By REINHARD HESSE*
Science cannot claim to be serious if it is not willing to listen to other opinions and examine, without anticipating the results, the arguments contained in other opinions.
For a brief period – more precisely, from April 20, 2021 to November 8, 2023 – DHV [German University Association – Association of German Higher Education Institutions, hereinafter referred to by its acronym] housed the “Freedom of Science” foundation. The idea was mine. I provided the initial capital – a not insignificant amount.
In our time, threatened by a kind of stupidity called “cancel culture”, the foundation’s simple objective was to recall the fundamental civilizational postulate expressed in the old Latin rule “Audiatur et altera pars!”, by granting the foundation’s prize to people distinguished by their public defense of the right to free expression.
The winners so far have been Noam Chomsky, the most cited scientist in the world, a renowned intellectual, recognized without a shadow of a doubt by friends and adversaries as an unwavering champion of the fight for the right of those who defend dissenting opinions and for the free expression of opinion, and Prof. Julian Nida-Rümelin, in recognition of the courage that is necessary today in Germany for those who publicly engage against the stupidity of single-minded, war-mongering thinking, in favor of a different vision of the relationship with science produced in Russia.
I submitted the concept of this foundation to the DHV as the association of German university professors, as I thought that it would be the most appropriate institution to house the foundation, which strives for the above-mentioned purpose, since science without freedom of opinion is simply inconceivable.
Prof. Bernhard Kempen, then President of the DHV, and Prof. Michael Hartmer, then its Executive Director, immediately welcomed the idea and helped to implement it quickly and effectively. The DHV became the sponsoring entity of the “Freedom of Science” Foundation. The two aforementioned awards were granted at my suggestion and with the spontaneous and unconditional support of the President and Executive Director. They were unanimously approved by the Foundation’s Board of Trustees.
The “Freedom of Science Network”, formed by around 700 scientists concerned about the increasingly narrowing of the channel for expressing opinions at German universities, awarded its prize to Prof. Kempen this year in recognition of his many commitments to freedom of expression at universities. The foundation was part of this commitment. The theme of his lecture on the occasion of the award at the Brandenburg Academy of Sciences in Berlin was “The cancellation of freedom of science: how universities experience their own climate change”.
As already mentioned, the awarding of the Science Freedom Foundation Prize to Prof. Noam Chomsky coincided with the terms of office of Bernhard Kempen as President and Michael Hartmer as Executive Director of the DHV. It is fair to say that this event marked an excellent beginning for the work of the Foundation.
The nomination of Prof. Julian Nida-Rümelin for the award also coincided with the terms of office of Prof. Kempen and Prof. Hartmer. I think this was also an excellent choice.
But even before the award was given, there was a complete change in the DHV board of directors: Michael Hartmer retired and Bernhard Kempen did not renew his candidacy for president, after completing twenty years in that role.
Then, in just a few weeks, something fascinating happened, something I never imagined could happen to the old DHV, which in the 43 years of my membership had always seemed to me to be a trustworthy, serious and honorable institution.
If President Kempen had said that the foundation was a “diamond” at DHV, the new management only needed a short time to throw this “diamond” down the drain, toss the foundation in the trash. Forgive me, reader, for these expressions, but they reflect to a certain extent what happened and the style of events.
How did we get to that point?
Naturally I have not received any information about what happened behind the scenes. I imagine that things happened as follows:
The first “act of office” under the new presidency, which I had to carry out in my role as patron and chairman of the Board of Trustees, was a lecture on the occasion of the awarding of the prize to Prof. Nida-Rümelin.
The audience consisted of members of the expanded board of directors of the DHV, I imagine 20 to 25 people, including a large number of representatives from the Natural Sciences. Also present was the then Secretary of Culture of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia.
The content of the speech was as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen,
The “Freedom of Science” Foundation, managed by DHV as the sponsoring entity, awards the “Freedom of Science” Prize to Prof. Julian Nida-Rümelin based on a unanimous resolution of its Board of Trustees.
Prof. Nida-Rümelin is not only a renowned philosopher, known beyond his field of expertise, but also known to the general public as a political thinker and former Minister of State.
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I would like to thank you, dear Prof. Nida-Rümelin, for responding spontaneously and positively to our inquiry.
