, in taz online (“Attack on Academic Freedom”)—also covering Merseburg University of Applied Sciences, which was more forthcoming with information… See more on this and the background:

• Standing Together Against the Full-Scale Attack on Universities and Civil Society: University bloc at the “Sachsen-Anhalt Weltoffen” demonstration on September 5 in Magdeburg “Dear colleagues, dear fellow students, the independent civil society network ‘Sachsen-Anhalt Weltoffen’ stands for a diverse, democratic, and solidarity-based Sachsen-Anhalt.” One day before the state election in Saxony-Anhalt, on Saturday, September 5, 2026, the alliance is calling on everyone to take to the streets together to raise the profile of the state’s democratic forces. As universities and colleges, we want to join forces with an engaged civil society to send a clear message even before the election and make it clear that the democratic forces stand united. (…) The AfD is now also preparing an authoritarian frontal assault on universities in Saxony-Anhalt and other federal states. (…) As we saw with Trump’s attack on universities in the U.S., these are not empty words. Our colleagues and fellow students in Saxony-Anhalt will be among the first to face the brunt of this. As employees and students at universities throughout Germany, we are now called upon to defend our rights, interests, and values. That is why we call on you to join us on the streets at the demonstration on September 5, 2026, in Magdeburg. The demonstration begins at 1:30 p.m. at Willy-Brandt-Platz (on the Elbe side of the train station) and ends at Domplatz. We will come together in a joint university bloc. To do so, we’ll meet at the Sparda Bank …” Call to action dated August 12, 2026, by “Uni gegen Rechts” for the demonstration at the DEMOKRATIEFESTIVAL on September 5, 2026, in Magdeburg; see https://sachsenanhalt-weltoffen.de/

• Arts and Cultural Studies Call for the Defense of Academic Freedom Against Far-Right and Right-Wing Populist Attacks “In July 2026, an alliance of associations, organizations, and working groups emerged from among the institutions represented on the committee convened by the association to protect academic freedom in art history. In a position paper, the alliance is now calling for the defense of academic freedom against attacks by the far right and right-wing populists. The joint position paper describes the situation, explicitly identifies far-right extremism and right-wing populism as threats, and calls for strengthening the resilience of academic and cultural institutions. The association’s executive board is also currently drafting its own paper dedicated to the protection of academic freedom in art history …” Press release dated August 25, 2026, from the German Association for Art History regarding the call

