Cancel Culture in Germany: The Absurd Case against Prof. Günter Roth

The persecution of Covid dissidents continues unperturbed: no evidence, (ab)use of anonymous allegations, and denial of due process are the hallmarks of the 'new normal'

Today, I wish to introduce you to Professor Günter Roth, a soon-to-be-former professor at the Munich University of Applied Sciences.

He is about to (involuntarily) retire in a few months, but since he spoke out against the Covid shenanigans, he was harassed and mobbed by his faculty ‘peers™’, then sued his employer about infractions of labour law, and ‘won’.

Consequently, his soon-to-be-former employer has ‘cancelled’ him, and I do mean this literally: I wanted to link to his faculty profile, but apparently, no-one by the name of Günter Roth is listed on the university website.

I’m unsure what to call the proceedings: Prof. Roth complained about his employer’s wish to fire him from due to allegations of ‘un-academic conduct’ or the like. Yet, when Roth took his employer to court—a thing that is very rare because, as public institutions, universities have seemingly unending amounts of funding to defend themselves in court—he ‘won’ a small victory and the Labour Court (Arbeitsgericht).

That victory, however, was a Pyrrhic one, if there ever was one: while the procedural abuses—to which few, if any, of those who work in academia aren’t subjected to—were so hair-raisingly absurd that Roth ‘won’ handily against the Munich University of Applied Sciences, the Labour Court refused to investigate the plaintiff’s main cause for concern: that, by trying to first silence him and later to rid themselves of the objecting professor, the Munich University of Applied Sciences had infringed on his constitutionally-guaranteed academic freedoms.

University Demands Censoring of Private Website

Günter Roth is soon to retire, which was part of the extrajudicial arbitration negotiated between him and the Munich University of Applied Sciences.

Now, he’s on leave and as far as I understand it, his (former) employer has now demanded that Roth takes down his own private website because it would ‘shed a bad light’ on the Munich University of Applied Sciences. If you can believe it.

Here’s what Günter Roth wrote earlier this week (personal communication):

The background to this is that I ‘settled’ out of court in the summer after being terminated without notice and agreed to a leave of absence until my early retirement from mid-March. The university is now referring to the part of the agreement that I should refrain from making ‘public accusations’. I think it only contains factual allegations, but for the time being I can’t go to court.

I had written about Günter Roth’s ordeal before (albeit in German over at TKP.at, but don’t worry, if you’re interested in this, there’s a Google Translate plugin)—out of sympathy with him, Jürgen Habermas, Ulrike Guérot, and other researchers like Dr. Harald Haas of the Austrian Defence Academy (also in German at TKP.at) who suffered similar fates due to their raising of ‘other’ opinions, be it about Ukraine, Covid, or other things.

Oh, lest I forget, Günter Roth’s thought crime was that he is a Covid dissident.

I trust that, at this point, you’re not surprised.

Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine; references omitted for readability.

---

Group Think, Herd Instinct, and ‘Cancel Culture’

By Günter Roth, via einfachkompliziert.de, 5 Aug. 2024 [source (soon to be deactivated); archived version; Internet Archive]

It is becoming increasingly common at universities for students to want to prevent politically unpopular discussions, events, or professors to resort to what is called ‘cancel culture’. Unfortunately, many collegially managed universities often do not defend the academic freedom and freedom of expression of ‘controversial’ colleagues who are attacked; instead, they often reprimand them, and those who speak out are increasingly fired for ‘political insubordination’ (Egner & Uhlenwinkel, 2023). This is based on a tendency of political struggle that falsely presents itself as ‘woke’ (awakened or conscious [I suggest: in the radical-revolutionary, Freire-esque manner of ‘critical pedagogy’]) and ‘left-wing’, as well as a form of group think. This is usually done under the guise of ‘activist science’, but it is poorly done science or no science at-all, and it merely is propaganda in the service of interest groups or the state [of course it is; science is, it requires no activism but a dispassionate consideration of empirical evidence, which is, by definition, impossible if done in an activist fashion].