I believe that the previous laureate, Prof. Noam Chomsky, has a worthy successor.
The purpose of the foundation is freedom of expression in universities.
I imagine you are now asking: freedom of expression in universities? That is obvious! Yes, in theory. Unfortunately, the reality is a little different.
Regarding the current situation, our former president, Prof. Kempen, said some time ago in a large and widely read article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) newspaper what is important to say. The title of the article is “The university as a risk zone.” The subtitle: “The censor’s scissors on the heads of many scientists are growing ever tighter, even though they enjoy the greatest freedom imaginable.”
This article is worth re-reading!
Our newly elected president, Prof. Lambert Koch, has also expressed himself several times in the same vein, most recently and as the new president of DHV, in the journal Research & Learning [Research & Teaching].
This is a cause for great joy – but it is also, I regret to say, an urgent – and bitter – need.
Like Kant and, later, his admirer Schopenhauer, unfortunately little Reinhard Hesse cannot completely ignore that the greater part of humanity is, to formulate it in crude terms, but coined by Kant himself, too indolent and cowardly to make use of its own understanding.
We prefer to think and say what everyone says: especially what those in power say, even more so when we are paid by them.
Well, Noam Chomsky and Julian Nida-Rümelin do not belong to this majority, despite their peculiarities and their unmistakable ways of divergence.
Our laureate today has just demonstrated this in the last few days once again in an impressive way in his new book entitled “Cancel Culture as the End of Enlightenment? For a Defense of Autonomous Thought”, which is pertinent to the purpose of our foundation. The book was released in early August by Piper, with the label “author of best-selling books on the weekly list”. Der Spiegel"
It so happens that I had already nominated Prof. Nida-Rümelin as a candidate for the prize some time ago, because I had the impression that he was in fact the only renowned German professor, and also one with good political connections, who had the courage – and this term really does apply here – to express an opinion somewhat different from that currently prescribed, for example on the question of the relationship between German and Russian science promotion organizations.
Furthermore, Professor Nida-Rümelin has published an equally interesting book on the possible prospects after the end of the war in Ukraine. Fortunately, it is not a 1:1 reproduction of what we have heard a thousand times before, and that is reason enough to recommend reading it.
The title reproduces the content: “Perspectives after the war in Ukraine”.
DHV is an association of scientists. Therefore, from our point of view, our first interest is naturally in relation to science and its organizations.
Is it right to suspend cooperation between major scientific organizations in Germany and their Russian partners? Or was it wrong? Are there only two mutually exclusive alternatives? Or – if we exercise our imagination a little – is there not a third alternative in the interstice between the two?
In the past, Prof. Nida-Rümelin has spoken out repeatedly in public on this issue and, as I have already said, has taken a different, critical position.
I would very much like to know – and I hope that our audience would also like to know – what our laureate has to say about these issues from a contemporary perspective. I would like to know this, if only so that each of us can form our own judgment and test its validity, using Prof. Nida-Rümelin’s point of view as a point of comparison. I suspect that his assessment will be more informed by experience, but also more balanced, informed and differentiated than mine.
The initial impetus for forming my opinion was a trip to Königsberg, which I took in September of the year before last, in September 2022, with my partner, to visit Kant's tomb next to the cathedral and on that occasion also the villages, the homeland of my maternal grandparents.
The result of this trip was an article entitled “Cancel Kant? Philosophy and Science as a Continuation of War by Other Means?”, published in the Zurich weekly “Weltwoche”, considered right-wing, in the newspaper “Frankfurter Rundschau”, considered left-wing, and on the website “Nachdenkseiten”, perhaps characterised as a publication not limited by worldviews and committed to combating prejudices. I use this text as a guide for the following reflections.
On the occasion of our visit to Kant’s tomb, we made a short detour and stopped at the Kant Institute at the “Immanuel Kant Baltic University in Kaliningrad” in order to register for the quinquennial international congress on Kant in April 2024, that is, on the occasion of the XNUMXth anniversary of the philosopher’s birth. There we were informed that Germany had cancelled its participation in the preparations in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There was no communication with Germany.
I confess to being dismayed.
I asked myself: what does Kant's philosophy have to do with the conflict in Ukraine?