• Right-wing intimidation attempts, a call for a “hunt,” and two death threats against Professor Christina Brüning at the University of Marburg. Letter of solidarity for Marburg professor Christina Brüning, who has been threatened by right-wing attacks and death threats on the University of Marburg campus. “Prof. Dr. Christina Brüning and her team conduct research and teach in the Department of History Didactics at Philipps University of Marburg on important topics in historical-political (teacher) education, with a focus on, for example, democracy education, right-wing extremism, Shoah education, cultures of remembrance, antisemitism, and gender studies. Due to this research profile, her (higher education policy) activism against the far right, and the diversity of her team, Christina Brüning and her colleagues have for some time been subjected to hostility and threats at their university from students who are members of or have ties to far-right fraternities and the “Junge Alternative.” Since the beginning of her tenure at the University of Marburg, there have been disruptions to classes, anti-feminist and other right-wing messages in course evaluations, and questions about her objectivity. In particular, since her participation in an academic counter-event at Marburg City Hall against the “Student Historians’ Congress” organized by various student fraternities and sororities—including those from the umbrella organization of the German Fraternity (Deutsche Burschenschaft)—in October 2025, the attacks have intensified both in terms of frequency and severity. (…) Even though the department to which Christina Brüning’s chair belongs takes a stand against right-wing extremism in its mission statement, the University of Marburg has so far failed, in this specific case, to take a clear and consistent stand against far-right influence, threats, and violence at the university and against members of the university community. While individual officials from the university administration have expressed their concern and promised protection and efforts to shed light on the matter, However, there is a lack of a clear political assessment of the case, as well as a self-critical acknowledgment that the university has not acted consistently in dealing with threats and violence in recent years. The measure taken by the university administration to assign secure rooms to Christina Brüning and her team is correct and important, to protect those affected. This response also makes it clear that the university evidently takes the threats seriously. It is therefore almost cynical that it does not publicly identify and condemn the far-right origins of the threats early on and consistently. (…) By failing to clearly identify and condemn the far-right origins of the threats, the university individualizes the experience of violence and reinforces the narrative that this is an isolated incident. Added to this is the portrayal of an “uncomfortable” woman causing a disturbance—a classic sexist and anti-feminist trope. This, in turn, makes it easy to avoid showing solidarity with the victim. This silence and lack of solidarity obscure the fact that the violence is not exclusively directed at individual people, but that Christina Brüning and her team are being attacked as a symbolic, personified enemy of egalitarian and progressive social ideals. (…) Theoretical knowledge production, exchange, and comprehensively developed concepts are of little value if they are not translated into concrete action. This encompasses the collective responsibility of all university members in everyday campus life: to demonstrate attentiveness and sensitivity, whether by reading posters and stickers or during conversations in seminars, lectures, dining halls, cafeterias, etc. It is not productive to hope and trust that administrative structures and the offices of the deans’ offices in the respective faculties will act as “Big Brother,” allowing us to sit back and do nothing. The creation of appropriate solidarity-based contact points and networks is not only helpful for documenting right-wing incidents and establishing independent support structures, but also serves as a visible stance against the growing threat posed by right-wing actors on university campuses. Nevertheless, in the hierarchical university system, a great deal of power and responsibility lies with the highest level of leadership. In this context, insisting on a supposed neutrality—which the university frequently invokes—is dangerous. There can be no neutrality in the face of far-right attempts at intimidation …” Letter of solidarity dated July 17, 2026, from the Network for Feminist Perspectives & Interventions Against the (extreme) Right, in collaboration with the Solidarity Network Against the Right at Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen/Nuremberg (“Letter of Solidarity for Prof. Dr. Christina Brüning from FemPi & SoliRex”)—see also the list of signatories (No. 74: Mag Wompel, LabourNet Germany) “Marburg has become a place of fear for me”: Professor Reports Death Threats at the University of Marburg “Graffiti calling for her murder, disruptions in seminars, and mounting pressure: Marburg historian Christina Brüning speaks publicly for the first time about the threats against her, why she no longer feels safe at her own university—and, above all, why she perceives a danger from the far right. The day the first death threat arrived was Christina Brüning’s birthday. The Marburg history professor doesn’t know if that was a coincidence. Or could someone actually have tracked down her personal information? In any case, it was precisely that Saturday in December when the graffiti appeared—on the wall of a men’s restroom in the Marburg University Library. “Throw Prof. Christina Brüning off the roof of the Philosophy Building!” was written there. (…) Call to “hunt down” the professor A few days later, a second threat followed—not only more direct in its wording but also geographically closer, as Brüning reports. Volunteers were being sought, the graffiti read, for the “hunt” for Brüning, to “gutted” her. This time, it was discovered right in the Faculty of Philosophy, where she was scheduled to teach shortly thereafter, in the restroom next to the seminar room. (…) The university and the professor filed a police report, and the State Security Division—which handles politically motivated crimes—stepped in. However, the perpetrators and the circumstances behind the incident remain unknown; upon inquiry, it was stated that the investigation has since been closed without results. Professor Speaks Out Publicly for the First Time Until now, the professor in question had not wanted her name to be made public. For months, hessenschau had been in contact with her. Now Brüning has decided to speak publicly about the incidents—and the impact they’ve had on her. Brüning reports: The strain on her remains significant. Above all, what has lingered for her is the uncertainty—and the fear. She now works exclusively from home. Her research group moved to new offices in consultation with university administration. There are no longer nameplates on the doors. Nor are the new offices listed on the university’s website. (…) Christina Brüning says today: These were not the only instances of hostility she had experienced in the past. For years now, she has felt that the pressure and harassment directed at her and her work have been increasing—stemming, in her view, from the aggressively disruptive behavior of some of her students. Brüning teaches history pedagogy, so her lectures and seminars are attended by future teachers. She reports that, time and again, individual male students have drawn attention to themselves through derogatory heckling, discriminatory remarks, or demonstrative groaning—for example, when Brüning uses gender-neutral language. “Assignments have also been repeatedly refused, for instance, when the topic was supposed to be criticism of racism.”” Furthermore, her teaching competence has been called into question in evaluation forms. Students report “ethno-nationalist ideology” hessenschau also spoke with several students in the department. They confirm that such disruptions have occurred: During discussions, disrespectful remarks toward minorities were made, reported one student, for example, who wishes to remain anonymous. Another spoke of “ethnicist ideas” that had been expressed. There were often no dissenting voices; many fellow students “kept their heads down,” she said. Teaching staff seemed overwhelmed. Several students told hessenschau that they felt uncomfortable in the history seminars. According to the students, this applies not only to Brünings’ classes but also to others in the department. Members of Brünings’ team confirm that many are now intimidated, and concerns are particularly high following the threats. (…) All of this may have made the professor a target—for hostility coming from various directions. Brüning explained to hessenschau, however, that she herself feels pressured at the university primarily by people who, in her view, hold far-right views and, in some cases, are also organized in far-right groups. She also identifies those who disrupt her classes as belonging to this group. (…) Researcher: Targeted Attacks on Individuals Christoph Haker of the University of Flensburg conducts research on right-wing populism and right-wing extremism at universities and collaborates in this area with Christina Brüning and the University of Marburg. According to research recently published by Haker, the proportion of students with right-wing extremist orientations within the student body is, overall, comparatively low. In an interview, however, Haker explains: It is certainly possible to observe that universities are becoming targets of far-right influence. This is also evident at other university campuses. “It is quite typical for individuals to be specifically singled out and attacked.” The ultimate goal, he says, is to force such scholars out of teaching positions. He calls for universities to proactively address such situations and become better equipped to discuss them. Marburg Has Become a “Place of Fear” for Brüning Christina Brüning says: For a long time, she didn’t feel that her concerns were taken seriously enough or that she was adequately protected. The university’s now clearly articulated responses come years too late for her. “Marburg has now become a place of fear for me,” says Brüning. For months, she avoided the university town. At times, she even considered early retirement due to the psychological strain, reports the 45-year-old. She is now looking for positions at other universities.” Report by Jan-Christoph Scholz, Anna Spieß, and Rebekka Dieckmann from June 11, 2026, on hessenschau.de; see also: The Brüning Case at the University of Marburg: New Investigations and “Full Solidarity” Following Threats Against Professor “Following reports of threats and hostility directed at a Marburg professor, the police have reopened their investigation. Students and academic associations have expressed concern. The minister in charge has pledged support. The Central Hesse Police Headquarters informed hr upon inquiry that, as a result of recent media coverage of incidents involving Marburg professor Christina Brüning, an investigation has been reopened. However, the investigation does not concern the death threats, but rather anti-Semitic graffiti that is said to have appeared on campus in May. According to the police, a criminal complaint has been filed in this regard, and the State Security Division has been called in again. Specifically, they are investigating on suspicion of hate speech as well as possible property damage to the detriment of the university …” Article by Rebekka Dieckmann, Jan-Christoph Scholz, and Victoria Enzenauer from June 12, 2026, on hessenschau.de State Security Investigating: Death Threat Against Female Scholar at the University of Marburg “A death threat against a female scholar was scrawled on a wall at Philipps University of Marburg. Police and State Security are investigating. The university strongly condemns the incident. A death threat against a female researcher at Philipps University of Marburg is causing concern there. The threat was written with a pen on a wall at the university that is visible to the public, University President Thomas Nauss told hr on Tuesday. The background remains unclear so far. The university does not wish to publish the researcher’s name or the exact wording of the threat. Nauss described the content of the threat as “dehumanizing” and “unambiguous.” There are no indications of a possible ideological motive. Nauss did, however, state that the State Security Agency had been notified. The State Security Agency investigates, among other things, potentially politically motivated and extremist crimes. (…) Anti-science attacks have also occurred in the past According to University President Nauss, researchers at the university have repeatedly been the target of “anti-science and anti-feminist attacks” in the past. Now, however, a new level of escalation has been reached. “There is no place at our university for threats, violence, or intimidation,” emphasized Professor Nauss. The university views the threats not only as an attack on an individual but on the entire academic community and the freedom of science. University Stands Behind the Affected Party “We stand firmly by our colleague and her team,” Nauss declared. The university, together with the researcher’s working group, has taken measures to ensure safety and enable the continuation of scientific work. “We will not be intimidated, and we will not back down.”…“ News report from Dec. 16,December 2025 on hessenschau.de Outing and incitement to violence have no place at the university. University’s call for appropriate discourse “At Philipps University of Marburg, there has recently been an increase in graffiti and calls for violence directed at individuals or groups. This includes misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and outing-related graffiti. The university has reported all known . The police are investigating. Those who act in this way are abandoning the free democratic basic order and the core values of our university: solidarity, mutual support, and shared democratic values. As a place for the exchange of knowledge and ideas, the university is part of the democratic constitutional state. The exchange of opinions in academic discourse takes place with respect and within a nonviolent framework. Outing, threats, and violence have no place at the university. Prof. Dr. Thomas Nauss, President of Philipps University of Marburg” Statement from the University of Marburg dated May 13, 2026

