U. Guérot vs U Bonn: No Progress, But Students Mobilise Against the Fired Professor in the Most Stupid Way

Believe it or not, this isn't '1968': most students are too conformist, too illiterate, and way too close to group-think to challenge state power

It’s time for an update in the curious case of Ulrike Guérot, long the darling of the pro-EUropean chattering classes before ‘Covid’, who has fallen from grace recently. Earlier this year, the University of Bonn has fired Ms. Guérot over allegations of plagiarism, and the two sides have been locked in legal proceedings ever since.

Reference is made to my piece that appeared in February 2023 (German version):

Now, I must make two comments—rather: disclosures—before continuing: first, while I don’t share many of Ms. Guérot’s opinions, scientific or otherwise, in particular her pro-EU integration stance is anathema to me, I am very concerned about this case because it signifies the willingness of the state, via its executioners in public universities, to ‘cancel’ everyone' who objects. And let’s not mince words here, all things considered, Ms. Guérot’s dissent was comparatively mild and not all-out farcical-hysterical as in, say, Sucharit Bhakdi’s case. Yet, as the below content shows, we’re inching towards another such farce.

Second, as a professor myself, I’m, of course, a bit more concerned than the Joe Q. Public about the firing of (tenured) academics for dissent, such as Ms. Guérot. In particular as she wasn’t fired, per se, for speaking up but for allegations of plagiarism, which, at that moment in time, were unsubstantiated. If you’d read my piece from February of this year, you can find out more about her alleged misconduct (as well as that of other, more prominent Germans, such as Anna-Lena Baerbock who, so far, remain in office). What this entire farce is, then, is the firing of an uncomfortable dissenter, perhaps because Ms. Guérot breaking ranks was unexpected and this is a kind of ‘revenge foul’ or the like—but I’m in touch with a number of other academics (friends) who have experienced similar ordeals, if much, much less media attention.

As a personal aside, the main problem here is that all academics are hyper-specialised, and while this may, in and of itself, not constitute a problem ‘under normal circumstances’, this has become potentially very problematic, if not life-altering, in the past years. Imagine, if you will, any field (although this is more pronounced in the Humanities and Social Sciences) whose remaining in-group will treat any expelled (former) member as if he or she would no longer exist. There is no way for any academic—who, remember, has spent decades working tirelessly towards tenure or the like—can continue working in his or her line of work; there is ‘secondary’ road to employment in one’s line of work after such a ‘cancellation’, and, as a friend (formerly in academia, but he’s a geneticist), told me the other day: ‘sadly, if academia mistreats you in the Humanities, you cannot just find employment in the private sector’.

As usual, the below translation, emphases, [brief comments in squared parentheses], and bottom lines are mine—as are the sympathies for Ulrike Guérot.

---

Note that the banners read ‘The Problem’s Name: Anti-Semitism’ (left) and ‘No Space for Lateral Thinkers at the U Bonn’ (right)

Students For Loyalty [Linientreue]

By Mona Aranea, Novo-Argumente.com, 30 May 2023

The University of Bonn wants to get rid of its politically incorrect professor Ulrike Guérot. Some students are participating in her cancellation with questionable activism.

Political Scient professor Ulrike Guérot is a thorn in the side of parts of the German discourse elite [Diskurselite]. The renowned scholar and well-known public intellectual has repeatedly voiced loud disruptive noises in the mainstream of loyal [again, linientreu] ‘experts’ in recent years, first as an Cassandra-like voice against the frenzy of pandemic policy mandates and subsequently as an outspoken critic of Germany’s and the USA’s policy in the Ukraine war [note that for of Guérot’s pro EU-integrationist stance, ‘Brussels’ is absent from this listing here, which I find telling in and of itself]. Her departure from the political-media discourse coalition has caused all inhibitions within it to fall away: political scientist Markus Linden accuses Guérot in the [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung] of ‘self-aggrandisement in the name of freedom of opinion’, dissects her [presumably more] successful [than his own] publications as ‘frenetic productivity’ and diagnoses ‘a disturbed relationship to truth’. Sociologist Armin Nassehi calls her language ‘fascistoid’ [remember: Guérot was a long-time darling of the juste milieu]. Finally, FDP politician and arms lobbyist [Marie-Agnes] Strack-Zimmermann is publicly surprised that someone like Guérot is actually still allowed to teach students in Germany.