Furthermore, how will Russian philosophers who reject their country’s current policies feel? Why have we cut off contact with them?
Meeting the people affected clearly showed me the meaning of this interruption in contact.
Were philosophical contacts with other countries also interrupted when their governments violated Public International Law?
Was there a boycott of Harvard and Yale Universities because the US attacked, contrary to the precepts of Public International Law, Yugoslavia or Iraq (and several other countries), victimizing hundreds of thousands of civilians?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to do the opposite right now – intensify contact, expand exchange, deepen dialogue?
Is science – to vary Clausewitz’s well-known phrase – a kind of continuation of war by other means?
Science does not know the “opposing side”, the “enemy”. It only knows discussion partners. These may have divergent opinions and argue against their partners, but when they argue against each other, they necessarily recognize their interlocutors as equals.
Shouldn’t we oppose this “logic of peace” to the “logic of war”?
Is there anything more important than dialogue, the joint search for truth and the right path, which listens to opposing arguments? And isn't this especially true in times of war? How can someone who forgets this invoke Kant?
But not only the German Kant Society, but also the major scientific organizations in Germany considered it right to suspend exchanges with their Russian partners. They followed the lead of the political and media spheres. They changed their minds according to the wind. I cannot say whether they also acted out of conviction.
This interruption of contact simply happens, it is simply proclaimed. Period.
Then nothing happens. Articulated resistance is practically non-existent.
How could this happen?
Now, it cannot be irrelevant, when one disregards – and I want to at least express this conviction here – the most elementary principle, not only of science, but the fundamental universally human principle of any and all civilized life, which consists of TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE.
This is not a trifle when people are openly called upon to disregard such a principle!
For when we allow ourselves to be dragged into this supreme moral baseness, the only final consequence ends up being violence, war. The interruption of contact is then the first step in that direction.
It was explained to my social democratic grandfather Heinrich Hesse that it would be improper for a German to cultivate relations with French people. Anyone who would do so would be a degenerate little Frenchman [Französling]. Having said that, they sent him against his will to front, to kill as many of these people as possible, with whom there was no point in talking.
The massacre was orchestrated in various ways in the high-sounding speeches of leading German intellectuals (among others, Max Weber and Thomas Mann). The slogan was: we Germans are the bearers of “culture”, profound by nature; the French have only “civilization”.
It was explained to my father Heinz Hesse, also a Social Democrat, that it would be improper for a German to cultivate relations with Jews. Anyone who did so would be a Judaizer [Jüdling]. Jews would be vermin, parasites, rats. Then they sent him against his will to a war of even greater proportions, in which one aim, and not the least, was to kill as many of these people as possible, with whom it made no sense to talk.
This slaughter was also orchestrated in various ways in the high-sounding speeches of leading German intellectuals (among others, Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt).
Now they are telling their grandson or son – who, however, is no longer a social democrat – that it is inappropriate for him, a German scientist, to have contact with Russians. If he does so, he would be a “Russlandversteher”[I] or something like that. You shouldn't talk to these people.
In disbelief, Heinrich’s grandson and Heinz Hesse’s son watches the awarding of the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade to a person who receives a standing ovation for several minutes in the Hall of the Association of the German Book Trade – to a person who entertains the readers of his texts with discoveries such as: the Russians are animals, barbarians, cockroaches, a horde, criminals, pigs who should roast in hell; their national poet Alexander Pushkin (died 1837 – my note, RH) is said to be guilty of the birth of war criminals in his country. “Yes, of course he is guilty. Everyone is guilty,” writes this author. (Source: weekly DIE ZEIT).
Let us assume or at least hope that this individual did not receive the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade for holding such views. I repeat and emphasize: the Peace Prize!
It turns out he received the award. And people gave him a standing ovation.
If I, as a young man – unfortunately Russian – want to study at the University of Konstanz, I will not be able to do so.
Why not? Because I'm Russian! In the past, this was called collective punishment[ii], isn't it? However, they grant me the grace to go to the rector's office and plead, with luck, for an exceptional leave of absence, even though I am Russian. The rector's office decides. The criteria are within its discretion. In the past, wasn't this called arbitrariness? (Source: Resolution of the Senate of the University of Konstanz of March 3, 2022).