• Putting Out Fires Together: How We Protect Democracy and Science “Fires are burning everywhere right now, and we don’t even know where to start putting them out. That’s how our federal government burst onto the scene last week with its reform package—right in the midst of the acute threat to our democracy—a package that, in turn, threatens to destroy democratic structures and the very foundations upon which they rest. (…) During the bipartisan expert discussion in the Bundestag, I advocated in my opening statement for three measures that will help us strengthen universities in the face of the current threat. (…) 1) We finally need a genuine reform of the WissZeitVG. (…) Where should the money for this come from? Well, from measure 2: Federal and state funds should be used to strengthen core funding, rather than channeling these funds into third-party grant programs. (…) 3) All pillars of higher education funding and organization must be safeguarded against right-wing populist and far-right attacks through long-term planning and by reducing opportunities for blockades or manipulation—such as those posed by the unanimity principle. Instead of addressing such pressing issues in science policy, however, our federal government is unfortunately creating new, additional problems — which I will now address. (…) The coalition leaders of the CDU/CSU and SPD are not only planning a reform of the IFG that amounts to its abolition—they also intend to expand the use of fixed-term contracts in the general labor market: Excessive use of fixed-term contracts, which we at #IchBinHanna have been criticizing for years as an inglorious exception in the academic sector, is now set to become increasingly common in the general labor market as well. In this regard, Kristin Eichhorn, Sebastian Kubon, and I wrote the following on Friday to our contacts in the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag—perhaps it can serve as inspiration for some to reach out to SPD members of the Bundestag themselves, as Arne Semsrott suggested in the taz: “It is with great concern that we have taken note of the reform package announced yesterday. Its implementation would clearly have massive negative consequences for our democracy, our academic community, and working conditions in our country. We would like to comment here on two aspects that we, as initiators of #IchBinHanna and drawing on our expertise in science policy, consider particularly serious. 1. Lack of transparency in government action due to reform of the Freedom of Information Act (…) The Freedom of Information Act is a central instrument of our democracy. The planned reform would effectively abolish it. (…) 2. Expansion of fixed-term contracts: At the heart of our initiative is the protest against unacceptable working conditions in academia, which arise, among other things, from the excessive use of fixed-term contracts under the Academic Fixed-Term Contract Act. (…) We have been aware of and have been highlighting the disastrous effects of fixed-term contracts in academia for years — it harms employees and their work. We therefore urge you to advocate for an improvement in working conditions rather than going along with an unacceptable deterioration. That would simply be unworthy of a social democratic party…” Post from July 7, 2026, by and on “Arbeit in der Wissenschaft”

• Democracy Under Pressure: What Does This Mean for University Teaching? A Guide for Faculty at Ruhr University Bochum “Ruhr University has published a ‘guide’ and is featuring it on its website: ‘How should one respond when someone makes anti-democratic remarks in a seminar? Faculty members will find arguments and examples in the new guide.’ Anti-democratic forces do not stop at the classroom door. To what extent is it possible—or even necessary—to take a personal stance in teaching? How do we fulfill our duty of care and protection toward students and staff without closing off spaces for discourse? And how can university teaching contribute to strengthening students’ democratic competence? These questions are addressed in the new guide for instructors, which the Rectorate of Ruhr University Bochum approved with overwhelming support on June 10, 2026. (…) As a supplement to the university-wide action plan for promoting democracy and diversity, Michalina Trompeta, director of the Anti-Discrimination Office, and Dr. Peter Salden, director of the Center for Science Education, developed the guide. It was the subject of intensive discussion in two university committees. The guide identifies current challenges in higher education teaching, clarifies the legal framework, and reflects on how faculty members can specifically address everyday discriminatory, politically radical, or extremist statements. Another central question is how teaching can strengthen students’ democratic competence and what the commitment to the Constitution means for educators’ self-understanding …” Report from June 18, 2026, in bo-alternativ (“Guidance for Educators on Democracy Under Pressure”) regarding: Democracy Under Pressure: What Does This Mean for Higher Education Teaching? A guide for faculty members from June 2026