I, too, was terminated as a professor at Munich University of Applied Sciences in May 2024 after making critical statements during the coronavirus pandemic, and a conflict that lasted over two years. It commenced in January 2022, when I suddenly received a warning letter from the university threatening me with dismissal after students sent two anonymous letters of protest to the dean of the faculty in December 2021.

[I’m reproducing one of these complaints here to show what they are; all of the materials are found via the above-linked online archives (and on my hard drive)]

I’m reaching out to inform you, dear fellow students, about statements made by Prof. Günter Roth that are troubling us graduate students…it’s about the Covid pandemic, which frequently comes up in his seminar ‘Fields of Action in International Comparison’ even though we asked not to discuss this topic. Below [which I’m skipping], you will find publications by Mr. Roth and one of his important statements on the course platform Moodle in which he calls on us in the following:

‘Given the present situation—the suspension of constitutional liberties and esp. the pending general vaccine mandate [which, in Germany, eventually failed in the Bundestag]—I would like to initiate a debate about the ongoing “erosion of democracy”…

[Some of Günter Roth’s publication in alt-media outlets, such as Rubikon and Achse des Guten, are similarly used to raise the spectre of, well, see for yourself]

According to the ‘left alliance vs. anti-semitism Munich’ [linkes Bündniss gegen Antisemintismus München], Rubikon spews right-wing, conspiratorial and/or antisemitic content [no need to claim anything specific here, esp. as guilt by association is then invoked noting Daniele Ganser who is a notable anti-war activist and member of Rubikon’s editorial board; I shall note that I’m also cited there, which makes me, I suppose, an accessory to these allegations]

The reason for the warning were my critical statements on ‘corona policy’, in particular the article ‘Erosion of Humanity’ in the online magazine Rubikon [now www.manova.de] from 10 December 2021 against a general vaccination obligation against Covid-19. However, the students did not criticise the content of my article, which was not addressed at-all, but the fact that I had published in Rubikon magazine in the first place. According to the protesters, this magazine disseminates ‘right-wing, conspiracy ideological and/or anti-Semitic content’ and is ‘labelled a “Querfront magazine” on many sites after a brief search’. [line break added; see the above facsimile]

A closer look at the accusations reveals that they are primarily aimed at the allegedly poor handling, unchecked rumours, and slander by a left-wing Munich alliance against anti-Semitism and ‘many pages’ against Rubikon magazine (see my statement from Nov. 2022 below). I was also criticised for discussing the coronavirus pandemic in my seminars, even though the students had declared that they did not want this. In its warning letter, the university management adopted the students' accusations and claimed that I was politically instrumentalising the students, engaging in propaganda, and using unscientific teaching materials. These would be serious dishonourable offences for a professor. However, my complaint against the warning was upheld at the Munich Labour Court in Jan. 2023 and an infringement of my academic freedom was established (see below).

Unfortunately, this was not followed by rehabilitation as a professor and scientist, on the contrary. The conflict continued with, among other things, a research leave of absence, which is usually granted to everyone on a regular basis, being refused without justification, followed by an order for an official medical examination and even extraordinary dismissal without notice at the beginning of May 2024, without notice or justification. Incidentally, almost all colleagues and most students remained silent about the entire process, with a few exceptions. I am very grateful to these courageous people, some of whom even supported me publicly here. One colleague [sic], on the other hand, even wrote to me by email that I ‘didn't need to be slandered at all’ because ‘everyone knows about your change of camp’ [whatever that means: I’m going for pathetic sentiments of wounded, or betrayed, faith]. In doing so, however, he revealed his (quite typical) group thinking. Like him, many on the left vehemently defended authoritarian ‘measures’ in the coronavirus pandemic, with massive restrictions on freedom and discrimination, as well as persecution of unvaccinated people, even though we know that the ‘measures’ were largely unnecessary, ineffective and harmful [in a footnote, the following references are found: Bendavid & Patel, 2024; Bendavid, Oh, Bhattacharya & Ioannidis, 2021; Chin, Ioannidis, Tanner & Cripps, 2021].