Despite—or, rather: because of—the smear campaign against the political scientist, which threatens her very existence, Guérot has become an important intellectual spokesperson for the extra-parliamentary opposition. In alt-media circles, Guérot is a popular interlocutor since [mainstream state broadcaster nighttime hosts] Markus Lanz and Sandra Maischberger no longer have the courage to invite her to their talk shows. Her current books Wer schweigt, stimmt zu [Silence Means Consent] and Endspiel Europa [Endgame Europe] sell well and inspire the peace and fundamental rights movements on the streets [oh, the pettiness of academics is palpable, as the comments of Mr. Linden and Mr. Nassehi indicate].

Meanwhile, the University of Bonn has transformed the political conflict between the uncomfortable intellectual and wide-ranging opinion makers like the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’s editor Patrick Bahners into a legal conflict between employer and employee. The university took questionable accusations of plagiarism, brought forward, among others, by the aforementioned Markus Linden from the University of Trier, as an opportunity to fire the Chair of European Politics [Guérot] without notice [again, not the pettiness and, yes, conflict of interest of the disreputable Mr. Linden]. A bargaining meeting [Schlichtung] before the Bonn Labour Court on 28 April 2023 between the lawyers of both litigants remained inconclusive. An amicable settlement has not yet been possible.

Some students have become radicalised far beyond academic debates due to their rejection of dissenting or even oppositional opinions.

Two professors at the University of Bonn see an unpalatable historical parallel: in 1935, there occurred already the dismissal of a prominent professor. The Protestant theologian Karl Barth had to leave the University of Bonn because he had refused to swear a loyalty oath to the Führer. An honorary professor of philosophy and an emeritus professor of mathematics therefore put together a lecture series as part of the Studium Universale at the University of Bonn entitled ‘Plagiarism? Politics? Academic Freedom?’ focussing on the termination of political scientist Ulrike Guérot. They contain planned lectures on the concept of intellectual property, on freedom of opinion, on the role of science in pandemic politics, and on the power of the media, but they will not take place as planned in the summer term because of the ongoing Labour Court case [note, again, the absence of any such reservations on part of Ms. Guérot’s accuser, Mr. Linden]; instead, the lectures are to be offered in autumn in a possibly adjusted form after the court decision. Either way, the protagonists of the lecture series will probably have to deal with protests from student representatives of the University of Bonn. For some students, in the course of their rejection of dissenting or even oppositional opinions, have already radicalised themselves far beyond and away from academic debates.

When around 80 demonstrators gathered in front of the Labour Court in Bonn on 28 April to protest against Guérot’s dismissal, they were confronted by just under 20 students [in favour of her termination]. The General Students’ Committee (AStA) of the University of Bonn had intervened to demonstrate in favour of the dismissal of the anti-government intellectual on the occasion of the arbitration hearing. A banner of the AStA, also shown in the [state broadcaster] WDR’s report on the demonstration [see the above screenshot], demanded a ban on lateral thinking at the university (‘No Space for Lateral Thinking at the University of Bonn!’) while another played [sic] with the completely [?] relevant accusation of Anti-Semitism, which has no relation to Prof. Guérot (‘The Problem’s Name: Anti-Semitism’). Without a thought, the students abuse this accusation reminiscent of the darkest chapter of German history in an overzealous pie-throwing contest at a politically disagreeable professor.

This undignified character assassination campaign by radicalised—rather than well-informed—students against their currently best-known and most-read professor makes a mockery of any curriculum. In the WDR report of 28 April, AStA spokesperson Madita Mues voices unsubstantiated accusations against Ulrike Guérot at an alarming level of language (‘She plagiatirised in her books’ [orig., ‘Sie hat in ihren Büchern plagiarisiert’, included an orthographical error rather unbecoming of, well, students]). The loudest critic of Guérot, who has published half a dozen books and is fluent in three languages, is, of all people, a young woman who is at a loss for words for her accusations. It is unlikely that she checked the plagiarism allegations against the professor herself. Video recordings of the AStA demonstration show calls for violence in the music titles played (‘I want to punch Lateral Thinkers’ [orig., ‘Ich will Querdenker klatschen’]) and the chanting of abuse at the lowest level (‘Schwurbler verpisst euch, keiner vermisst euch’ |trans. ‘Deplorables piss off, no-one will miss you’]). The message is clear: the mob is off the leash. What falls by the wayside in this brutalisation and distortion are civilised norms of behaviour as well as an unbiased view of facts.