• Widespread criticism of the TU Berlin’s preemptive compliance with the requirements for the “Take Back the Future” congress following the AfD’s threat of legal action over its “neutrality requirement.” Anti-fascist congress in Berlin successfully defended against the AfD’s attempts at intimidation, but: The damage has been done “A left-wing student congress has successfully resisted being blocked by the AfD. However, the Technical University does not come out looking good in this matter. First, the good news: The AfD has failed in its attempt to derail a student event it considered undesirable. The anti-capitalist youth congress “Take Back the Future” will therefore take place as planned this weekend at the Technical University of Berlin (TU). On Friday, the left-wing student association SDS announced with pride that it had successfully defended its congress against the AfD’s attempts at intimidation. However, this victory gives at least as much cause for concern as it does for celebration. For one thing, the TU Executive Board—like the Magdeburg City Library recently—appears to have caved in out of fear of legal action by the AfD. This is supported by the fact that it first presented students with a list of 14 events potentially critical of the AfD—without explaining why these debates should not fall under academic freedom just as much as other socially critical contributions do. The “compromise” between the TU and the SDS now stipulates that events with a partisan political slant may take place, but not on university premises. And this brings us to the real problem: The TU gives the impression that part of the conference violates an alleged requirement of neutrality. Just as the AfD repeatedly claims across the country whenever teachers critically address racism, schools take a stand against discrimination and for diversity, or universities warn against the rise of right-wing enemies of democracy. Political educators have been explaining for years just how fundamentally flawed this idea is. There is no obligation to remain neutral. On the contrary, there is a duty to warn of the dangers to democracy, especially in schools and universities. Unfortunately, even parts of the CDU/CSU have still not grasped this to this day …” Commentary by Ralf Pauli from June 12, 2026, in taz online (“Antifascist Congress in Berlin: The Damage Is Done”) Attacks on freedom of assembly at the Technical University of Berlin: Universities must not become pawns of right-wing interventions “ver.di Berlin-Brandenburg criticizes the conditions imposed by the Technical University of Berlin for the ‘Take Back the Future’ congress. The Technical University of Berlin is responding to legal threats from circles associated with the AfD. In doing so, it is already granting the AfD and its supporters influence, even before they can hold public office. A lawyer with ties to the AfD has threatened the Technical University of Berlin with legal action, citing the principle of political neutrality. The goal is to have the “Take Back the Future” congress—organized, among others, by the student association SDS—or certain events within it banned. The TU Berlin has now banned parts of the congress. “Universities are not politically neutral spaces in the sense of treating all positions as equal in terms of content. On the contrary: As places of scholarship, education, and public discourse, they depend on actors in higher education policy being able to actively use these spaces for political, social, and scholarly debate. In times of the rise of far-right forces that fundamentally attack the values of the Basic Law, there must be space at universities specifically for engaging with these forces,” says Jana Seppelt, ver.di’s regional director for higher education in Berlin-Brandenburg. Precisely as public spaces intended to guarantee free access to knowledge and diversity, universities are increasingly becoming a symbolic target for right-wing political groups such as the AfD. What we are seeing here is not an isolated incident, but part of a larger trend. In recent years, ver.di Berlin-Brandenburg has observed a new level of intensity and frequency in such conflicts. These are often not spontaneous, individual initiatives, but strategically planned confrontations and targeted attempts to create scandals, intended to put pressure on public educational institutions. What happens at universities or even in libraries thus becomes a symbolic battle for cultural authority in society. The university itself becomes the arena in which this societal “culture war” is waged. The current interventions are specifically aimed at putting pressure on universities and their stakeholders, challenging them, or even overwhelming them, thereby testing the limits of academic and political freedom …” Press release dated June 11, 2026, from ver.di Berlin-Brandenburg Antifascist Congress in Berlin: TU Cancels Lectures Opposing the AfD “A student congress is set to remove 14 events from the program. The organizers suspect that this demand comes from the AfD. The organizers of the anti-capitalist youth congress “Take Back the Future” are resisting interference in their program. At the event organized by the Socialist-Democratic Student Association (SDS) at the Technical University of Berlin (TU) this coming weekend, according to the organizers, around 1,500 students and high school students plan to discuss measures against the AfD, fascism, and authoritarianism. But now the conference is in jeopardy. On Tuesday, the TU informed the organizers that they must remove 14 events from the program so that the conference as a whole can take place at the university. In total, the conference includes more than 90 lectures, panel discussions, and workshops. One of the events the TU wants to remove from the program is a lecture by sociologist Andreas Kemper titled “Björn Höcke—Unmasking a Fascist.” Kemper expressed his horror on Wednesday: “It would be a clear restriction on academic freedom if Björn Höcke’s fascist agenda were not allowed to be called a fascist agenda,” he told the *taz*. “My lecture is not about defaming Björn Höcke; rather, I explain why Höcke should be interpreted as a fascist and why he is behind Landolf Ladig’s neo-Nazi texts,” Kemper said. (…) According to the SDS, the TU executive board argues that the events in question violate the principle of neutrality. The SDS, in turn, suspects that the AfD itself might be behind the TU’s list of events to be canceled. The party is said to have sent the university a multi-page “expert opinion.” (…) “The AfD wants to prevent our congress,” says Veronika Dinter, press spokesperson for the “Take Back The Future” congress. “This is an attack on universities as places of critical discourse.” She urged everyone to attend the congress now more than ever. “We must not cave in to the AfD,” she said. The SDS is also demanding this of TU Berlin.” Article by Uta Schleiermacher from June 10, 2026, in taz online “On Saturday, I’m scheduled to give a lecture at TU Berlin on Björn Höcke’s fascism. Or maybe not. A lawyer has threatened TU Berlin. The university is considering not allowing certain lectures to take place as planned during the SDS Congress. Especially those that deal with fascism—including my lecture, ‘Fascists Must Be Called Fascists.’ Universities have a mandate to conduct and facilitate scientific research—even when this does not sit well with anti-science parties and their lawyers. Scientific research includes sociology and, indeed, various approaches to the study of fascism. It is in the very best interest of academic freedom at universities not to curtail research on fascism, because this academic freedom would be one of the first victims of processes of fascistization. It is unacceptable for TU Berlin to ban lectures on the fascist threat—including a lecture by me on Björn Höcke’s fascism— just because a lawyer exerted pressure …” Post by Andreas Kemper on June 10, 2026, on bsky “Academic freedom is destroying itself through preemptive obedience.” Oliver Nachtwey on June 10,26 on bsky regarding the link to the taz article “AFD Attacks SDS Youth Congress at TU Berlin: Urgent Call for Solidarity” “The youth congress of the Socialist-Democratic Student Association (SDS) is under attack. The fact that the organization and agenda of a major left-wing congress are to be obstructed and restricted at the instigation of the AfD—and that a university administration is acting as a lackey for a right-wing party—represents a new level of severity. This demands a response. Solidarity is needed, and those responsible must face consequences if necessary. Here is the organizers’ call to action …” Post by Peter Vlatten on June 10, 2026, on the Berlin Trade Union Left Forum. See the congress page: https://take-back-the-future.com See also our dossier: Political Education in Schools and Academia—Under the Pretext of Neutrality