In the end, I agreed to a court settlement in July 2024 (after another lawsuit at the Munich Labour Court) with early retirement from the university to end my personal suffering. However, the social and political reappraisal of the case will continue because it is one of many similar cases, not only in Germany, and it harbours a dangerous tendency for a society that sees itself as a liberal one. I am still puzzled by the question of why so many on the political left (to which I feel I belong) have such a tendency towards authoritarianism [I personally don’t share this puzzlement: it’s human nature; I suppose that this puzzlement comes from a sense of betrayal and disillusionment that ‘the left™’ isn’t what it used to be (more on this below)], defined as a willingness to submit, conformity, and aggression against all dissenters [this is what all totalitarian régimes do]. In addition to the corona issue, all kinds of questions of identity and group affiliation (nation, migration, ‘gender’), or the symbolic social order, have long mobilised often blindly moralising battle groups at universities. This is why, for example, colleagues only tell me in confidence that they no longer speak openly or only very cautiously on such topics, to which ‘climate change’ has been added as a new ‘explosive topic’ (cf. Petersen, 2021). [line break added]

Increasingly, moralising, self-righteous herd behaviour, and group think prevail at universities instead of rational, scientific debate, in which only the unconstrained compulsion of the better argument counts (according to Habermas [who was also cancelled for calling for—wait for it—talks with Russia]). During the coronavirus crisis, the tendency to restrict academic freedom and freedom of opinion intensified to a dangerous extent. For example, a survey in which 71% of respondents were students revealed alarming results: only 25% affirmed that dissenting scientists should be heard at all, only 21% that media should carry controversial content, and only 12% that critical content should not be censored (Wüstner, 2022).

Media Reporting About the ‘Causa Roth’

• ‘Hexenjagd auf kritischen Professor: Arbeitsrecht, Meinungsfreiheit und Rechtstaat auf dem Prüfstand’ [this is my above-linked ‘witch-hunt’ piece] (Stephan Sander-Faes, 1 Dec. 2022).

• ‘Ausgestoßene der Woche’ [‘Ostracised of the Week’] (op-ed by Christoph Lövenich, via www.achgut.com, 20 Jan. 2023).

• [German] Interview with Prof. Dr. Roth, Kontrafunk, 24. Jan. 2023.

• ‘Professoren im Visier’ [Professors in the Crosshair’] (Ronny Ebel bei Manova-News, 11 Nov. 2023)

• ‘Ausgestoßene der Woche’ [‘Ostracised of the Week’] (op-ed by Christoph Lövenich, via www.achgut.com, 7 June 2024)

• ‘Ausgestoßene der Woche’ [‘Ostracised of the Week’] (op-ed by Christoph Lövenich, via www.achgut.com, 26 July 2024)

Documents relating to the court proceedings Prof Dr Roth v Free State of Bavaria/Munich University of Applied Sciences

Note: The documents are on file in the court proceedings and are public.

[I’m unsure how to make files available here at Substack; if you wish to obtain said files, please resort to the archived versions linked above or email me.]

---

Bottom Lines

Be a dissident, suffer the consequences seems, in all ages, what ‘our democracy™’ elected to do during and esp. after the Covid shenanigans.

If anything, the struggle for a return of sanity is ongoing, and everyone who considers Covid a thing of the past or a one-off delusion is, well, firmly in the realm of fantasy.

Yes, I exchanged emails with Günter Roth, and, yes, I also spoke to him. ‘We’ in the ‘dissident’ community (huhum, I cringe as I type this) are not many; the risks, both personal and professional, are quite elevated, in particular in Europe as ‘alternative’ income streams are much, much harder to come by than in, say, the US.

I’d also add that Günter Roth’s case isn’t the only of these absurdities that have, somehow, become normalised (pathologised) to a degree that it boggles the mind.

Moreover, as my recurring coverage of ‘new normal’ justice™ shows, Covid is perhaps best considered a kind of catalyst that continues to change the end-product of trials and public discourse. Of course, much in line with the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’, no evidence is needed; it seems, to me, ever more clearly, that such evidence would actually be quite harmful to the continued pursuit of whatever agenda is carried out.

That this is particularly strong (still) in the judiciary is among the most troubling aspects here; yes, legacy media is bad, but we kinda knew that before Covid. The same goes, I’d add, for politicians.