I studied at this university and obtained my doctorate there. It is not at all easy for me to report this fact.
Reinhard Hesse, who is speaking to you, can no longer be sent against his will to front by people who defend such ideas, because he is too old and because Germany for now gives preference to Ukrainian soldiers.
But naturally I am constrained to listen to the new high-sounding speeches of the cream of the German intelligentsia.
How can we still take ourselves seriously as scientists, let alone as human beings, if we let this go unnoticed? I don't know how that would be possible.
In my opinion, the interruption of dialogue – no matter with whom – is no small matter. It is a matter of central importance, at the heart of our claim to be taken seriously, as scientists as well as people.
I am not aware of any other countries that would imitate Germany in this area of breaking off scientific relations. Those who refuse to accept the sanctions policy in any case will probably not impose sanctions in the field of science either. And that is the case for the majority of countries in the world, where the overwhelming majority of the world's population lives at the same time.
Have the other member states of the European Union, have the other NATO countries also put their scientific relations on ice?
I can hardly imagine this. In any case, the US is quite naturally continuing its cooperation with Russia within the framework of the mega scientific project of space research.
Can Germany at least claim to its advantage that the scientific sanctions imposed are more or less cogently the result of the general sanctions imposed by the European Union? I assume that this is not the case. I assume that the Germans are once again acting in accordance with the naive and arrogant slogan: “Who will do it if not us?”
In 2021, I created our “Foundation for the Freedom of Science”, a public utility entity, which has set itself the objective of defending the freedom of science against, among other threats, the culture of cancellation, which is now gaining more and more followers.
And now they're canceling the scientists of an entire country? What do we think about that? Are we just going to change the subject?
The foundation’s first laureate was Prof. Noam Chomsky, a renowned linguist, critic of mainstream politics – and of cancel culture – and the most cited scientist in the world. At his request, I told him about my trip to Russia, as well as my impressions of the general conditions in the country and how my companion (who had previously been more prone to fear) and I were treated by the Russians, in particular and without exception, with courtesy, kindness and often human warmth. And this despite the fact that our Foreign Minister had declared the aim of German foreign policy to be the “ruin” of Russia, and had complained in this context of what she considered to be an incipient feeling of “war fatigue”. Prof. Chomsky read the account of my experiences in Russia with interest and found in it confirmation of his own assessment: “Quite fascinating, and very different from the dominant hysterical Russophobia.”
In any case, a conference on the scale of the Ukrainian conflict and its prehistory in terms of public international law is to be held at a German university, to which Russian experts are also to be invited. At least Mr. Kempen has announced this. In doing so, the organizers of the event would be doing what is obvious on a banal level – despite the high-sounding nonsense of the advocates of ending the dialogue.
“Audiatur et altera pars”, this is a saying coined by the Romans in Antiquity.
A judge who does not ask the defendant before him what he has to say in his own defense has not understood the meaning of justice. A professor who wants to exclude arguments has not understood the meaning of science.
In my opinion, our newly elected president, Prof. Lambert Koch, has a more nuanced view of things than many of the warmongers of science. In the fifth issue of this year's journal “Forschung & Lehre” he states that science remains autonomous, but cannot escape the political implications of its practice, as can be seen in the growing distance between Western democracies and autocracies such as Russia or China. A particularly sensitive issue would be scientific cooperation, which restricts technological sovereignty or enables autocracies to persecute minorities, as well as projects dual use, which could have both civilian and military purposes.
Therefore, scientists should, when it comes to the question of the defensibility of cooperation, resort to offers of political and scientific advice, the latter provided by the scientific community.
Prof. Koch advocates the creation of “safety barriers for cooperation agreements, which enable cooperation but can also ward off the risk of monopolization and unwanted dependencies.”
Differences should be voiced, violations of scientific freedom should be identified and condemned. Where scientific freedom is trampled upon, cooperation should be terminated. In this case, cooperation could only be continued on an individual and occasional basis at most. Personal contacts could lead to blindness, but in-depth knowledge of the interlocutor would also create a climate of understanding and trust. A free science could have a positive effect on closed societies, argues Lambert Koch, who ends his explanations with the following sentence: “
Hence a 'science diplomacy' [science diplomacy] adapted to the realities of foreign policy remains important and correct.”