• More than 500 scholars have called for a themed week titled “Science Against Fascism” from June 1 to 7, urging people to call fascism by its name. With the “Science Against Fascism” action week, students and university faculty are mobilizing against the shift to the right “… On Wednesday evening, the main event of the action week took place at Humboldt University in Berlin under the motto ‘Responsibility in Times of Fascist Threat – Academia Between Analysis and Democratic Resistance.’ The panel discussion was streamed to dozens of universities across the country. Margarita Tsomou, a professor of contemporary theater practice in Osnabrück and one of the initiators of the action week, moderated the evening and began by praising “Students Against the Right.” In just a few weeks, she noted, the students had put together a fantastic program. Tsomou interpreted the high turnout for “Science Against Fascism” as a “political signal.” Already, she noted, it was evident at universities how the “spaces for free speech” were narrowing. Demands for “apolitical” and “neutral” academia were on the rise, and this was entirely in line with the AfD’s views, as Margarita Tsomou explained with reference to the AfD Saxony-Anhalt. Because universities are the places where it is determined which knowledge is hegemonic, it is so important for the AfD to gain access to them. Margarita Tsomou asks philosopher Rahel Jaeggi why there is currently a debate in the country’s arts and culture sections about whether one can speak of “fascism” in the context of the threat from the right. Jaeggi explains that for years people have been tiptoeing around the term, instead speaking of “right-wing populism” or group-focused hostility. Meanwhile, however, there is now a “sense of urgency” in academia to talk about fascism. This is not being done to stir up alarmism, as Jan Philipp Reemtsma suggested in the “FAZ,” but because of real developments. However, Jaeggi himself considers it more appropriate to speak of “fascistization,” as this more clearly indicates that society is in a process that may—but does not necessarily have to—lead to fascism. Jaeggi recognizes parallels between, for example, the Maga movement and the AfD on the one hand and historical fascist movements on the other, and points, for instance, to the large-scale social mobilization of contemporary far-right movements. Jaeggi accuses those who outright reject the concept of fascism in the current debate of having a false understanding: “Many people think fascism only exists when a few million people end up in extermination camps, but that’s a misleading notion of what’s happening.” Naika Foroutan, professor of integration research and social policy at Humboldt University, believes it is appropriate to speak of fascism. She notes that societal dynamics are shifting very rapidly, and that the use of the ICE in the U.S. can certainly be compared to Mussolini’s “Black Shirts.” Under the guise of improving efficiency and reducing bureaucracy, everyone from Elon Musk’s DOGE to conservatives in Germany is stoking sentiment against procedures based on the rule of law. With regard to the AfD, Foroutan warns: “It starts with one group and then spreads.” In its election platform for Saxony-Anhalt, the party is no longer just inciting hatred against refugees from Syria and Afghanistan, but also against people from Ukraine. Maximilian Steinbeis, a lawyer from the Verfassungsblog, explained—when asked about the experiences from the Thuringia and Justice projects—that they had conducted a “vulnerability analysis.” The hope that amending the constitution could protect against the threat from the far right is “deceptive and dangerous.” Legalistic thinking falls short because, when in doubt, the far right simply acts unlawfully. Steinbeis believes it is appropriate to analyze the AfD’s platform in Saxony-Anhalt and to prepare, using various scenarios, for the possibility of the party governing alone. However, the goal must be to prevent the AfD from assuming any governmental responsibility; this would increase the likelihood that the party would continue to produce nothing but “empty rhetoric” that would “run its course eventually.” At the same time, the lawyer warned against focusing solely on the AfD when considering threats to freedom of expression, artistic freedom, and academic freedom. Steinbeis cited, for example, the Hessian initiative to criminalize the denial of Israel’s right to exist. This, he said, is “deeply illiberal”. “That’s why it’s not enough to just talk about the AfD,” the legal scholar urged. Report by Sebastian Weiermann on June 4, 2026, in ND online Joint Discussion Events—The Responsibility of Academia in Times of Fascist Threat “Studis gegen Rechts and a support group of professors invite people to organize discussion events nationwide at universities and colleges that address the current threat of fascism and academia’s social responsibility. We are encouraged that this approach is generating interest and that several scholars and academic institutions have signaled their willingness to participate. We would like to continue expanding this dialogue together. This call is explicitly directed not only at students, but also at professors, research assistants, higher education staff, and scholars outside the university. Under the motto “Academia Against Fascism —The Responsibility of Academia in Times of Fascist Threat,” activities are to take place nationwide during the week of June 1–7. There are many ways to participate: extracurricular ad hoc meetings facilitate low-threshold dialogue on the issue among students, administrative staff, and professors; seminars already scheduled will address the topic and open space for discussion; additional public evening events will open the floor to broader civil society; institutes will pause their regular teaching to specifically create time for in-depth debates. The goal is to generate a collective momentum at the national level that explicitly allows for diverse formats and local priorities. Joint public relations efforts will carry this momentum far beyond the universities into the public debate …” The call to action on the “Science Against Fascism” campaign page (and the initiative on bsky)—with over 600 events in roughly 100 cities—Science Takes a Stand: Call for a Thematic Week “Science Against Fascism” “More than 500 scholars have called for a thematic week titled ‘Science Against Fascism’ during the week of June 1 through June 7. The GEW welcomes the initiative and calls for the strengthening of democracy and academic freedom. In 1933, the vast majority of university members not only welcomed German fascism but had laid the ideological groundwork for it years earlier. Today, the situation is entirely different: More than 500 scholars are calling for a thematic week titled “Science Against Fascism” during the week of June 1–7, June 2026 for an academic examination of the growing fascist threat at universities. In numerous lectures, discussion events, and workshops, university staff and students will address attacks on research and teaching and create a space for developing strategies to safeguard academic freedom. (…) The GEW itself is making the topic “Science Under Pressure—Perspectives on Academic Freedom” the focus of its next science conference, which will take place in Erfurt from October 1 to 3.” GEW press release dated May 27, 2026: 570 Researchers Against the Shift to the Right: Long Live Interdisciplinary Solidarity! “The Alliance ‘Science Against Fascism’ is organizing a week of action against authoritarianism. In the run-up to the state elections, this is also a matter of self-defense. Large segments of the academic community are sounding the alarm: Over 570 researchers have joined forces in the “Science Against Fascism” alliance. They are calling on society—but especially their colleges, universities, and colleagues—to take a more decisive stand against the rise of right-wing extremists. The call’s central demands include the need to consider the climate crisis and the crisis of democracy together, to show solidarity within the research community, and to adopt an anti-fascist economic policy. The alliance deliberately holds all disciplines jointly accountable: “The Responsibility of Academia in Times of Fascist Threat” is the subtitle of the call. The alliance is organizing a nationwide week of action from June 1 to 7, which now includes more than 240 events at over 70 university locations, with the number continuing to rise. The alliance was helped to form, among others, by “Studis gegen rechts” (Students Against the Right), and entire universities and institutes are now also lending their support. And that number is likely to grow: Scholars are calling for courses nationwide to focus on this topic during the week. (…) Attacks on Academic Freedom The coalition views the situation as particularly urgent due to the upcoming state elections in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, where the far-right AfD has a better chance than ever before of gaining executive power. An AfD state government could simply cut off funding to academia in order, among other things, to effectively eliminate unwelcome fields of research or student self-organization. (…) Universities as Places of Democratic Enlightenment One of the highlights of the week of action will be a hybrid discussion event on the relevance of the controversial concept of fascism. It will take place on June 3 at Humboldt University in Berlin. (…) Many of the scholars agree that inaction is also political. Especially if authoritarian politics become normalized even without an AfD government, minorities and diversity must be protected all the more urgently—including, and especially, at universities.” Article by Gareth Joswig from May 28,2026 in taz online

• Ethno-nationalist academic policy. The AfD’s election platform in Saxony-Anhalt reveals plans for the anti-democratic restructuring of universities. How can this be countered? “The so-called government program of the AfD in Saxony-Anhalt identifies the problems of the German higher education system with astonishing precision: inadequate base funding and dependence on third-party grants, precarious employment conditions, criticism of the numerus clausus and the current Bafög system—because it forces too many students to work part-time—as well as the demand to reverse the Bolognaprocess. Yet the program consistently offers fundamentally flawed solutions that would rapidly exacerbate the fierce competition and glaring inequality at universities. It seeks to roll back the opening and democratization of universities that began in the 1960s and advocates a concept of academia that is truly appalling: ethno-nationalist, anti-feminist, and racist. The AfD’s 156-page platform—divided into 17 policy areas—for the election to the 9th State Parliament of Saxony-Anhalt, which will take place on September 6, 2026, devotes only five pages to science policy, which is addressed as the fifth item. Yet these pages pack a punch. If one is to believe the AfD, the decline began “with the ’68 revolt.” Thus, “German science experienced a brief flowering in the period between the end of the war and the mid-1960s.” The “’68ers” are said to have brought “harmful politicization,” bloated bureaucracy, and “a pseudo-democratic committee system” to the universities. It goes on to state: “Later, the quota fiasco was added to the mix”. Climate and COVID-19 policies, it argues, have shown that “even the natural sciences are no longer capable of producing ideology-free knowledge.” And last but not least, the social sciences are “up to their necks in a quagmire of genderism, postcolonialism, and other poststructuralist empty rhetoric.” This “state of affairs,” according to the AfD, must be brought to an end, and “German academia must be restored to its former glory” in Saxony-Anhalt. Democracy and Study Conditions As an alternative to Bafög, which creates the “wrong” incentives, the AfD wants to establish a state scholarship that is independent of parental income and subject to constant monitoring that “is based solely on academic performance.” In addition, the numerus clausus is to be replaced by a selection process designed to ensure that “of all applicants, those who are best suited to a particular subject study it.” And so that “German academia once again has the freedom” to “be itself,” the Bologna Process is to be rolled back. This is intended to ensure that “outstanding achievements.” What this would ultimately mean for students is illustrated not least by the AfD’s rejection of equality policies: the party claims that men are being deliberately discriminated against. These policies are therefore to be replaced by “equal rights”; however, this merely formal equality, when combined with the desired promotion of elites, would simply serve to reinforce existing inequalities. This is particularly evident in the fact that the AfD in Saxony-Anhalt wants to abolish the “group university” with its partially democratic elements, such as co-determination rights for students, mid-level faculty, and other employees. (…) The AfD also has similar plans regarding precarious working conditions at the university: Poor pay and fixed-term contracts at the university would primarily attract “academic idealists” and “mediocre individuals who have no prospects in the private sector” would pursue an academic career. The AfD wants to break this “vicious cycle” by converting fixed-term contracts to permanent ones, offering better pay, and imposing “higher professional standards on researchers”: “The best should remain at the university, where they can conduct research at the highest level” …” Article from May 27,2026 in ND online