As I’ve argued in my TKP piece, the main addition of ‘Covid™’ in this field is the utter derangement among both students and staff, academic and administrative, who at-best don’t talk to you (about anything that’s important) and who, as the case of Günter Roth also shows, often resort to vague enough commentary and guilt-by-association, which is then used to smear those with whom one disagrees. To support this notion, I shall reproduce a few lines from the second complaint:

Mr. Roth frequently recommends un-serious, un-scientific sources, e.g., several pieces in Rubikon magazine…and the website Swiss Policy Research…which has no imprint and is known to be used by conspiracy theorists [leaving aside the spelling mistake, this is how guilt-by-association (Kontaktschuld in German) is weaponised: you don’t know who is behind a website, and it is impossible to know who ‘uses’ it; the strangest aspect here is that the faculty leadership hasn’t dismissed this for what it is: slander and libel, which reveals their mindset]

We don’t consider Mr. Roth’s personal opinions about the pandemic problematic [so, what’s the complaint, then?], but we hold it is problematic that he recommends un-scientific literature [allegation 1] and voices his opinions instead of teaching in class [allegation 2], claims his opinion is scientifically sound [allegation 3], and refuses to accept opinions to the contrary [allegation 4; note that this is all, technically speaking, hearsay as none of this is proven, yet the faculty leadership accepted this at face-value and went after Mr. Roth]

On 12 Dec. [2021], Mr. Roth sent out via Moodle ‘an urgent appeal against the suspension of constitutional liberties in light of the upcoming Bundestag vote on a general vaccination obligation’ and hoped to encourage ‘another debate about the “erosion of democracy”’ [what a shocking indictment: a professor who appeals to his students to discuss current matters—in a constitutional republic, no less; note that this is technically something that is actionable as ‘misuse’ of ‘publicly funded educational material’ or the like, but in this case, it’s extra absurd as, e.g., the number of utterly non-university-related statements in faculty meetings about non-pertinent matters is legion, ranging from comments—by a German colleague—about the 2020 US elections or comparable value-judgements about the 2024 US elections, and many other such incidents]

In the seminar meeting on 13 Dec. [2021], he even recommended not to get vaccinated… [that’s also likely actionable in terms of university policy and quackery, but then again: who’s without blame here? And—who’s the moron now?]

In the end, here’s what I wrote in December 2022 in my TKP piece:

Under the rule of law, it should not be a problem to ensure a fair juxtaposition of allegations and the defendant’s reply under the rules of due process. If this does not happen—as I believe is the case in this matter—it is little more than arbitrariness.

Anonymous complaints that are repeated almost verbatim and without evidence by personnel superiors with the threat of ‘further consequences under labour law’ probably fall under ‘hearsay’ or—bullying and defamation in ‘normal’ jurisdiction [i.e., outside the university].

Especially in view of the Federal Administrative Court’s finding regarding the disproportionality of the corona measures, reading Günter Roth’s story leaves a more than stale aftertaste.

For more than 20 years, most universities and colleges have been ‘autonomous’ from the respective ministries. Although this offers certain advantages, it must also be set against the irresponsibility of university management towards parliamentary or other supervisory bodies [to say nothing about individual responsibilities, let alone accountability]. This is by no means to say that things were ‘better’ ‘in the past’, but at least as a parliamentarian you could demand an explanation from the minister responsible for the department in these or similar cases.

In the end, the intentional blurring of ‘private’ and ‘technical’ or ‘professional’ aspects is particularly disgraceful: Günther Roth—and several others—expressed either a private or a professional point of view, and they reap both foul-mouthed abuse from colleagues and disciplinary proceedings.

I, for one, would be interested to know the justification for this under (labour) law, yet it seems that accountability and especially personal responsibility have disappeared from both the job description of those actors and the wider public’s demand for the upkeep of the rule-of-law, professionalism, and, yes, personal integrity.

I commend Günther Roth for standing up; I hope his exemplary conduct will inspire others who, so far, remain on the sidelines; and I sincerely wish him well in the future.

Godspeed, my friend.