'Diplomacy of science': it seems to me that this is quite different from the interruption of dialogue and war. Not the interruption of dialogue, but, on the contrary, its intensification is the path that civilized people should take in conflict situations, if they do not want to destroy their own credibility.
It turns out that at the moment none of this is being seen in the realm of so-called big politics.
“Quo vadis, Germania, where are you heading, Germany, in your struggle for good?” This is the question of the intimidated observer.
An answer seems to be hinting at this: it is contained in the logic of those who advocate the cessation of dialogue. Several newspapers have already asked the question: “Does Germany need nuclear weapons?” I recently read another article on this subject in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Reading it, I was reminded of Schopenhauer’s well-known characterization of the Germans, who spoke of the “exalted stupidity of the Germans” [“überschwängliche Dummheit der Deutschen”].
My father liked to quote the old folk wisdom that even the gods fight in vain against stupidity.
Such a statement is probably correct.
Nevertheless, we must fight – not only because we have this obligation in view of our dignity as human beings, to express this in Kantian language, but also to halt developments in the concrete historical situation that could result in catastrophes.
I end with a melancholic evocation of more civilized times:
Any educated Russian is familiar with Nikolai Karamsin’s “Letters of a Russian Traveler.” Karamsin traveled through Germany, Switzerland, France and England in 1789 and 1790, starting in Königsberg with a visit to Kant and ending his journey in London, where he recounts the following episode during his visit to the Royal Society of Sciences:
“We [Karamsin – RH] were introduced to the Society by one of its English members. We were in the company of a young Swedish baron, a young man of many talents and good manners. When we entered the meeting room, he took my hand and said with a smile: “My lord, here we are friends [Russia and Sweden were then at war – RH]. The temple of science is a temple of peace.” I smiled and we embraced fraternally. My English companion exclaimed: “Bravo! Bravo!”
The other English people looked at them in astonishment, because in England men don't usually hug each other...
They did not understand us. They did not suspect that we had given a good example to two enemy nations, which perhaps would soon be followed by them, by virtue of a secret effect of sympathy.”
“The temple of science is the temple of peace. Here we are friends. We smile and embrace each other fraternally”: these phrases should be well remembered by the current friends of the continuation of the war with the means of science!
Dear Prof. Nida-Rümelin: I am glad that you have accepted our award! It was intended as an encouragement from a person who does not swim with the current and does not wish to continue any war by any means.
Kant said: “Peace is a masterpiece of reason.”
But reason is realized in nothing less than argumentative dialogue.
And science cannot claim to be serious if it is not willing to listen to other opinions and examine, without anticipating the results, the arguments contained in other opinions.
I am pleased – and I hope that we will be pleased – to see that you, dear Professor Nida-Rümelin, have always given us new opportunities in the past to test, through an examination of conscience, whether our claim to be serious people corresponds to the truth.
And I hope you continue to do so in the future!
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your attention and patience!
I never imagined that a speech like this, which calls for dialogue, differentiation, reason and balance, could lead to a scandal, the end of contact, discord! Much less among people with experience in discussion, life experience, adults, who also work together in a foundation created to defend the postulate “Audiatur et altera pars”.
And yet everything indicates that this was the case.
I assume that there were among the members of the expanded board of the DHV some people for whom the reflections presented were too differentiated, too considered, too irrelevant in a situation, which in their eyes was entirely clear, in which, in their eyes, the division between good (us) and bad (the Russians) was entirely clear.
Perhaps the presence of the Secretary of Education and Culture of the State of Rhineland-Westphalia may have added to this, which may have further increased the sensitivity and nervousness of the aforementioned members of the DHV.
Furthermore, the president had only been in office for a short time and was not yet sufficiently experienced and seasoned; perhaps he feared that his DHV would be placed in a politically unpopular corner.
In any case, a few days after the award was presented, a meeting of the Foundation's Board of Trustees took place, at which I was shocked to see the Chairman begin the session without any introductory words with the accusation that I had given a pro-Russian speech and that he had found it damaging to the trust that was the basis of cooperation with the Foundation.
In any case, I had the presence of mind to interrupt him and say: “No, I did not give a pro-Russian speech in any way, but I advocated differentiation and dialogue, that is something quite different.”