• Guideline: Dealing with Right-Wing Hostility Toward Science “The nearly 30-page guide ‘Dealing with Right-Wing Hostility Toward Science’ by the GERDEA Research Network, in cooperation with the Federal Association for Mobile Counseling, is aimed at universities and researchers who may be or could be affected by right-wing or far-right attacks. The guide describes right-wing hostility not merely as “background noise,” but as attacks on the democratic function of academia. These attacks aim to restrict the scope for action and discourse at universities. For this reason, the guidelines emphasize not only individual “resilience” but, above all, institutional responsibility. The guide is designed as a practical resource, provides insight into current counseling practices at universities, and outlines a concrete 10-point plan. This plan consists of two parts: The first part is entirely focused on prevention, and the second part outlines what steps can be taken if one is affected. Overall, the guide warns against justifying inaction with the pretext of neutrality. Universities should not simply wait out far-right attacks but should actively protect academic freedom through clear lines of responsibility, coordinated communication, and support for those affected.” Article by Elena Grunow from April 17, 2026, on Wissenschaftskommunikation.de regarding the 28-page guideline from the GERDEA Research Consortium & the Federal Association for Mobile Counseling

• The Deceptive Longing for the “Core” of Science “Criticism of excessive normativity and social engagement in science is doubly wrong. It undermines the quality of research—and plays into the hands of those who want to impose political limits on science. THESE ARE REMARKS, a few half-sentences. Rarely more. Perhaps because my conversation partners sense that I disagree. It may also be a genuine feeling of uncertainty, a struggle to find a stance and perspective. But what I hear there worries me. Because of the content. But also because of the people speaking: university presidents, heads of research institutes, representatives of foundations, distinguished scientists. Influential people. Individuals whom I value and respect. “Maybe we really have gone too far,” says one, “with all this talk of diversity, sustainability, and all that.” “We really have to be careful,” says another, “not to neglect hard science amid all these good intentions.” And a third warns: “How are we ever supposed to defend ourselves against right-wing state governments that want to impose their will on science if science policy is already being overshadowed by motives unrelated to science?” Of course, there have always been statements like these. But they are increasing in frequency and intensity. (…) Trump’s ideology not only destroys the very foundations of free research and high-performing universities, it also fuels existing anti-science sentiment among a segment of the population, which in turn encounters a weakened scientific community. Just as the anti-liberal campaign waged by ideologues ranging from the extreme conservative to the far-right is leading to a shift in discourse that suddenly makes commitments to democratic achievements—such as the protection of minorities or open borders—appear increasingly radical. This is also the case in Germany, as evidenced by the AfD’s success in polls and the established parties’ wavering stance on migration and civil rights. And it is precisely in this climate that segments of the academic community and its leadership are beginning to voice their reservations more strongly about what they perceive as the political overuse of science. It is not yet an open retreat; but rather a quiet readjustment, a distancing from terms like “diversity” or “sustainability,” and a demonstrative insistence on an abstract core of science—whatever that may entail. (…) What is needed now is not a turning away from diversity, knowledge transfer, or social responsibility—but rather a more resolute defense of them. A more honest debate about how these can be better organized and safeguarded against attacks from the far right. One that focuses on objective success statistics and scientifically sound empirical evidence rather than on subjective reservations. Sound empirical evidence would, for example, involve acknowledging—in light of leading international competitors—that the competitive disadvantage of German universities and research institutions certainly does not lie in excessive promotion of diversity or their social engagement, but rather in dysfunctional and non-transparent academic hiring structures. In inadequate strategic leadership. And in the massively neglected base funding of universities, which makes them too dependent on state-funded third-party grants and funding programs of all kinds. It is these imbalances, and nothing else, that lead to excessive bureaucracy…” An essay dated April 10, 2026, by Jan-Martin Wiarda on his Wiarda Blog

• Study by the Otto Brenner Foundation: Right-Wing Populism and Right-Wing Extremism in Higher Education “Right-wing populism and right-wing extremism in higher education have a long history in Germany. However, the perspectives of those directly affected have so far played hardly any role in the academic and public debate. OBS Working Paper 83 shows that those affected within the academic community often feel left to fend for themselves when confronted with far-right incidents, and structural conditions hinder a well-established institutional and organizational response.” Reference to OBS Working Paper 83 by Christoph Haker and Lukas Otterspeer from December 2025 regarding the 140-page long version and the 4-page short version of the study “Right-Wing Radicals at Universities: The Silence of Universities”: “Institutional silence and isolation characterize the handling of far-right incidents. At universities, those affected are often left to fend for themselves—racist slogans in lectures, swastikas on campus, or even a Nazi serving as a professor. Far-right extremism at universities takes many forms. Most universities establish policies against discrimination. Yet when dealing with far-right incidents, those affected are often left to fend for themselves, as shown by the new study “Right-Wing Populism and Far-Right Extremism at Universities” by the Otto Brenner Foundation. Based on interviews with students and academic staff, the authors Lukas Otterspeer (educational scientist) and Christoph Haker (sociologist) identify, among other things, a phenomenon of “organized isolation.” This means that whether and how universities respond to far-right incidents often depends on the commitment and abilities of individuals. The two authors see one reason for this in the fact that universities provide virtually no structures for a collective response to right-wing extremism. Demands for neutrality in universities would also promote this tendency. (…) There is a gap between how universities describe themselves and reality (…), says study author Haker in an interview with the taz. (…) Even a single incident of right-wing extremism at a university can have drastic consequences for the safety and well-being of many. This becomes particularly clear, for example, in the case of the now-convicted right-wing terrorist Franco A. (…) However, Otterspeer and Haker see universities, above all, as bearing the responsibility to bring about change. In their study, the two authors therefore advocate for a “diversification” of universities. For instance, the perspectives of those affected must be given greater recognition, and universities must treat them with solidarity. Furthermore, there must be “clear points of contact for those affected by right-wing extremism,” says Haker. These individuals must be impartial “and able to adopt the perspective of those affected.” In light of the observed lack of voice, this means that universities should, for example, offer training programs for academic and administrative staff. “Universities must proactively address the issue of right-wing extremism,” says Haker.“Article by Nicolai Kary from January 7, 2026, in taz online. From the summary of OBS Working Paper 83: “… A systematic review of previous research on right-wing populism and extremism in higher education institutions highlights the continuity of this phenomenon from the Weimar Republic through the Nazi regime to the Federal Republic of Germany. Despite this long ‘tradition’ of interplay between academia and the far right, the current state of research reveals some gaps. With regard to the post-1945 period, for example, it becomes clear that a self-critical examination of continuities stemming from National Socialism was blocked in many academic departments, and that a corresponding reappraisal has not yet been completed. In particular, however, the impact of right-wing populism and extremism in universities, such as through an examination of the perspectives of those affected by far-right acts—a gap that this study addresses in its empirical section. (…) In the empirical examination of the victims’ perspective, right-wing populism and extremism reveal themselves to be contradictory: While far-right actors claim to be scientific, they simultaneously display hostility toward science when it comes to discrimination, threats, and violence, for example. Furthermore, those affected find themselves confronted with the “paradox of tolerance” . The precious ideal of tolerance is exploited to shield intolerant positions or behaviors from criticism. Finally, far-right extremists and populists push for a reversal of the perpetrator-victim dynamic: According to their argument, anyone who criticizes them is the true gravedigger of open academic discourse. (…) The reactions to far-right incidents in academia examined in this study share the common goal of fostering internal diversification within universities—understood as a process of opening up and diversifying perspectives. (…) Diversification with regard to organized isolation is evident, for example, when the perspectives of those affected are recognized on university campuses and met with solidarity. Specifically, at the seminar level, this may mean that instructors initiate subject-specific discussions on topics such as antisemitism and racism, develop a “Code of Conduct” for the respective course, or reflect on their own teaching methods with the goal of not granting far-right students too much speaking time and preventing dependencies on students—for example, in group work. Students, in turn, can publicly take a stand—within the university community—against specific far-right activities by instructors and fellow students, thereby bringing their perspective into the university discourse and advocating for a certain degree of flexibility in course selection—for example, to avoid far-right instructors. (…) The present study (…) identifies a specific form of victimization that can be described as institutionalized silence and organized isolation. This can only be overcome through a process of opening up and diversifying perspectives.”