Even the misuse and meaningless use of the term Anti-Semitism no longer seems to be enough in Germany to disqualify oneself for a commemoration of the victims of National Socialism.

As the height of tastelessness, a few days after the undignified AStA demo, on 10 May 2023, a representative of the AStA spoke at the Bonn commemoration ceremony on the occasion of the book burning of 1933, during which radicalised students burned books whose contents or authors did not fit into the zeitgeist of the incipient Nazi régime. On the topics of tolerance, freedom of opinion, and ‘Wehret den Anfängen’ [never again], the City of Bonn provided a stage to those students whose protest against lateral thinking went viral on Twitter because of its unbelievably low level and whose evidence-free accusations on WDR should make every university rector blush in shame [hear that sound—it ain’t crickets, though, for this is most professors clutching their pearls, it would seem]. Even the misuse and meaningless use of the term Anti-Semitism no longer seems to be enough in Germany to disqualify oneself for a commemoration of the victims of National Socialism. Anything seems to be permitted. Remembrance Culture or not.

It is time, then, to ask how it was possible that, in 1933, numerous students threw the works of German intellectuals critical of the government on the pyre with such enthusiasm. The handling of Guérot by the university administration, the AStA, and legacy media demonstrates the decision-makers’ obliviousness to history, as if seen through a microscope. Academic institutions and the media in Germany take rigorous action against formerly respected public figures when they express criticism of the government. Be it that they criticise pandemic policies, which are largely contrary to the Basic Law [Grundgesetz, i.e., Germany’s de facto constitution], in favour of Big Pharma, and/or astonishingly removed from actual science; or be it that they dare to question whether ever more, ever heavier weapons can actually pacify a hot war situation.

When the zeitgeist is set on (a prior) conformism, governments do not need gulags and firing squads. Instead, to discipline the masses, they rely on legacy media eliminating individual university professors, scientists, and public figures who put their finger on the wound. The vehemence of the attack on Guérot’s academic reputation and workers’ rights is now generating calls from many academics for academic freedom to be safeguarded. At the next day of hearings between Guérot and her university on 13 September at the Labour Court in Bonn, further protest for freedom of opinion and academic freedom is to be expected.

The University and the City of Bonn are courting an AStA that wants to stop critical thinking at the university, which [further] devalues the notion of Anti-Semitism through off-topic abuse by spreading such hair-raising allegations about an internationally renowned professor on WDR. The university administration and the Green mayor of Bonn can afford all this because it doesn’t seem to bother anyone. But it does bother a few people. The citizens’ initiative ‘Bonn zeigt Gesicht’ [trans. ‘Bonn Shows Its Face’] criticises the behaviour of the AStA in an open letter and demands a statement from the university management on the unbelievable events.

---

Bottom Lines

As the Bhakdi trial has shown, allegations of Anti-Semitism are increasingly quickly made and, more often than not, bear little, if any relation to, well, reality.

This will, in all likelihood, over time destroy this very same notion and/or distort it (even further) beyond recognition, thereby rendering the labelling as an ‘Anti-Semite’ the go-to accusation for anyone who voices criticism of the government.

It is important to remember, though, that this is not too distant from the (ab)use of ‘Anti-Semitism’ as it has historically existed in recent decades:

Where might this all lead?

For Ulrike Guérot, another gruelling arbitration meeting, in all likelihood accompanied by ‘protests’ by the same (moronic) ‘students’.

Curiously enough and theoretically speaking, I suspect that these increasingly shrill statements of what, today, passes for ‘students’, signifies that ‘the bourgeoisie’ has ceased to be a potentially revolutionary class.

This means that the current revolution (‘The Great Reset’) is carried out by the oligarchs on top of society, and it is, perhaps, ‘only’ a question of time before the peoples’ Leidensdruck (‘willingness to accept fate’) runs out. Curiously enough, this looks to me increasingly like the quip attributed to, among others, Lenin and Gorbachev: there are decades, when nothing happens, and then there are weeks when decades happen.

I’m not saying it will be pretty or anything even remotely resembling what we may imagine, but this charade cannot go on forever. It might take some more time before this madness has run its course, but it will.