After this initial signal the session took place in a tense atmosphere and did not lead to any concrete results.
Only some time later did I receive written communication, in dry words and a laconic style, from the new manager, Dr. Yvonne Dorf: termination of the status of the supporting entity of part of the DHV, shutdown of the website (paid for by me!). End of the foundation. Period. And all this without giving any reasons.
In response to this event, which I found simply unbelievable, I wrote the letter reproduced below to the president of DHV. (I have not reproduced the sections of the letter that concern the legal and organizational procedures required to withdraw from the foundation, as well as a digression about my previous political engagements.)
Dear Prof. Koch.
On November 8, I received a letter from Mrs. Dorf by email, which I assume was sent to you in copy, and in which she surprisingly informed me that the “Liberdade da Ciência” foundation had ended its hosting at the DHV as the foundation’s supporting entity.
I do not want to hide from you that I would have preferred to receive this letter from you – from the president-elect – also because the initial correspondence, which prepared the creation of the foundation with the DHV, was between the founder of the foundation and the president of the DHV.
I received the letter with mixed feelings. On the one hand, with disgust. On the other, with relief. The reason for my disgust is the realization that the great hope I had placed in DHV turned out to be illusory.
Well, life goes on and I trust that after the withdrawal reported by Mrs. Dorf – about whose reasons she mysteriously remained silent – I will be able to express, in public, in an appropriate manner and on a permanent basis, the interest and objective of the foundation, which seem to me to remain inalienable.
Everything indicates that the departing professors Kempen and Hartmer planted a bomb in the DHV – although, all things considered, it was a very harmless little bomb!
After all, the foundation's central interest is simply to recall the obviousness in any civilization worthy of the name of the old legal principle of republican Rome: “Audiatur et altera pars”. Strictly speaking, nothing more than that.
For Professors Kempen and Hartmer, this obviousness was indisputable and their defense against this type of refusal of argumentation and dialogue, today called “cancel culture”, an imperative of the time.
As Prof. Kempen occasionally noted in F&L, reacting to specific cases, he would obviously be willing to discuss with the “altera pars”, even if this were, for example, formed by federal deputies from the AfD [Alternative for Germany] party.
Since the AfD is treated in most media as the real incarnation of God-help-us, such a statement was a sign of great courage on his part, which made me admire him.
On the evening of his departure from the DGV, Mr. Kempen told me that he saw the “Science Freedom Foundation” as a diamond in the DHV.
That was just a few months ago. Once again we see how quickly things can change! The new employees throw the “diamond” down the drain.
I wrote above that I learned of the end of DHV's status as the foundation's supporting entity not only with regret, but also with relief.
With relief above all, because I found myself forced to admit that, with regard to an aspect of central importance for the foundation – to put it more precisely, with regard to the aspect central to the success of the foundation's work –, the supporting entity in any case does not adhere to either the letter or the spirit of the foundation's statutes!
In my opinion, getting a world-renowned figure, recognized for his fight for freedom of expression, such as Noam Chomsky, the most cited scientist in the world, to accept the award, is an expression of great success – a success that is difficult to surpass. Professors Kempen and Hartmer also shared this view.
Julian Nida-Rümelin, the second laureate, whom I proposed and convinced to accept the prize, is undoubtedly an outstanding personality.
In F&L there is not a single line about the two awards!
This not only contradicts the spirit, but, I repeat, the letter of the statutes, to whose observance the supporting entity committed itself on April 20, 2021 by means of a notarized signature!
Well, what can I say about this?
Apparently, DHV doesn't take the ancient Romans and their strange proverbs very seriously. It doesn't care about “pacta sunt servanda” or “audiatur et altera pars”!
In a small room at the back of the house, it was decided to end the status of the foundation's supporting entity, dedicated to this guiding idea, “audiatur et altera pars”. It was that simple!
The accusation is made; the hearing is initiated; the sentence is handed down. Then the offender is summoned. It's that simple!
The foundation's website (paid for by me) is shut down. It's that simple! No reasons are given.
A consultation, information, or hearing of the founder of the foundation does not occur.
The founder of the foundation against cancel culture is canceled!
And, as a bonus, the status of DHV as the supporting entity (of the foundation)!
How wonderful!
This is outrageous and sad.