• International Antifascist Educational Association (IAdE) Founded in Spain “The International Antifascist Educational Association (IAdE) is a global network of people dedicated to teaching, research, and educational work who advocate for public, democratic, and antifascist education. We promote critical thinking, social justice, and the right to emancipatory education in the face of authoritarian and neoliberal discourses …” Spanish self-description (machine-translated) on their homepage: http://educacionantifascista.org/ Founding Manifesto “Humanity stands at a crossroads. The specter of neo-fascism—with its hatred, intolerance, and thirst for power—is reemerging with full force all over the world. In the face of this offensive, which aims to segregate, silence, and subjugate, education is becoming the most important battlefield. We cannot remain neutral. We who believe in freedom, equality, and solidarity must organize. For this reason, the International Antifascist Education Movement (IAdE) was founded. Fascism is not merely an ideology of the past: today, neo-fascism is reemerging, disguised as reactionary populism, libertarianism, and right-wing extremism, which promote hatred and exclusionary policies and aim to turn schools into places of indoctrination, censorship, and fear. In light of this, we raise our voices to reaffirm that education is a universal, emancipatory, and deeply political right that must be oriented toward social justice, equality, and freedom. We come together from different countries, with diverse educational traditions and social struggles, to build an international network of teachers, students, families, communities, and social movements committed to the active defense of democracy, memory, and human dignity …” Spanish founding manifesto (machine-translated) See also the list of members and the network on bsky, as well as the following: Antifascist Pedagogy: “Young people aren’t the problem; they’re the symptom.” Spanish educator develops program for prospective teachers In an interview with Carmela Negrete in *junge Welt* on December 20, 2025, Enrique Javier Díez Gutierrez, Catedrático and professor of educational sciences at the University of León, explains the structure and goals of the Anti-Fascist Education International, which he founded: “… In a way, it’s about sending a clear signal against the rise of neo-fascism and advocating for an unambiguously anti-fascist education. On board are the Comisiones Obreras labor union, the State Education Federation, and the collective ‘Dime+,” a collective for inclusion and educational improvement. The Confederation of Movements for Pedagogical Renewal is also involved, as is the NEUS Foundation from Catalonia. We’re still very much in the process of getting established, but we already have members from Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, and Argentina. So far, our working language has been Spanish, but that doesn’t mean we can’t expand our network even further. (…) We have come together from different countries, with diverse educational traditions and social struggles, to build an international network of teachers, students, families, educational communities, and social movements that actively advocates for the defense of democracy, the culture of remembrance, and human dignity. Ultimately, it’s about educating people in an anti-fascist spirit, because as we always say: We must educate for inclusion, for democracy, for equality, for diversity—but always from an anti-fascist perspective. You cannot be a democrat without being anti-fascist. And in this spirit, the International Anti-Fascist Education Initiative is intended to be a channel for bringing visibility to specific individuals from the educational community, as well as collectives and organizations, who, through their public endorsement of the founding manifesto, demonstrate their commitment to unequivocally anti-fascist education. (…) This micro-certification in anti-fascist pedagogy that we offer seems to confirm what Bertolt Brecht said: “Woe to the country that needs heroes,” or also: “What kind of times are these, in which one must explain the most self-evident things?” There have already been more than twice as many applications for this course as there are spots available. (…) Participants include faculty members from Yale University as well as professors from UNAM in Mexico, universities in Spain, the UACM, Venezuela, and Brazil. The University of León is a pioneer in this field. (…) Here in Spain, the outlook is usually quite different. In fact, we see that those who believe in freedom, equality, and solidarity are increasingly organizing themselves. That is why the International Antifascist Educational Initiative was created. (…) But the fundamental problem is that we are not dealing here with fascist youth, but with a precarious, frustrated youth that is being bombarded with very well-crafted reactionary messages. We must create spaces for community, engagement, and popular culture. School education alone is not enough to counteract this—we need the whole “village” to educate even a single member, and we must do so through education and public pedagogy. Young people are not the problem; they are the symptom. (…) U.S. President Trump has, after all, signed an executive order declaring anti-fascism a form of terrorism. And that is exactly what we are now seeing here in Europe as well—that this discourse is being adopted by the far right. Social democracy plays a role in this and is one of the factors that have facilitated the rise of neo-fascism. People speak of the “tragedy of social democracy.” Instead of pursuing social policies—that is, policies that are truly consistent with its platforms—social democracy has merely managed capitalism—whether “human face” or “third way.” Tony Blair (former leader of the British Labour Party and Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, jW) said in his later years that the “third way” or social democracy had ultimately adopted the ideological framework of neo-fascism. And the working class sees that, instead of maintaining a minimal welfare state, social democracy is dismantling it throughout Europe.”

• [Ideological Power Struggle in Schools] Capitalism is not enshrined in the constitution. “Ideological Power Struggle in Schools: While environmental and human rights activists fear for their jobs, far-right extremists are pushing their way into the education system. The first warning sign is almost always an attack on teachers’ rights,” says Andrew Spar in an interview with the Robert Koch Foundation’s school portal about political influence in education. Spar is a teacher and president of the “Florida Education Association,” the state’s largest teachers’ union, where he is currently experiencing massive attempts at intimidation. The question is being asked not only in the U.S. right now: How political are teachers allowed to be? In theory, teachers’ freedom of expression in Austria and Germany is defined as follows based on the Beutelsbach Consensus: They must defend the free democratic basic order and stand behind the constitution—there is no requirement for neutrality. Moreover, teachers are bound by values, meaning they are obligated to defend democracy and human rights. “Schools are always bound by the values of the Basic Law. It is their mission to protect the Basic Law,” says Benjamin Winkler of the Antonio Amadeu Foundation in Saxony, which works to combat right-wing extremism. Teachers should encourage students’ freedom of expression, which also means tolerating controversy. What they are not allowed to do is indoctrinate their classes or campaign for political parties. (…) Anne Mehrer of the Saxony Cultural Office—which aims to counter right-wing extremist structures with an active democratic civil society through interdisciplinary work—also observes at least an indirect connection between ideologization, the rise in power of right-wing parties, and shifting discourses in schools. Since its founding in 2013, the AfD has rapidly gained support in Saxony—according to current polls, around forty percent now support the right-wing party. (…) “Generally speaking, we encounter many dedicated teachers, school social workers, and parents who have clearly internalized a ‘basic anti-fascist consensus,’ whether in the city or in rural areas,” says Mehrer. Yet time and again, their commitment is thwarted by structural problems such as financial hardship or a shortage of teachers, a culture of turning a blind eye, and direct hostility. Activist Poettinger also observes this dynamic: “Many teachers find themselves on a hamster wheel, on the verge of burnout; so it makes sense to hold back politically to avoid even more stress,” she says. Meanwhile, one can observe that many AfD politicians were—or will once again be—teachers. Are far-right extremists actually flooding into teaching jobs en masse? Amadeu Foundation representative Winkler doubts it: “As far as I can tell, these are still isolated cases. Nerling and Höcke are likely the most prominent far-right former teachers,” he says. Nevertheless, the observation remains that the boundaries of what can be said are shifting to the right, and pressure on left-wing teachers is growing. Activist Poettinger explains it this way: “Under capitalism, it’s precisely those who question the property order who are under threat. Nazis don’t do that, but leftists do,” says Poettinger. Article by Laura Helene May in the feminist magazine an.schläge, December 2025

• Guide: “Dealing with Right-Wing Hostility Toward Academia” “For about ten years now, various forms and strategies of far-right encroachment in the university context have been observed, intended to influence academic discourse. These attacks on universities are directed not only against individual people but also target the very idea of open, critical, and democratic scholarship itself. The guide classifies far-right hostility toward academia within the framework of democratic theory and presents courses of action from the perspective of Mobile Counseling in the university context. The appendix includes “10 Points” designed to facilitate early engagement with (potentially) threatening hostility from the right, as well as references to counseling services and helpful reading material.” Abstract of the 2025 policy paper published by the GERDEA Research Consortium and the Federal Association for Mobile Counseling (Bundesverband Mobile Beratung e. V.)

• In the Crosshairs of Autocrats: On the Value of Academic Freedom “It is a bitter, yet by no means new, experience that the significance of historically won, constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties only becomes truly apparent in times of crisis—that is, when these rights are acutely endangered. Who would have thought that academic freedom, which is by no means a given in authoritarian and semi-democratic societies, could become a target of attack by governments in the United States or the Federal Republic of Germany. But that has changed. In Germany, the shock over the so-called research funding scandal in the former Ministry of Research still lingers, especially since one must also worry about what would happen if the AfD were to take over a ministry of science one day. There is also fierce debate over who is allowed to speak at German universities and whether this concerns academic freedom or rather freedom of speech. But what the U.S. government has done in recent months eclipses everything else: Overnight, entire research institutes and scientific organizations are being shut down, and even projects dedicated to vital medical research or climate change research are being abruptly terminated; thousands of scientists:are being thrown out onto the street overnight; funding for politically unpopular universities is being arbitrarily cut off, or these institutions are being subjected to exorbitant lawsuits (in which the accusation of tolerating anti-Semitism is being politically exploited); critical thinkers are either barred from traveling or denied entry. Or worse still: they are detained and deported if they do not have an American passport. Anyone conducting research on diversity, racism, or gender equality must fear repression. A climate of fear is spreading, which could lead to a scientific exodus on a large scale. (…) At least the protests against this are now growing louder, even if there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding them. Scholars are often reserved people who are not accustomed to taking a stand on political issues. But where objections are raised, academic freedom is invoked first and foremost. This raises the central question: What exactly is academic freedom, and why is it important? (…) The Academic Freedom Index, published by the Universities of Erlangen-Nuremberg and Gothenburg, shows that only one-third of researchers worldwide are well protected. And this freedom continues to erode, as the current index demonstrates. Academic freedom is first and foremost the freedom of those who practice science, but also the freedom of everyone who engages with science. It also affects those who depend on scientific progress—that is, all of us. (…) Scientists are increasingly in the public spotlight, and their views on current issues are frequently sought. This creates particular potential for conflict when the boundaries between freedom of expression and academic freedom become blurred. These two fundamental rights are often equated, but they must be distinguished from one another: Freedom of expression encompasses all possible statements, including irrational ones, whereas academic freedom is a freedom of and for methodologically guided rationality. Hence its purposefulness. Science is the search for truth and is committed to it. (…) When discussing academic freedom, the increasing privatization of research must not be overlooked. (…) Privatization can lead to an oligopolization of knowledge, which is concerning from a democratic perspective—especially when existing knowledge is not made accessible or when, for political or economic reasons, there is no interest in important knowledge. Strategic skepticism toward science poses another problem. In this context, scientific findings are publicly questioned in order to protect particular interests. The first form is deliberately sown doubt. (…) The second form is strategic research, whereby organizations cast doubt on scientific research by commissioning their own research that contradicts it. (…) Another source of restrictions on scientific freedom is social movements that vehemently oppose certain lines of research. (…) Where such developments intensify and go beyond isolated cases, they pose serious threats to the freedom of research and teaching. (…) In the political public sphere, scientists possess special authority only as experts in their field, but they are not holders of political or moral truth, as Peter Strohschneider emphasizes in his critique of “authoritarian scientism.” When scientists, on the other hand, speak on political and moral matters, they act as intellectuals, and as such they can claim freedom of expression, not primarily academic freedom. However, they can and must always assert the latter whenever the practice of science itself is at stake. This freedom is related to democratic freedom insofar as in that both trace their origins to a common root: the freedom to rational self-determination and the freedom from ideological domination. These freedoms, which are so central to our democracy, are, however, under massive pressure due to the rise of autocrats and must therefore be defended all the more resolutely.” Article by Rainer Forst and Klement Tockner in “Blätter” 10/2025; see also: Academic Freedom Index and, regarding the U.S., the dossier: Trump’s “Project 2025” includes the abolition of the Department of Education and public education and research as a whole

Comments

More materials