But it's also very funny! We can imagine a more grotesque way for someone to behave ad absurdum?
When Karl-Otto Apel, my philosophy teacher, refused as a soldier in the Nazi army to participate in the shooting of Soviet deserters, he was heard by the officer in charge (and then left alone).
It was even heard! This is astonishing.
Will you ever be so kind as to send me a written justification?
What is so mysterious about this rationale? Why should it fear the light of the public sphere?
A transparent reasoning, sent in writing, is, at least we should think so, a matter of civility, good manners, justice and decency.
But of course such conventions can also be ignored. So what?
(Note: In the meantime, I have received a draft of the contract text from DHV, dated December 19, 2023. The purpose of this contract is to give legal form to the forced dissolution of the foundation. And this draft provides in effect for a “reciprocal agreement of silence about what happened”:
“The parties mutually undertake to remain silent about the reasons for the conclusion of this dissolution agreement, with neither party expressing any public opinion about the other party in a way that could damage its image or express any other disparaging opinions.”)
Could it be that my argument in Düsseldorf before the expanded board of the DHV, against the generalized cancellation of Russian science, could it be that my appeal for differentiation, is so little in keeping with the intentionally created bellicose climate of today that, in the absence of opposing arguments, the only reaction that comes to mind ends up being defenestration without prior discussion and comment, a kick in the ass?
That would be doubly grotesque, since you, dear Professor Koch, also defended the same position in F&L, if I still understand the German language correctly. In my speech in Düsseldorf I referred to you and quoted you extensively!
But if I rightly referred to you in Düsseldorf, the question arises as to the value that your word still has at DHV.
Would you be so kind as to hear your opinion on this matter?
Despite the dizzying bureaucratic process of which I was subject and which I consider sad in terms of higher education policy, shameful in terms of the legal dimension and simply very bad in terms of dealing with human beings, I do not wish to position myself in this farewell letter in merely critical terms, nor just from my perspective.
Even you, even the members of the supporting entity, certainly had some idea, which seemed to them to be sufficient reason for the treatment given to my foundation.
I hope that you will recognize, as being expressed with seriousness and commitment to understanding, some reflections that have been imposed on me over the last two years. They concern the structural discrepancy between the objective of the foundation and that of DHV.
The aim of the foundation is political in nature – certainly not at first glance, but certainly on closer inspection, and especially when we consistently take this aim seriously. In line with this, the first two laureates were politicians: this applies unequivocally to Noam Chomsky, who is seen by many in the USA as a kind of public enemy, and also to Julian Nida-Rümelin, who, for example, uncritically disagrees with German science policy towards Russia and has expressed reservations about the generalized termination of contacts with Russian science – which was the main reason why I proposed him as the foundation’s second laureate.
Ultimately, however, the DHV does not see itself as an association with political aims (this was more the case during the terms of previous presidents, such as Hartmut Schiedermair), but as a “representative body for the professional class” of scientists – which, for example, must mean that it helps its members to advance their professional careers in the face of changes in the general legal framework. This is certainly correct, but it is not necessarily a political stance either.
If the DHV were to begin to perceive itself as a political association and engage accordingly, it would expose itself to the centrifugal forces of conflict between divergent political opinions and the clash of political interests – which would in effect open up the prospect of a potential threat to its survival.
Highly developed leadership skills, a subtle ability to judge the political situation and a great deal of courage would be necessary for the fragile DHV ship to be able to sail around the rocks in the rough waters, keeping the crew and passengers on board.
People of the caliber of Franz Josef Strauss, Helmut Kohl or Helmut Schmidt would probably have solved this problem with the little finger of their left hand. Hartmut Schiedermair saw it as something comparable to a lifelong task. And Bernhard Kempen, together with Michael Hartmer, managed to keep the ship seaworthy and with the flags flying at the top of the masts for twenty years – a feat worthy of recognition!
In any case, I cannot hold it against anyone on a personal level if he does not want to follow this path, and I say this from my simple perspective as an observer and member (I have been a member of the DHV since February 8, 1980, when Werner Pöls was president and Gerth Dorff was CEO).
Despite this, it is a shame that this is the case, and it does not bode well for the political culture in this country.
[...]
Kind regards
Reinhard Hesse
Unfortunately, the president's reaction to this letter is no reason to assume that he is now finally willing to pay due respect to the maxim of republican Rome, “audiatur et altera pars.”
Here is what he writes: “In this response, I do not wish to enter into the merits of some of your individual arguments and the merits of accusations that are in part clearly irrelevant. Nevertheless, I am interested in stating unequivocally that the DHV will continue to be political, and this above all always in situations in which this appears necessary in the interest of defending the liberal values of the constitution of our society.”
In any case, everything indicates that, in the eyes of the president of DHV, the aforementioned maxim – at the same time a fundamental premise of any and all science – does not integrate these “fundamental liberal values”, invoked in the rhetorical plane, as he does not even want to go into the merits of the arguments presented.
Fortunately, the president of DHV no longer needs to deal with the accusation of breach of contract, since he has decided not to listen to or enter into the merits of any opposing arguments in any case. It is enough to qualify these accusations in general terms and from the presumably higher position as “not relevant”.
But what remains when we do not want to go into the merits of any argument from the opposing party? The formula remains passe-partout, that “expectations regarding essential matters of administration and organization [would have] diverged more and more” – a formula that gives rise to suspicion of wanting to hide the true motivation, since it is not even explicitly mentioned as the reason for the termination of the status of maintaining entity. Whether this was the intention remains open.
It also remains open what this means in concrete terms.
If the “expectation regarding administration” refers to my expectation that expenses, which I will have to bear later, will be discussed with me beforehand, even for the sake of fairness, then the formulation is correct, but probably does not seriously lend itself as a reason for terminating the status of maintaining entity.
If the “expectation regarding the organization” refers to my confidence that DHV would fulfill its contractual obligation, clearly defined in several paragraphs of the foundation’s statutes and authenticated in a public deed, more specifically, the obligation to report, as effectively as possible in the public sphere, in Forschung & Lehre on the respective awarding of the prize or to give the prize winners themselves the floor in articles of their authorship… well, in that case the formulation is also correct, but it is directed (as an accusation of contractual violation) against DHV itself.
So far, about the sad end of an undertaking that began with great hope.
What is the lesson we can learn from all this?
I want to leave the decision to the reader himself.
For my part, I have learned the following: only God knows whether “audiatur et altera pars” is valid or not; and only God knows whether “pacta sunt servanda” is valid or not.
For me, the experiences described are not only relevant in terms of the question of the true identity of the (current) DHV; they also seem to me to mean a little more, as they are part of experiences with a similar decline in quality standards in other areas of social and political life today.
If it were just the DHV, which in case of need does not pay the slightest attention to such fundamental rules, perhaps we could, as they say, “move on to the agenda”.
But it is not only the DHV that does not pay the slightest attention to such rules when necessary. The same goes for major political institutions, the German government itself, the European Union, the European Central Bank and other institutions, which always ignore legal rules and contractual obligations when they do not like them.
Serious authors such as Hans Herbert von Arnim, Andreas von Bülow, Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider and others have already shown this on the basis of numerous examples.
In the end, the disturbing question remains: how can we explain this, if not as a sign of cultural decline?
In this general mosaic, the circumstances of the end of the “Freedom of Science” foundation are just a small pebble.
PS Am I not assessing the situation in overly pessimistic terms?
After all, something very good happened in the meantime: aware of the aforementioned destiny of my undertaking, a large foundation, led by internationally renowned scientists, spontaneously declared itself willing to take the place of DHV and assume its function, so that the cause at stake (i.e., the defense of the right of dissenting people to publicly express and substantiate their opinion) remains present in the public conscience and remembered in this way as the obviousness that it is.
*Reinhard Hesse he is a philosophy professor at the University of Education Freiburg.
Translation: Peter Naumann.
Note
[I]Literally: a person who understands Russia. The term idiot, which is also monstrous from a stylistic point of view, is widely used in modern Germany and has become part of the vocabulary of everyday communication, such as the word “Putinversteher” (= a person who understands Vladimir Putin). [Translator's note]
[ii]Term from ancient Germanic law, designating the responsibility of the family or relatives for the conduct of a persecuted member. The practice, inadmissible in a State governed by the rule of law, was used during the Nazi period. [Translator's note]
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
